An interesting quote from French President Nicholas Sarkozy (from AFP):

..that many of the hundreds of French soldiers executed for desertion or mutiny during the war “had not dishonoured themselves, were not cowards, but had simply been pushed to the extreme limit.

Critique:

1. Modernism (as foreseen by Nietzsche and Marx) dehumanizes us into pawns to be maneuvered, not humans with boundaries to be built up and valued. Likewise, there was the expectation that human boundaries were much larger than they are presently considered to be. Furthermore, post-imperial thinking was enarmoured by modernism’s technology and love of orderly boundaries.
2. PostModernism now recognized those lowered boundaries/expectations on us, allowing us to be more ‘pansy’, but also to feel and enjoy and create art not war now that those boundaries are more accepted, and pride is less accepted.
3. Personal pride of being the hero and love for country is hardly ever greater than love for self-protection and those we trust (thank you Maslow). If it is, then such pride has likely taken over any genuine love and interest in people (nevermind that Christian citizenship is international).

There are 2 kinds of art, given a set of elements to play with:
1) The kind that thinks all adds up to 63.. or
2) The kind that thinks sees 34 or 23 or 13. i’ll take any of ‘em!

Each would see the ‘brown’ canvas with black dots differently. The first kid would likely create something more like the blue canvas, all focusing together; the latter would make something like the green canvas– not all the dots connected on the same pattern or at precisely the same angles. More is added in than is necessary, and some is left out.

The first type of artist is one of a strong-mind; who must make all the connections connect as close as possible. “Close” isn’t good enough. There *IS* *only* *one* *ideal*. This the idealism at it’s best/worst. There’s strengths to this, like knowing what you’re doing; understanding and having reasons. Those are good, but they aren’t *all* there is.

This method will also have trouble with what is given; will prefer to modify what is given in favor of ’rounding off the edges’ so that it fits within the Ideal he has created. Trouble is, self-defined ‘rough edges’ may be some else’s precious child. Sacrificing another for your-own is hardly commendable. Thus the idealists have consistently one thing to learn: love+humility, in the form of valuing others and seeking understanding of them. Often this won’t happen without a fight, since the idealist will idealize (within his own ideas/competencies) what the other persons wants. He will always think he has acheived until someone tells him otherwise.

This idealist thrives on energy, and dismisses the existence of entropy, that he should have to deal with it, bow to it’s demands, or worse, be accountable for it. “Entropy is outside of me, thereby ‘not my problem’” he would say.

The second form of art is a much less strong-minded/ideal approach, where “close enough” has much wider tolerances. It’s less ideal, more pragmatic. However, that does not mean that it is less precise; things can precisely exist and be placed within a tolerance. Often one method of this is to leave out elements that are ‘suggested’ but not ‘required’ for the scope of work; there are more however.

This is the pluralist’s approach: chopping off the head of #1 and making all #2 & #3. Creating more level ground. And for pragmatism, that’s just fine: why sell the $60k car to a kid who grew up with a ’85 cavalier? He won’t know what to do with it, can’t afford it, and will end up wrecking it, all while you’re $55k in debt! Giving away high quality has no place in the market. Rather, consistently selling people what they can handle (but not dream or do for themselves) is progress, and sufficient. This expectation and standard the idealist cannot handle, and will only scoff at.

Each artist is different. But both will tend to view their work as an expression/extention of themselves. So telling the idealist to not be so idealistic is telling them to do ‘crap-work’, and further communicating that ‘crap’ is more acceptable than they are. So what does that leave them feeling like? Crap’s crap. And entirely confused/frustrated. “But I was doing my best!!!” Yes, and the world can’t handle you. Idealists suffer through “The heartbreaking work of staggaring genius.” The world can’t handle idealists, and idealists can’t handle the world.

As for the hope of the idealist changing into the pragmatist, it can rarely happen. This is the cry of the 90′s for “out-of-the-box” thinkers. This is equal to the “work” that must be done in marriage, which no dating-for-one-month couple who has yet to run out of date ideas still has to learn and of which cannot conceive. Such work takes either supreme self-awareness or supreme others-focused-ness, consistent changing of purpose, playing with possibilities instead of fixating on the One, being thankful for open rebuke and not being afraid to try.

This is not about ‘aiming & shooting lower’ like the idealist will think it is. It’s another goal altogether, one filled with enabling other people’s dreams over your own, and calling their ugly baby pretty, because they never thought they could give birth.

Update: this little art-theory has everything to do with personal clothing style choices as well:

While recently looking at a “wide leg” ad, I was reminded me of a rather ‘artsy’ friend of mine. While analyzing this ad, I was further reminded what defines the “artsy” look. It’s having “outfits” that are offbeat, but also which only display 2% of “you” and having 90 of such outfits. This way you never wear the same style from day-to-day like ‘most’ ppl, and you never wear what is FULLY yourself, but are happy to take this one small 2% bit of you and tease it out into something bigger than yourself. Of course this is the ‘I’ personality type who can pull this off, since that’s how they *act*, not just dress.

I’m not that type. I’m the more orderly-idealist who will tend to be more “monochromatic” in style (having found the One Style that IS Me), albeit just off-beat enough, a la beatniks & film noir

“..without adequate public debate” is an interesting phrase. What’s that all about? Likely, that in a democratic environment, this is important that the people *feel they have the power*. Ahh the sensibilities of the masses. While I find crowd behavior easy to mock, in this case it’s important. It’s the choice between public frenzy & outrage vs. a peaceable relationship between ruler/ruled.

And I have trouble with it, because is it really about the public feeling ok with things? feeling they have power? When is emotionality bankrupt?

Let’s spin this one in a different context: parenting. There’s 2 ways to tell a child ‘no’. 1) tell him no (period). 2) talk through it. The trouble comes when #2 is all a sham, when no amount of talking would ever change the authority’s position. Now, besides that being the Straw-man fallacy. It’s really just #1, only worse: you’re mocking the child’s reason (hint: demeaning them!)

Notice how false-discussion only works when, in both cases, whoever is under the authority is moved emotionally. This is the case for smaller children of course, but what of rapidly-becoming rational(let’s hope) late-youth/collegians? Sure, youth are more emo than adults, but let’s take a decently grounded & rational college kid. All of a sudden any intellect he/she may have is sent back to grammar school: No, you’re really just dumb. Hardly good parenting.

Aside: It’s not really democracy when ppl don’t have the power. How crazy is it that I have to choose in unsatisfactorily large probabilities in elections. I don’t get to vote over issues. No one asks me, and no one tells me what issues go on in government. Rather, instead, I get to choose someone who likely is uninformed about the 45 issues I value deeply, and instead only plays to a generic set of 10-20 ‘hot topics’ which I’m usually ambivalent about.

And of course parenting is hardly democracy( the power isn’t in the children), but consider power vs. love vs. knowledge vs. respect. It’s a multi-faceted arena. To ignore half of those and make it about one or two topics only is degrading reality, and living in a lowered-resolution (photography/printing metaphor) idealism. It may work some of the time, but the edges rapidly become ‘gray’ (read: filled with injustice). To take a picture that shows all the colors and fine grains and blur it into a 2-tone, 4 block image? Injustice to the reality which God created, and injustice to your God-created mind which is capable of handling more than you let it.

Modernist Christian:

“Do this because it’s ‘the right way’ (as outlined in the Bible)”

PoMo Christian:

Listen, that thing you do- is it really getting you anywhere? I mean,  I know you’re always blaming it on ___, but doesn’t your heart ache for something more?

Let’s be clear: PoMo is about more than simple relativism. It’s deeply tied to subjectivity, and subjectivity isn’t bad. It’s only bad when it’s absolute. And so is absolute objectivity of humanity. This is life people, not a prison camp. There is such a thing as grace that allows for crazy statements like “Don’t be too religious“* and “Go in peace” to a whore.

To one who’s violently embedded, it’s tough to tell one on the other side the other’s right. Again, humility saves the day:
“Love and logic keep us clear”

Yes, Miracle Drug is an amazing song. Still.

* Amazing that we have an entire book in the Bible devoted to the concept of ‘enjoyment’(whether it’s possible) & never once references ‘prayer’!

I just watched Stranger Than Fiction. I loved it, at least all but the ending. I kind of wanted him to face death knowingly. I didn’t really like the cheese-ball ending, and I thought Emma Thompson was beyond amazing in her role. A crime she was only nominated.

I’ve been struggling to make sense of a few things lately. And you see that’s my problem. I always demand I make sense of things. *I* must know. And since I know and others seem to not, this is a problem. But I’ve been haunted all my life by one thing: all my thoughts have been thought before. All my genius ideas for technology & web applications: done by Google. All my observations about human psychology & sociology: 50 years late. It’s all be done before.

And that’s not all. Like I recently posted– people are people. They really don’t want to change. Me telling them, reconstructing, informing doesn’t do much. I’d love to believe people want to change, but I can’t make that fit. If someone does change or even want to, I’m thrilled, but I’m turning more cautious about believing it.

I see around me people’s lives crashing. And like I said.. I can analyze their psychology & conditions and plot the path, define their needs, only to see them not get it. I could call it failure to communicate on my part– believe me, I know I’m enigmatic.

I’d like to always run from being a child of my sitz en leben, I’d much rather rise above it knowingly; but I’m human. I’m embedded here. I see the stories unfolding around me and in me and it’s so rough-and-tumble. Why are we so stubborn? So mean? So blind? Love is great, and necessary, but simple humility comes back around as underlying it all. Self-determination is slowly crumbling- mostly at the four paws of the dog which trotted along in front of me this morning. I’m not going anywhere, and I think that if I were born 70 years prior, I’d be unable to be. I was born into this time not only for the good of this time, but for my own good.

I’d like to think I know the sources of x, y & not z’s societal status at present, but I’m wondering if they’ve been going on all along & I just missed it, or was just withheld from knowing it sooner. And there are people which take in stride as obvious what I stand in awe over. Doesn’t mean I understand it more, just that it’s novel to me. And I’m lucky enough to have people around me who like watching me smile over it, and break me down with their laughter when I rage over it all.

So my dad recently proclaimed his policy on television-watching: educate me, or make me laugh.

Now, my dad is a baby-boomer, who likes learning a thing or two every now and then. History channel stuff. He grew up pre-80′s when hippie/folk was the thing, and before the 80′s candy-simulacra*.

I came along somewhere, semi-insulated and listening to the voices around me which were mostly screaming “Here we are now, entertain us..” (HOW many times did I use that in conversation?!) Oddly enough, that 90′s cry was in parallel with the 60′s hippie dream, as a good man once said, “The 60′s dream turned into the 90′s nightmare.” Philosophically and sociologically, that makes sense.

Oddly enough, Nirvana was reacting against the 80′s simulacrum, which suggested all they do was be entertained. Entertainment is trivial, banal, fiat. Think of all the 80′s sit-com’s. Candy. They don’t exist anymore, ever wonder why? They’ve been replaced by super-real 24 and SVU.  The difference? The latter hold 2 elements: excitement (which is trivial) and intellect. They keep you thinking. Why is Trivial Pursuit the official 80′s game? And why is Cranium the theme of the early 2000′s? Banality vs. engagement. “Just be happy” doesn’t fly anymore.

The ball has bounced**, and we’re all on the other side. My generation has gotten over the entertainment pseudo-ideal and sold-out for plot-lines (again, one more thing 80′s entertainment lacked!). We’re more likely to critique the plot and overlook the sex-scenes.. critique the camerawork and artistic uses.. whether it felt ‘forced’ or the audience ‘manipulated’. Aesthetics and “reality” over simple like/dislike and escapism.
* simulacra: I refer to the 80′s end-goal of life: to live on a beach/resort/condo and do nothing, after having taken your kids to disneyworld where they were further removed from reality. Insulation.

** The ball being modernism. late modernism=pre-bounce, post-modernism being post-bounce.

Kevin Kelly proves how amazing he is today. The internet has opened doors wide open, and our economy is now dependent on it, but the transition isn’t over yet. (Obama’s running, but not in office yet either!)

These eight qualities require a new skill set. Success in the free-copy world is not derived from the skills of distribution since the Great Copy Machine in the Sky takes care of that. Nor are legal skills surrounding Intellectual Property and Copyright very useful anymore. Nor are the skills of hoarding and scarcity. Rather, these new eight generatives demand an understanding of how abundance breeds a sharing mindset, how generosity is a business model, how vital it has become to cultivate and nurture qualities that can’t be replicated with a click of the mouse.

So, here’s my commentary on some of ‘the 8′:

Authenticity: it amazes me that the recording industry is being beyond paranoid about this. Kevin makes the wonderful point that visual artists have had to deal with fakes for HOW many years? Take a clue instead of suing everyone and holding on to a fading world. Change or die. (Or use the courts?)

Accessability: requires open standards and free software behind it! I want my media on all my devices, but often the device manufacturer didn’t intend/supply the ability to access all i want (all the device can!) The Nokia n800 is a great example. This thing can be your calendar, ssh client, webserver. It’s a portable web-dev environment. Did they indend it to be such? Nope. Can it? Yup. So for listening to music on my phone, until the speed gets up on the networks, and software is written to access it, I’m gonna fill my microSD card. But that’s all pragmatics anyways.

Embodiment: Experience. More on that later.

Patronage: dependent on cultural sense of value of ART/$. If the dollar is worth less, they’ll get more. If worth more, they’ll get less,

Findability: I get scared this means “more annoying advertisements”! It just may.

He continues with how being found is near impossible for “the little man.” Hmm.. didn’t I mention this a few days ago about “the little man” taking on these overgrown concierge-systems? Great ideas aren’t great until they’re known. Then comes the question, “How do I get known?” (1) Pay (2) Hard work (3) Always requires time for that ‘long tail’ to be connected. I saw a model of how this works as a kid in the back seat watching rain on the window. When I saw that not all of the water was falling, but some small drops were sticking, I wondered when they stopped sticking in place and started running down the window. Turns out it’s surface tension.. aka “The Cheerio Effect.” Only when more water was applied (through random rain or as it touched another drop) did gravity overcome and pull the larger drop down. But in the process, the drop “wanted” to touch other drops more than it “wanted” to go unimpeded down the water-free glass. As I’ve anthropomophised this example, so it is with people. Given the option, we’ll generally go talk with people we know about something we enjoy over sitting in a room alone and enjoying it.

And oddly enough, ‘trust’ is what makes Google more popular than the near defunct dozens of other search engines (who uses lycos, dogpile, altavista anymore anyways?? But I remember when each was considered “the best”).

He closes with Advertising, something I was fearful to consider as well: Google has become the greatest traffic-cop/concierge. “Find it on Google” doesn’t mean google owns it. Just that Google knows where it is. Google doesn’t advertise itself. It advertises those who have it.
But advertising is a function of “Person who owns ad-able space” & “Owner’s interest in open space vs. $”. I’d like to rewrite that last one as “Interest in ART vs. $.” Aesthetics is the newest highest virtue. We’ve been sliding that way for the past century or two, but What troubles me is, “What’s next?” I don’t ask that question blindly like most.. Aesthetics came to us as being the last in a line of Metaphysics (who could doubt reality?), Epistemology (Who can doubt knowledge?) & now Aesthetics (who can doubt what is beautiful?). Aesthetics isn’t empirical. It isn’t rational. It’s subjective experience. Who can doubt that? Sure you can, but I can’t. (Yeah, it’s obnoxious seeing all these kids in the corner pouting, “My way!”)

There’s only so many Ethical virtues. When virtue became a virtue, it no longer meant anything. “Box means box” is no more clarifying than “HGu” is “HGu.” Virtue was a hold-over from pre-modernism, and Modernity replaced it with pragmatism. Pragmatism values $ over art/open space (Need we one MORE rendition of Joni Mitchell, thank you Counting Crows, Lillith Fair, etc!) and the artists scream back. But even the height of hippie-dom my generation pushes against. “free, open, whatever man” doesn’t work. We know this, instead we use knowledge that modernism has created an apply it in our own ways.

Previously, knowledge had a capital K. It only added up ONE way (Who knew the evangelicals ended up embracing modernism after all!) And in a semi-uninformed society, trust of authority is essential. But if we all know how the government/MS Windows/life works (and fails) we can make a new one. And that’s what my generation is doing: “playing with the pieces” as my philosophy prof said. But when he said it, it sounded dull and dreary. Turns out, it’s ‘exciting’ until it fails. But so is ANY human project.

Think of it, Modernism was exciting when it came out too. Think of all the Modern Dreams- the Jetsons or even Bruce Wayne’s father’s world. His father had a Modern dream if there ever was one. Bruce now lives in the bitterness of it being broken, while trying to restore order. He may be dreaming like his father, but the setting doesn’t portray him as nearly as successful. Why? Any coder will tell you: debugging the system takes at least 3times longer than building it! But it’s exciting when it starts. So is the initiation of child-birth. Child-rearing isn’t nearly as fun and care-free.

One-off heroism and the idealism of dreams vs. ‘reality’ of cleaning up, fixing up, confession of wrongs, persistence, patience. Modernism tried to do away with the latter. But like Terminator & The Matrix, people are the problem to that. People screw up. You can’t remove confession of wrongs and still hope for true life. Modernism took violence against reality. PostModernism is somewhere between using the natural-flowing stream: let it run free, but use it too. Augmented Reality. That’s what pharmaceutical co’s promote. That’s what technology is dabbling with (don’t ride the train with all the scary people, drive your OWN car instead! And if you DO ride the train, be sure to insulate yourself with your iPod).

Ok. I’m spent. I’m sure there’s more to write on this, like how social justice/activism is or isn’t involved,  whether putting a bumper sticker is doing anything, and the hippie ‘one world’ dream. Such a socio-economic transition. Let’s just hope the geeks take over congress

A friend recently commented on illegal copying of media:

If I’m an artist, would I rather only a small group of people buy my music/etc and not get a hearing, or would I rather give it away and have it heard by the masses?

Now I think he actually said “no one” listen, since no one would pay for it if they could get it free.

I have to admit, I agree. But what is interesting is how Radiohead still makes money despite their new album being technically free. And now today I read another article about someone doing the same thing with his book.

This is all quite a world away from the Renaissance when you only got art if some guy with money paid your board & housing. Hmm.. does that mean all millionaries should be ‘forced’ to support an artist or two? Or will this new model pan out, based on ppl’s hording desire for the ‘real thing’ mixed with some altruism of “I like it, he must have worked hard, someone should pay him.”

I like the latter, but it seems society swings between assuming people are good, and assuming them to be bad. If the latter, then it’s all about protection. If the former, then the next generation comes along and steals from/uses us, and the artists are poor again.

Or, is it simply a matter of having disposable income enough to dispose away? Are there more art students when the economy is strong or weak? Makes sense when it’s strong.. more disposable income for ppl to dispose on you. Most people think art is at best a commodity anyways.

I’m not sure how long this pay-as-you-like art thing will last, but for now, it’s a nice breather from the late-modernist protection mindset. Anyone willing to place bets on how long it’ll last?