Philosophy, Sociology and all the ramblings inbetween.

For the Bold...

2009-08-04T13:46:00.000-07:00

Head Shaving. Lately, the new 'it' hairstyle is taking cropped locks to a new extreme - buzzed. Everyone from Rhianna, to Carmen Electra to your next door neighbour is hopping on this bandwagon. It's been around for a while though sure, Demi Moore shaved her head in GI Jane, and although the movie wasn't stellar at the box office the look surely was talked about. Not so long ago Natalie Portman did the same for a role (in one of my favorite movies) V for Vendetta.
I think it's a gutsy move, while I'm not about to run down to the Orono Barber and let him go at my shoulder length strands, I commend those who do. A friend of mine has been shaving her head since high school, and rocks it. I commend those women who do not fear the hair cut which conservative minds think should solely be worn my enlisted men. It does bring a flash back for me though, of an article I'm reading to finish up a class. The article, "Cross Gender/Cross Genre" is written by Mike Kelley, and speaks on music and a musician's appearance. in the article Kelley talks about Glam Rock, and the culture which surrounded it in the 1970's. He mentions David Bowie as an ideal of using a drag queen-esqe persona as a status symbol for himself and his music.
At this time Bowie's appearance broke stereotypes of opposing gender/black and white/X and Y appearances. This hazy line continued on from Bowie to Motley Crue, and continues on today with front men such as Bill Kaulitze, of Tokio Hotel.
I find this 'gender bending' trend comforting. After all, it is 2009, and we no longer live in a time where the social norm is for women to only wear dresses and stay at home. I do not consider any of the above to be a trend, instead I see it as gender empowerment, since we are a long way away from where we were in the 1920-50's (economy wise not so much, but fashion wise & mindset, yes.)

Art, philosophy, and possibly advertisement...?

2009-01-07T20:33:00.000-08:00

First off, I'd like to say that I've been thinking long and hard about this blog, and the amount that I have kept my personal opinions out of it...No matter how hard it has been. I've come to realize that I can not do this. I'm writing this, for my own scholarly benefit, and I need to put my own two cents in. Not to help solidify my arguments, but for myself.
Now, onto the newest topic on my mind. In the Spring, I'll be taking an Art and philosophy course, and decided to do a little reading, contemplation, and research on my own beforehand.

"I have always had a passionate interest in art and a logical passion for philosophy, but nothing in my experience with either conflicted with the general dismal appraisal of aesthetics, and I am certain I should never have gotten involved with it had I not visited a singular exhibition at what was then the Stable Gallery on East 74^th Street in New York in 1964. Andy Warhol had filled the space with piles of Brillo boxes, similar to if somewhat sturdier than those brashly stenciled cartons stacked in the storerooms of supermarkets wherever soap pads are sold. I was familiar of course with the exploitation of emblems of popular and commercial labels by the pop artists, and Warhol's portraits of Campbell's soup cans were legendary. But as someone who came to artistic age in the heroic period of Abstract Expressionism, when decisions for or against The Image were fraught with an almost religious agony, the crass and casual use of tacky images by the new artists seemed irreverent and juvenile. But the Warhol show raised a question which was intoxicating and immediately philosophical, namely why were his boxes works of art while the almost indistinguishable utilitarian cartons were merely containers for soap pads? Certainly the minor observable differences could not ground as grand a distinction as that between Art and Reality!" [For examples of Warhol's art, click here.][Source]

The infamous Campbell's soup can print by Andy Warhol. We all know this print, or some variation of it. The big question is "What, exactly, makes this art?" I think in the present day the masses no longer ask this question. They just accept Warhol as a great, and extremely influential American Pop artist. Creator of The Factory and for bringing models such as Edie Sedgewick or musicians such as The Velvet Underground to light. Honestly, I'm not going to lie. I was once one of those masses, and am actually pretty embarrassed by it, since I consider myself to have a fairly strong art background. Anyway, there I was - one of the masses happily accepting Andy Warhol as great 1960's artist and visionary, putting him on a pedestal so to say, because that's what I felt needed to be done.
My first day of art school, however, that came crashing down. I was there at the meet and greet, mingling and sipping drinks with other student artists from across the country and some great instructors. I found myself sitting at a table with a girl wearing an Andy Warhol printed t-shirt, and the man sitting next to me, holding a cane and wearing neon orange Chuck Taylor High-tops, scowling in her direction. Finally, some one asked him why he had such a sour expression during such a fun time.
To which he replied: "Warhol, you think he's an artist?"
None of us knew what to say, after all we new this man was faculty, or affiliated with school in some way, so none of us wanted to end up putting our foot in our mouth. After an awkward silence some one spoke up.
"Well, yes. He';s one of, if not the greatest American pop artist of that generation. He's an icon, a legend."
The man with the Chucks replied: "A legend. That's bull. Andy Warhol was nothing but an advertiser."
That man with the orange Chuck Taylors [who later in the week I realized that he was my figure drawing professor, and an amazing and successful artist, Brett.] made the wheels in my head start turning that sunny summer day. Was Andy Warhol all we've made him up to be?
To attempt and solve this, I made a list. After all, lists are my go-to. They seem to organize me when I can not, and sort out all of the tangled thoughts in my mind.

Andy Warhol: Advertiser

Campbell Soup Cans - there are 32, since that is the number of different soups Campbell's had produced in 1962 when the paintings were created.
Coca-Cola Bottles also in 1962
Brillo Pad Box Sculpture, mentioned in the above excerpt, in 1964.
Endangered Species Prints 'Silent Spring' 16, total. Created in 1986.

Andy Warhol: Artist

273 Short, sometimes silent films and videos

Andy Warhol: The Grey Area

Portraits of celebrities and other famous people such as Marilyn Monroe, John Wayne, and paintings of Jacqueline Kennedy around the death and mourning of President John F. Kennedy.

Brett stated those words over 2 years ago now, and to this day I can not tell you whether or not I think Andy Warhol is and artist or simply an advertiser. Maybe both. Maybe neither. What I can say though, is that one simple sentence was able to change the way I view basically everything, art undoubtedly. I now know, something quite elementary - yet overlooked: stop following the masses in any way, shape, or form.

Side note: I'm aware that this response did not follow the topic given, but it happened to be something that I felt needed to be voiced, from an artist's and student's perspective.

"Ink to paper is thoughtful - Ink to flesh, hard-core - If Shakespere were a tattooist, We'd appreciate body art more. " - Carrie Latet

2008-12-19T13:46:00.000-08:00

Recently I was reading an article on tattoos, and the fact that they are getting growing acceptance in today's society. NYT Article
The article states: Suddenly it is not just retro punks and hard-core rappers [getting tattoos] who look as if they've tossed over any intention of ever working a straight job.
So who exactly is getting these tattoos? Well look around you. Everyone from teachers, to lawyers, to classmates, to social workers to therapists have tattoos. Jenny Dembrow, an associate executive director of the Lower East side Girls Club, a Manhattan social service agency, stated: "At this point, though, it almost seems as if you’re more outside the mainstream if you don’t have a tattoo.” Ms.Dembrow herself has tattoos, including a prominent vine-like neck and facial tattoo.
Ms. Dembrow's statement of tattoos entering the mainstream brings up an interesting point. At one time, tattoos were considered taboo, especially if you wanted a 'real job'. [I'm not sure who classifieds what as a real job, but that is besides the point.] As aforementioned, at one time it was solely 'retro punks and hard-core rappers' with tattoos. Now, it is considered quite mainstream. the question this brings up is: Does the fact that tattoos are now considered 'mainstream' make them lose any appeal? For some, it can. However, those people are the people who I think should seriously think long and hard about their tattoo, especially if it is for a simple statement of teenage rebellion, or for someone looking to be the center of attention. Don't get me wrong, tattoos can be conversation starters, and great ones at that if the work is well done, worn well, or simply interesting and intriguing. I think many people though are breathing a sigh of relief now that tattoos are becoming more and more accepted amongst their societies and cultures.
Some people however, are still very appalled by the thought of a loved one getting a tattoo, or even seeing tattoos on passersby. I was once present for a dialogue where an elderly man told a university student at her summer job that she "wouldn't get anywhere in life because she had pink streaks in her her blond hair and was covered in tattoos." However, that man did not know that the pink streaks were easily washed out, and the 'covering' of tattoos he was referring to were in fact only 3 - one on her forearm, one on her finger [easily covered by a ring] and once on her upper back, only visible in tank tops.
Another thing that man didn't know? The girl he assumed would be waiting tables for the rest of her life is in a good university, doing well, and a regular community service and hospital volunteer. Moral of this story? Don't judge a book by a cover, or a person by their decisions in bodily decorations.
Let's face the facts: although its refreshing to know that society has made great strides in the acceptance of body modifications, there are still going to be some who refuse to accept the new changes this generation is making more apparent, in bigger way and greater frequencies than some would ever dream of.

I'm still alive.

2008-09-25T12:13:00.000-07:00

I apologize for the age long gap in entries. University has started again, and I've been quite busy this past summer and thus far into the fall semester.

Today I'd like to write about a topic that has been on my mind for quite some time.
The philosophical sense on certainty versus a promise.
Now off the bat, you'd assume [or at least I did] that a promise is an abstract belief, defined by a culture, and that certainty is a type of a priori knowledge that is independent of sense experience [and coincidentally, culture].
However, in philosophy, philosophical certainty - even certainty in general is the ability to lack doubt. Merriam Webster's English dictionary defines certainty [well certain] as: being incapable of failing; an assured mind or action;
Therefore, as implied a philosophical skeptic can never be certain. In one of my courses, a classmate of mine who once described himself of being a skeptic, stated that he was "certain of his knowledge." A statement which, in addition to his previous claim was self defeating.
However, this statement also brought up another question, of personal identity. Derek Parfit, a British philosopher who specializes in Ethics and Philosophy of Mind, raises the following thought experiment:

Suppose that a man aged ninety, one of the few
rightful holders of the Nobel Peace Prize, confesses
that it was he who, at the age of twenty, injured a
policeman in a drunken brawl. Though this was a
serious crime, this man may not now deserve to be
punished.

[Source: Parfit Reasons and Persons 326 (reprinted in Schick and Vaughn 275).]

Like the Nobel Prize Winner, my classmate may have reformed his ideas, (though granted the situation was far less drastic.) but this still leaves us with the question: Can there ever be certainty? Maybe there can be. Maybe there can not be. Possibly, quite possibly, though we need to leave the idea of certainty, and promises for that matter not to be defined by a culture, or other group, but to a person - to each their own.

Greatness is a road leading towards the unknown. - Charles de Gaulle

2008-04-20T14:14:00.000-07:00

Of what is de Gaulle attempting to say? That greatness leads to the unknown? Or conversely, that the unknown leads to greatness? However, like many things in life and life in itself, there is no guarantee.

I've leaned this many times in my short years. In my own opinion, I believe we will all achieve our own version of greatness if we put our mind to it. No one I know wants the same thing.

We do not come from a cookie cutter generation. The1950's are behind us, as is that 'Americana' vision. Granted, now we have our own version and vision of the ideal America, family, etc. This generation though, the generation we are a part of, the generation who has been greatly impacted, as noted by my back tattoo, by the "War on Terrorism" is new and ever changing. Most importantly though, we are all ready for change.

Mark Bauerlein, author of The Dumbest Generation has other ideas. He says: this generation, especially the kids still in high school are America's 'dumbest generation.' That the digital age which our generation has grown up in has 'stupefied us' and is 'jeopardizing our future.' He goes on to say that kids these days do not do much. They don't read, go to museums, do homework, or get involved in their communities. Bauerlein categorizes high school kids into two very distinct groups: the aforementioned, who are putting their own future in jeopardy, and the 'uber achievers', who have great SAT scores, work, volunteer and are pretty much a real life Rory Gilmore. They might actually be considered the 'Americana ideal' of this generation.
The NYT Article

Maybe the generation in which I live is a bunch of underachievers. They can be if that is what they choose. I however, refuse to be one, and strongly believe that you are the author of your own future and life; Make sure the ending is to your liking.