I've been looking forward to this post for a while. I've named it "Part I," but I don't in reality know if there will be other parts. I would rather do it this way though, instead of covertly editing my post later on.
I am going to number each of my points to make them slightly more digestable, but first, an explanation of Voluntaryism:
First of all, anything that I will be writing is explained better tenfold by Stefan Molyneux of Freedomainradio.com. Second, if you'd like to get a head start, here is the Wikipedia entry for Voluntaryism.
Voluntaryism is an ideological viewpoint that essentially rejects all coercive force. Anything that is not achieved by voluntary means is most definitely NOT justified by the end. Contrary to mainstream ideologies, Voluntaryism is deeply rooted in human nature, morality, and objectivity. It is synonymous with little-l libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism, though both terms have been corrupted by misuse. Voluntaryism necessarily denies the justifications for the state, otherwise known as the government.
That should be good for now - onward!
1. A Voluntaryist system is tolerant of all ideologies, so long as they don't involve coercion.
I feel that one of the simplest ways to explain my position is by saying this: I know what's good for me, I don't know what's good for you. Thus it's important to have the freedom and capacity to pursue curiosity, and a society that rewards responsibility, ambition and cooperation.
If you are a socialist or a communist, you should rejoice if you find yourself in such a society. Feel free to set up your voluntary community of individuals and get your whole "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" thing going on. But don't think about trying to use force to achieve your goals - because not only is it a crime, but it disproves the validity of your ideology for the millionth time and your own morality as a proponent. Fortunately, the rest of the voluntaryist society will be waiting, with ample opportunity for you to make a good living.
2. There's nothing that governments can do that private industry can't do better, except for the things that shouldn't be done in the first place.
This is not only one of the most important arguments for voluntaryism, but it is also one of the most loaded. It is especially significant because without the state, there is no central banking (and inevitably fiat currency), and without central banking, expensive, devastating, exploitative, opportunistic military campaigns are impossible. Of course, even if such excursions could be funded without government and central banking, private defense companies and the like wouldn't engage in them because of a necessary transparency that they possess and the government (especially the CIA) does not. Even if that weren't the case, it is still much more costly to attempt to steal resources from the developing world than it is to employ people and trade instead, if you can't print your own money.
3. People are required to act responsibly, governments aren't.
If the FDA aaaaaccidentally allows some pain medicine contaminated with HIV circulate among the general populace, what happens? A slap on the wrist, some evasive posturing from official spokespersons, a rotation of leadership? Say Hope Steffie calls the police for help one night and is forcibly strip-searched by six or more cops, all the while pleading for them to stop? Nearly two-hundred people have died from taser use across the United States, and yet cops still go straight for the taser if they have trouble removing a student who asked 'the wrong question' from an auditorium. Thousands of atrocities are committed in senseless wars by people following orders or simply by acting on the dehumanized new shell that military training has equipped them with. Government doesn't have accountability. It's not set up to. Every time something goes wrong, if anything is done, some figurehead is swapped out for a different sociopath, and the cycle continues ad nauseum.
4. Monopolies of force are inherently abusive.
Some argue that power corrupts, I argue that the power structure is already corrupt, and the evils that emerge are simply implicit in its nature. There is no reasonable justification of a monopoly of power like the state and it's forces. If people are mostly bad, a state cannot exist, because it would be populated with all of said bad people who will use this unrivaled power to their own selfish ends. Of course, if people are mostly good, a state simply does not need to exist. Competition is a very powerful tool of balance in performance and accountability, and voluntary association ensures the best quality product at the best possible price.
5. The ideology is founded on morality and empirical evidence of human nature.
For this one, Stefan Molyneux does the best work by far of explaining. The morality part is pretty obvious. Violence and theft are immoral. These are counter-productive to society and damaging to individuals, so obviously it is incorrect, and immoral to create a giant governing body that's existence is the utter reverse of these accepted moral truths. The human nature part is evident to me, but a little more tricky, perhaps.
Mainstream ideologies do not even address morality, they just skim the surface of trite bills and "hot button" topics like abortion. So, in order to illustrate my point, I'll compare two radical ideologies.
Anarcho-syndicalism is the estranged marxist cousin of anarcho-capitalism or Voluntaryism. Both are "radical" "utopian" ideologies. Neither recognize the supposed superiority, and thus justification, of the state, but the two ideology necessitate very different views of human nature. Both seek to deconstruct the state as a first phase. However, anarcho-capitalism takes what is already evidenced by human nature (self-interest), general good nature, and structures society in a way that these can be manifested positively. Anarcho-syndicalism necessitates an additional phase in not only seeking to alter the structure of society, but also seeking to alter human nature. The way I think about it is that anarcho-capitalism takes reality and thinks of the best way to modify it, while anarcho-capitalism takes a fantasy and thinks of a way to make it reality.
Self-interest often gets a bad rap because of the power-disparities we have created for ourselves through government. In and of itself it is a neutral human-quality, or rather it can be either good or bad. The key is not legitimizing a system where self-interest can be unapologetically abused. When you give someone power, they use it to their advantage. Duh. If anyone thinks that business can be truly exploitative without a little mutual backscratching with the government, you have some reading to do. If you think business is exploitative simply because of the presence of a hierarchy, you have been misled by Marxist rhetoric.
6. It's practical
The practical arguments for voluntaryism have been around for a long time. I'm not going to address them all here because they have been explained many times by far more eloquent authors, even entering mainstream discourse from time to time, but are never heeded. Historically, the closer a society comes to the opposite end of the ideological spectrum, the realm of corporatism, statism, socialism, the more blatant and abhorrent the abuse of power. One needs only look at the most horrific events and despotic regimes of the past century. Not only are socialist and government approaches immoral, but they are terribly impractical. They don't work. In fact, they systematically make the situation worse. For example, right now we are trying to combat problems created by irresponsible lending and spending with irresponsible lending and spending. In trying to alleviate poverty the good ol' government way (throwing money at something), we've not only created disincentives to work, but we've increased debt for future generations by stealing from current ones. In the developing world, this kind of aid can actually create a kind of stagnation in which any local farmers cannot ever hope to compete with intermittently appearing free food.
7. The nit-picky details that people always get hung up on are virtually irrelevant
Since becoming a voluntaryist, I'm continually baffled by the unending and often creative questions that are posed to me as an indication that my ideology might not work. This is, of course, a very healthy practice, and I wish it were afforded for many psuedo-intellectual exercises that it is not. The part that baffles me is that such a violent, half-baked, self-contradictory ideology like Marxism is so socially acceptable and afforded so much benefit-of-the-doubt. Of course, I get it, having embraced moronic ideologies of my own in the past, notably neo-conservatism.
The thing is, though, at the end of the day, what is there to lose? Why be apprehensive to accept the ideology? Combine all of the random events that could happen - the tiny percentage of psychopaths, spontaneous deaths, complications involving road construction with private property, anything you can think of. Now put that on a scale beside the unbelievably violent atrocities you can barely stand to think of resulting from wars, oft-overlooked economic policies resulting in destruction of wealth and savings, sanctions preventing alleviation of sickness and hunger, institutionalized hate and persecution, endless police brutality, political and judicial corruption, incredibly counter-productive prisons and prisoners of victimless crimes such as walking across an imaginary line (Mexican immigrants). Don't forget the environment as well - I mean, they test A-bombs in the oceans for Christ's sake. The latter is going to be pinned to the ground on the scale 'o death 'n destruction. By a long shot. The voluntaryist society may be a little more spontaneous, but a system that rewards innovative thought, dynamic evolution and cooperation creates a better life for everyone. Societies that don't institutionalize violence and teach that it's right when you're wearing a blue costume or work in a white building will tend not to propagate more violence.
For the self-professed socialists, If you're so adamant about socialism, how can you afford a computer? I'm living the legal extent of my ideology, and I'm helping people too. Given the countless failures (and I am very generous to use that term) of socialist theory, how can you in good conscience even argue for it? The reign of Mussolini, Hitler, Pol Pot, Lenin, Stalin, Mao...all those assholes! How many more people have to die before you give it up, seriously?! And you still have the nerve to say that I'm not compassionate. Puke.
If you really hate corporations, the only way to get them on a leash is to cut off their government buddy-system. If you really want a fair life for all human beings, stop letting the government toy with their futures. Advocate programs that emphasize success, not lowest-common denominators. Be charitable, don't force others to be. because at the end of the day, any given person in the government doesn't have a fucking clue what they're doing. And they sure as hell don't care about you.
Friday, March 6, 2009
Monday, March 2, 2009
A Brief Tirade on Degrees and Barriers to Entry
I was talking to a friend of mine today about college and the like, and I actually got a little worked up about something that I will now allow to spill onto the pages of my unsuspecting blog.
I've been told I can get long winded, so if you wanna get to the point, it's at the bottom in bold.
When I first started going to college as an industrial design major, I was 19 years-old, and I had figured out that in my 5-year program I would be 23 by the time I could graduate and become a fully-functional human being. It freaked me out a little, but I didn't sweat it because that's what I had to do. Now I'm 23, and what I didn't take into consideration is that by the time I actually graduate and become financially independent, with a job, I will be turning 24.
Now, this may not be a big deal to some, and I'm probably being a little too dramatic about it, but to someone who has never turned 24 before, it's a little weird.
So then I started to think about the fact that I will have spent almost 24 years in 'preparation.' 24 years! Populations in the past might have been fortunate enough to merely live this long. If I were one of many people who had to pay their entire tuition, I would have several more years of indentured servitude just to pay off the damn loans, either that or I just would not have been able to go into the program I did.
What pisses me off are the standards we've set up for ourselves. The degree is a pre-requisite, and not having it is just an opportunity for discrimination. The attitude is "show me the degree, and then we'll talk." Sometimes it doesn't even matter so much the grades you've recieved, as if potential employers just want to see that you threw a lot of money away to prove you are responsible (what?).
Seriously, the past two, if not three years of my own education have been a joke. I'm not only saying that because the work experience has has given me a different perspective, but simply because we haven't learned a god-damn thing, and if I were supposed to, it certainly didn't make any difference in the outcome of the class. When we return from internships and co-ops, we essentially are made to do the same thing, designing something as students for a real client, except now we're not getting paid for it. Returning to college from working is like going back to high school from college. It all seems so narrowly-scoped and petty.
The first two years? Yeah, totally worth it, virtually no complaints. The last two? Utter bullshit.
So what happened to these guys like Raymond Loewy who come over on a boat with change in their pockets and become one of the most (deservedly) famous designers in the world? Well, now we've got fifteen layers of bullshit and bureacracy built up (and not just in my profession), to where there's no precedent for getting by on sheer skill and hard work anymore. Not, of course, that companies can hire on sheer skill anyways. The experience gained and the pace of things learned at work is out of necessity, and GREATLY overshadows that which can be learned in school.
You might say, like my college (DAAP at University of Cincinnati) alludes to, that in structuring the industry like this, we're ensuring the best, brightest, and most capable become the designers of tomorrow. If I were a mindless leftist drone, I would piss my pants and just start shouting about unfairness. Since I'm not though, I'm going to reasonably suggest why this really is unfair bullshit.
It's like opening a business. Do massive taxes, restrictive zoning laws and convoluted rules and regulations ensure better businesses? I would argue that it ensures more mediocre businesses. For the most part, anyone really willing to make a risk has to already be wealthy enough to be able to fail, which means they won't necessarily work as hard, and all the guys with great ideas that can't scale the giant barriers to entry are totally screwed. Just like the structure of many other instututions of society, risk, ingenuity, passion and conviction take a back seat to bureacratic nonsense. Likewise, giant tuition fees, compulsory dorm residence, stubborn professors, and in some schools an inability to practice in the profession until graduation, screws over all the people who could be great designers, but will never get the chance because the professor is always right, apprenticeship is dead, and working hard toward such a goal is at odds with making enough money to eat.
I'm not trying to say that I'm one of the people with potential getting screwed, I'm saying I think it's bullshit and it makes me sad that if someone thinks they can work hard to break into the industry without a degree, they're going to get laughed out of their next interview. But then, what do I know.
I've been told I can get long winded, so if you wanna get to the point, it's at the bottom in bold.
When I first started going to college as an industrial design major, I was 19 years-old, and I had figured out that in my 5-year program I would be 23 by the time I could graduate and become a fully-functional human being. It freaked me out a little, but I didn't sweat it because that's what I had to do. Now I'm 23, and what I didn't take into consideration is that by the time I actually graduate and become financially independent, with a job, I will be turning 24.
Now, this may not be a big deal to some, and I'm probably being a little too dramatic about it, but to someone who has never turned 24 before, it's a little weird.
So then I started to think about the fact that I will have spent almost 24 years in 'preparation.' 24 years! Populations in the past might have been fortunate enough to merely live this long. If I were one of many people who had to pay their entire tuition, I would have several more years of indentured servitude just to pay off the damn loans, either that or I just would not have been able to go into the program I did.
What pisses me off are the standards we've set up for ourselves. The degree is a pre-requisite, and not having it is just an opportunity for discrimination. The attitude is "show me the degree, and then we'll talk." Sometimes it doesn't even matter so much the grades you've recieved, as if potential employers just want to see that you threw a lot of money away to prove you are responsible (what?).
Seriously, the past two, if not three years of my own education have been a joke. I'm not only saying that because the work experience has has given me a different perspective, but simply because we haven't learned a god-damn thing, and if I were supposed to, it certainly didn't make any difference in the outcome of the class. When we return from internships and co-ops, we essentially are made to do the same thing, designing something as students for a real client, except now we're not getting paid for it. Returning to college from working is like going back to high school from college. It all seems so narrowly-scoped and petty.
The first two years? Yeah, totally worth it, virtually no complaints. The last two? Utter bullshit.
So what happened to these guys like Raymond Loewy who come over on a boat with change in their pockets and become one of the most (deservedly) famous designers in the world? Well, now we've got fifteen layers of bullshit and bureacracy built up (and not just in my profession), to where there's no precedent for getting by on sheer skill and hard work anymore. Not, of course, that companies can hire on sheer skill anyways. The experience gained and the pace of things learned at work is out of necessity, and GREATLY overshadows that which can be learned in school.
You might say, like my college (DAAP at University of Cincinnati) alludes to, that in structuring the industry like this, we're ensuring the best, brightest, and most capable become the designers of tomorrow. If I were a mindless leftist drone, I would piss my pants and just start shouting about unfairness. Since I'm not though, I'm going to reasonably suggest why this really is unfair bullshit.
It's like opening a business. Do massive taxes, restrictive zoning laws and convoluted rules and regulations ensure better businesses? I would argue that it ensures more mediocre businesses. For the most part, anyone really willing to make a risk has to already be wealthy enough to be able to fail, which means they won't necessarily work as hard, and all the guys with great ideas that can't scale the giant barriers to entry are totally screwed. Just like the structure of many other instututions of society, risk, ingenuity, passion and conviction take a back seat to bureacratic nonsense. Likewise, giant tuition fees, compulsory dorm residence, stubborn professors, and in some schools an inability to practice in the profession until graduation, screws over all the people who could be great designers, but will never get the chance because the professor is always right, apprenticeship is dead, and working hard toward such a goal is at odds with making enough money to eat.
I'm not trying to say that I'm one of the people with potential getting screwed, I'm saying I think it's bullshit and it makes me sad that if someone thinks they can work hard to break into the industry without a degree, they're going to get laughed out of their next interview. But then, what do I know.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Where I've Been
In an act of consummate boredom, I've decided to map out where I've been for about the past 6 years, mostly so I don't forget, but also just because it's fun. The markers denote places I've lived, while the tacks are places I've visited. Everything is color coded according to where I was living at the time. I now wish I had done it in reverse chronological order, but oh well.
It's a little poorly formatted, but alas:
View Larger Map
It's a little poorly formatted, but alas:
View Larger Map
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Art and Reality As It Relates to Contemporary Society: A Reactionary Examination
Although it may affect the lucidity of any message I may be attempting to convey, I feel it is a more valuable exercise for me to run with a thought, and try to work it out in text (as in my most recent article). My mental processes may be more apparent, but after all, though I naturally believe in pretty much anything I'm going to be writing, I certainly don't want to come off too pedagogical, since for the most part I will be only writing my opinion.
While I was making some less-than-satisfying eggs this morning (read: afternoon), I had a thought about art and music as a reflection of society. Since I am not an art major, and because I inadvertently slept through a good deal of art history, I'm not entirely aware of the discourse regarding "art reflecting life" or "life reflecting art." From my perspective, the two go hand in hand, and I am not overly concerned about the degree to which one reflects the other.
One of my favorite artistic movements (and one that is inspiring a painting I am currently working on), early 20th century Italian Futurism, is an interesting example of art as a movement, to not only reflect the ideology of the artists, but also to influence the direction of the future of society (in a way that I don't necessarily agree with, for the record). However, like all artistic movements, it arose as a reaction to something observed in society (and/or artistic sensibilities at the time). Futurism particularly, emphasized speed, brevity, technology, and a disdain for tradition, seeking to uproot society from the past. This excerpt from the Manifesto of the Futurist Painters creates a pretty clear image of this sentiment:
"The cry of rebellion which we utter associates our ideals with those of the Futurist poets. These ideas were not invented by some aesthetic clique. They are an expression of a violent desire, which burns in the veins of every creative artist today. ... We will fight with all our might the fanatical, senseless and snobbish religion of the past, a religion encouraged by the vicious existence of museums. We rebel against that spineless worshipping of old canvases, old statues and old bric-a-brac, against everything which is filthy and worm-ridden and corroded by time. We consider the habitual contempt for everything which is young, new and burning with life to be unjust and even criminal."
It is extremely interesting to me that in observing movements in the history of art that there is a trend that tends to move away from the static and all of the notions therein, and into the realm of the dynamic, the youthful, and transient, as well as delving more deeply into the human condition. Additionally, art has transitioned from a rare and commissioned service, to a universally attainable commodity, often directly involved in the goingson of society, aided in part by a gradual deconstruction of the definition of art. Likewise there has typically been a parallel in music, if not a trend toward convergence of many different artistic formats and media. Of course, there were counter-movements to these, but I am merely highlighting the manifestation of departures from convention that were previously absent.
For example, impressionism broke away from the conventions of academic painting, focusing on conveying motion and the passage of time by painting outdoors, fully engaged the subject matter - a feat enabled by advances in technology which yielded paint in tubes.
Expressionism, though not perhaps a proper movement, distorted the image of reality to evoke a snapshot of the emotional landscape of the artist and his/her subject matter.
Art Deco, shared Futurism's admiration for technology, speed, and 'progress,' and was widely popular during the 'Roaring Twenties,' an era characterized by the vibrant spirit of modernity.
The emergence of Pop Art and Dada (related only chronologically) emphasized the artist's ever-present ability to take the familiar and make it unfamiliar, or show us an image of our world in a way that we otherwise may not have seen it. Pop Art isolated the most transient products of our consumption in a way that removed them from their utilitarian context. Dada, a convoluted informal movement, acted as a means to criticize war and approached aesthetic with a deliberate disinterest, diverging from art in a way that causes some to label it "anti-art"
Bauhaus and Modernist art reduced the visual aesthetic to it's most fundamental elements. The pragmatism and relative static nature of this movement may stand in contrast with the aforementioned, but the truth reflected in it's reductionist practice reflects, to me at least, a kind of objectivism that has overseen the advancement of secular society.
Postmodern and contemporary art represents the culmination of the amalgamation of art, design, architecture, music, literature, performance, and perhaps other forms of expression. One of the more recent artistic mediums that has gained mainstream popularity is graffiti, which speaks to the emphasis of youth, transience, and the human condition, as well as (although perhaps not quite as recent) performance and installation art, which serve to inspire a response or create an experience for a short period of time, as a departure from the otherwise "real world."
Within the realm of music experimentation and creativity have exploded into a variety of genres, cross-genres, and undefinable genres.
Of course, the advancement of technology has had a profound influence of all elements of art and society. Within the realm of computing, there is a phenomenon known as "Moore's law," which describes the roughly exponential advancement of technology's complexity.
Personally, I have been tossing around the idea that this might be applicable not only to technology, but to the whole of human society. This cannot, of course, be measured mathematically, and in truth I don't believe it to be an exact corollary, nor am I necessarily referring to the idea of the Omega point. But, in general terms, it seems we are continually broadening that which we find acceptable, enjoyable, or at least tolerable.
When people refer to our "modern lives," (typically marketers) they give the distinct indication that life is more complicated and hectic than ever. Part of this, as I alluded to, is a marketing ploy, but part of it seems to be true. While I don't think we necessarily work more than previous societies, both sexes are more involved in the workforce than ever before, our tasks are certainly more abstract, and there is a tangible disconnect between our efforts and our rewards. Priorities are sometimes juggled back and forth, and our relationship with the concepts of family, happiness, religion, nature, sex, and civilization are constantly changing. It is undeniable that our lives are more fast-paced - we often have to physically be in many different places, but more importantly there is a vast amount of information and stimuli that we must inevitably process on a daily basis.
Not only is our concept of labor and reward abstracted as we've transitioned from agrarian to contemporary metropolitan life, becoming more like cogs in a machine that spits out our fruits rather than the machine itself, but our notions of reality itself are abstracted. People will anxiety disorders now have an outlet for interpersonal communication through instant messaging, social networking websites, and virtual chat. Feelings of real-world adventure and discovery is now emulated virtually, and has become widely popular in the form of MMORPGs, and the two intersect with software like Second Life. Videoconferencing has advanced with Cisco's TelePresence to a point of remarkable accuracy, and realistic haptic technologies are just around the corner.
My roommate was recently involved in a studio that poses the question: "will virtual interaction ever replace real human interaction?" My initial response was that each new generation embraces technologies and societal trends that the last rejected. In fact, in many cases they are not only embraced, but taken for granted. Moreover, i think the question is a bit simplistic, in that it assumes that there will always be a definitive line between reality and virtual reality. The concept of genuine and meaningful human interaction varies from culture to culture and over time. It is likely that not only will our concept of reality be abstracted, but our concept of self will follow suit (and seems to have been on the way for some time now). I suppose the real question is whether physical proximity will ever take a backseat to virtual proximity. Again, I believe that technology and advancements in the understanding of the human mind will eventually blur the line between the two, along with notions of tactile and sensory feedback and perhaps intimacy. In a way, it scares the shit out of me, but I'm willing to bet that won't be the case with my children, and each successive generation. Even electric light was recieved with superstitious revulsion at it's inception.
But what does all this (admittedly tangential) talk have to do with art? Well, there are aspects of postmodern and contemporary art and music that seem to operate under the idea that "anything goes," and intentionally or unintentionally seems to reflect a sense of societal disillusionment. Of course, if I am to be a responsible thinker, I must remind myself how subjective and myopic my perspective is. The generation that grew up with big band and crooners like Sinatra I'm sure viewed Rock and Roll with a similar sentiment. Hip Hop, even without it's obvious 'controversial' subject matter, rebelled against one of the most conventional elements of song - melodic vocals, as well as being produced sometimes without conventional instruments. Consequently it's acceptance was relatively sluggish. There is also the question, regarding some types of postmodern art and music, of whether they intend to shock with the intention to make any communicable point, or simply to get noticed?
Regardless, I personally see a connection between my own observations of societal disillusionment and contemporary art, resulting from many elements of contemporary society - an inundation of marketing and pop culture, growing popularity of pornography, abstractions of traditionally recognized notions of life, growing awareness of global issues and suffering and farther reaching government and industry (which may result in feelings of powerlessness), continuing environmental degradation, aversion to a political climate with no significant means of recourse, and infinite possibilities for distraction, among many other phenomena. Consider the wildly popular art of Kaws, a former graffiti artist, who now sells canvases painted with depictions of spongebob painted with his characteristic 'cross-bones' around the head and X-ed out eyes. From another artist, say Banksy, this might be a clever statement about a variety of questionable societal practices, but I get the distinct impression that that is not the case here.
I suppose the question I'm trying to get at, though it may not be all that evident, is thus: Are there undeniable elements of our nature and our psyche that are adversely affected when our reality is abstracted and the paradigms (and aims) of human life and interaction are so drastically shifted (over such a short period of time)? Or, are we merely clinging on to remnants of the past for our own sense of comfort and familiarity, and the world is better (or at least no worse) off with each new paradigm shift and tradition jailbreak? Either way, although I think it worth rumination, questions of this nature have been proven moot time and time again throughout history. Humanity's progress, if it should be referred to as such, is as perpetual as the dawn of each new day, lending validity to the old (or perhaps only old to me) expression "lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way."
Ah, what an appropriately nihilistic conclusion.
While I was making some less-than-satisfying eggs this morning (read: afternoon), I had a thought about art and music as a reflection of society. Since I am not an art major, and because I inadvertently slept through a good deal of art history, I'm not entirely aware of the discourse regarding "art reflecting life" or "life reflecting art." From my perspective, the two go hand in hand, and I am not overly concerned about the degree to which one reflects the other.
One of my favorite artistic movements (and one that is inspiring a painting I am currently working on), early 20th century Italian Futurism, is an interesting example of art as a movement, to not only reflect the ideology of the artists, but also to influence the direction of the future of society (in a way that I don't necessarily agree with, for the record). However, like all artistic movements, it arose as a reaction to something observed in society (and/or artistic sensibilities at the time). Futurism particularly, emphasized speed, brevity, technology, and a disdain for tradition, seeking to uproot society from the past. This excerpt from the Manifesto of the Futurist Painters creates a pretty clear image of this sentiment:
"The cry of rebellion which we utter associates our ideals with those of the Futurist poets. These ideas were not invented by some aesthetic clique. They are an expression of a violent desire, which burns in the veins of every creative artist today. ... We will fight with all our might the fanatical, senseless and snobbish religion of the past, a religion encouraged by the vicious existence of museums. We rebel against that spineless worshipping of old canvases, old statues and old bric-a-brac, against everything which is filthy and worm-ridden and corroded by time. We consider the habitual contempt for everything which is young, new and burning with life to be unjust and even criminal."
It is extremely interesting to me that in observing movements in the history of art that there is a trend that tends to move away from the static and all of the notions therein, and into the realm of the dynamic, the youthful, and transient, as well as delving more deeply into the human condition. Additionally, art has transitioned from a rare and commissioned service, to a universally attainable commodity, often directly involved in the goingson of society, aided in part by a gradual deconstruction of the definition of art. Likewise there has typically been a parallel in music, if not a trend toward convergence of many different artistic formats and media. Of course, there were counter-movements to these, but I am merely highlighting the manifestation of departures from convention that were previously absent.
For example, impressionism broke away from the conventions of academic painting, focusing on conveying motion and the passage of time by painting outdoors, fully engaged the subject matter - a feat enabled by advances in technology which yielded paint in tubes.
Expressionism, though not perhaps a proper movement, distorted the image of reality to evoke a snapshot of the emotional landscape of the artist and his/her subject matter.
Art Deco, shared Futurism's admiration for technology, speed, and 'progress,' and was widely popular during the 'Roaring Twenties,' an era characterized by the vibrant spirit of modernity.
The emergence of Pop Art and Dada (related only chronologically) emphasized the artist's ever-present ability to take the familiar and make it unfamiliar, or show us an image of our world in a way that we otherwise may not have seen it. Pop Art isolated the most transient products of our consumption in a way that removed them from their utilitarian context. Dada, a convoluted informal movement, acted as a means to criticize war and approached aesthetic with a deliberate disinterest, diverging from art in a way that causes some to label it "anti-art"
Bauhaus and Modernist art reduced the visual aesthetic to it's most fundamental elements. The pragmatism and relative static nature of this movement may stand in contrast with the aforementioned, but the truth reflected in it's reductionist practice reflects, to me at least, a kind of objectivism that has overseen the advancement of secular society.
Postmodern and contemporary art represents the culmination of the amalgamation of art, design, architecture, music, literature, performance, and perhaps other forms of expression. One of the more recent artistic mediums that has gained mainstream popularity is graffiti, which speaks to the emphasis of youth, transience, and the human condition, as well as (although perhaps not quite as recent) performance and installation art, which serve to inspire a response or create an experience for a short period of time, as a departure from the otherwise "real world."
Within the realm of music experimentation and creativity have exploded into a variety of genres, cross-genres, and undefinable genres.
Of course, the advancement of technology has had a profound influence of all elements of art and society. Within the realm of computing, there is a phenomenon known as "Moore's law," which describes the roughly exponential advancement of technology's complexity.
Personally, I have been tossing around the idea that this might be applicable not only to technology, but to the whole of human society. This cannot, of course, be measured mathematically, and in truth I don't believe it to be an exact corollary, nor am I necessarily referring to the idea of the Omega point. But, in general terms, it seems we are continually broadening that which we find acceptable, enjoyable, or at least tolerable.
When people refer to our "modern lives," (typically marketers) they give the distinct indication that life is more complicated and hectic than ever. Part of this, as I alluded to, is a marketing ploy, but part of it seems to be true. While I don't think we necessarily work more than previous societies, both sexes are more involved in the workforce than ever before, our tasks are certainly more abstract, and there is a tangible disconnect between our efforts and our rewards. Priorities are sometimes juggled back and forth, and our relationship with the concepts of family, happiness, religion, nature, sex, and civilization are constantly changing. It is undeniable that our lives are more fast-paced - we often have to physically be in many different places, but more importantly there is a vast amount of information and stimuli that we must inevitably process on a daily basis.
Not only is our concept of labor and reward abstracted as we've transitioned from agrarian to contemporary metropolitan life, becoming more like cogs in a machine that spits out our fruits rather than the machine itself, but our notions of reality itself are abstracted. People will anxiety disorders now have an outlet for interpersonal communication through instant messaging, social networking websites, and virtual chat. Feelings of real-world adventure and discovery is now emulated virtually, and has become widely popular in the form of MMORPGs, and the two intersect with software like Second Life. Videoconferencing has advanced with Cisco's TelePresence to a point of remarkable accuracy, and realistic haptic technologies are just around the corner.
My roommate was recently involved in a studio that poses the question: "will virtual interaction ever replace real human interaction?" My initial response was that each new generation embraces technologies and societal trends that the last rejected. In fact, in many cases they are not only embraced, but taken for granted. Moreover, i think the question is a bit simplistic, in that it assumes that there will always be a definitive line between reality and virtual reality. The concept of genuine and meaningful human interaction varies from culture to culture and over time. It is likely that not only will our concept of reality be abstracted, but our concept of self will follow suit (and seems to have been on the way for some time now). I suppose the real question is whether physical proximity will ever take a backseat to virtual proximity. Again, I believe that technology and advancements in the understanding of the human mind will eventually blur the line between the two, along with notions of tactile and sensory feedback and perhaps intimacy. In a way, it scares the shit out of me, but I'm willing to bet that won't be the case with my children, and each successive generation. Even electric light was recieved with superstitious revulsion at it's inception.
But what does all this (admittedly tangential) talk have to do with art? Well, there are aspects of postmodern and contemporary art and music that seem to operate under the idea that "anything goes," and intentionally or unintentionally seems to reflect a sense of societal disillusionment. Of course, if I am to be a responsible thinker, I must remind myself how subjective and myopic my perspective is. The generation that grew up with big band and crooners like Sinatra I'm sure viewed Rock and Roll with a similar sentiment. Hip Hop, even without it's obvious 'controversial' subject matter, rebelled against one of the most conventional elements of song - melodic vocals, as well as being produced sometimes without conventional instruments. Consequently it's acceptance was relatively sluggish. There is also the question, regarding some types of postmodern art and music, of whether they intend to shock with the intention to make any communicable point, or simply to get noticed?
Regardless, I personally see a connection between my own observations of societal disillusionment and contemporary art, resulting from many elements of contemporary society - an inundation of marketing and pop culture, growing popularity of pornography, abstractions of traditionally recognized notions of life, growing awareness of global issues and suffering and farther reaching government and industry (which may result in feelings of powerlessness), continuing environmental degradation, aversion to a political climate with no significant means of recourse, and infinite possibilities for distraction, among many other phenomena. Consider the wildly popular art of Kaws, a former graffiti artist, who now sells canvases painted with depictions of spongebob painted with his characteristic 'cross-bones' around the head and X-ed out eyes. From another artist, say Banksy, this might be a clever statement about a variety of questionable societal practices, but I get the distinct impression that that is not the case here.
I suppose the question I'm trying to get at, though it may not be all that evident, is thus: Are there undeniable elements of our nature and our psyche that are adversely affected when our reality is abstracted and the paradigms (and aims) of human life and interaction are so drastically shifted (over such a short period of time)? Or, are we merely clinging on to remnants of the past for our own sense of comfort and familiarity, and the world is better (or at least no worse) off with each new paradigm shift and tradition jailbreak? Either way, although I think it worth rumination, questions of this nature have been proven moot time and time again throughout history. Humanity's progress, if it should be referred to as such, is as perpetual as the dawn of each new day, lending validity to the old (or perhaps only old to me) expression "lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way."
Ah, what an appropriately nihilistic conclusion.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Painting
I created a new painting recently...actually the first week I was in Skaneateles. But, I just made some touch ups on it and it looks better.
I really shouldn't upload this photo, though, because it's from my camera-phone and I don't have Photoshop on my laptop anymore (I had to use a website called Picnik). Oh well, I'll replace it with a better photo later.
Just started a new one tonight, too, which is bigger and is going to be rad. I hope. Anyways, enjoy.
"Propaganda 1"
I really shouldn't upload this photo, though, because it's from my camera-phone and I don't have Photoshop on my laptop anymore (I had to use a website called Picnik). Oh well, I'll replace it with a better photo later.
Just started a new one tonight, too, which is bigger and is going to be rad. I hope. Anyways, enjoy.
"Propaganda 1"
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Judgment
I had a thought today, in fact just a moment ago, which I am uncharacteristically going to try to flesh out in text rather than simply transfer a fully-formed thought from my brain.
As voluntaryism defines both my political and moral ideology, I am about as socially liberal as it is possible to be. In fact, my personal sentiments take this a step farther in that I believe our judgments built upon our own man-made constructs and categorizations distract us not only from the equal humanity in all of us, but also from the beautiful individuality within each person. I'm appalled by both the superficial notion of compulsory "diversity" and the more traditional institutions of racism, segregation, and assimilation. The mindsets that promote either are on opposite sides of the field, but are in reality playing for the same team. Both serve to divide us as human beings.
Without getting into a whole bunch of scientific talk that I don't know about, I think we'll all agree that there are at least two phases of judgment. The first is the subconscious or semi-conscious judgment, based on your experiences, upbringing, opinions of others (regarding someone or something), initial sensory stimuli, and probably a myriad of other things. The second is your conscious judgment, based upon empirical evidence - personal interaction. In many ways the two overlap, but I like to think that we allow ourselves to let one drive.
For example, several years ago I deliberately conditioned myself to judge people based on my personal interaction with them (or at least observation of them). However, there is an undeniable part of everyone's psyche that summarizes their accumulated knowledge of people that have certain characteristics. The memory operates via association, so you would expect this to be no exception. In my experience, it is the amount that we consciously suppress this impulse as it influences our judgment that makes the difference. Simply put, regardless of preconcieved notions, a stranger should begin with ten points, with only the ability to lose them in the interaction, rather than beginning with no points, and having the ability to gain some.
The critical point is that the groups that we have segmented people into - which to some degree is natural - do not "do" anything that is not central to the definition that we have for them. So, it would be accurate to say that all christians worship Jesus Christ and muslims Allah, or that all "black people" have darker skin than "white people" (I'm not sure this would necessarily be true for "african-americans," in the objective sense of the term). You could say that all gay men and lesbian women are attracted to members of their own respective sexes.
Now, let's test out some of the more insidious stereotypes. Not all muslims advocate violence toward westerners. Some do. Not all catholic priests molest children. Some do. It would certainly be unfair to the peaceful, decent members of these groups to be attacked (verbally, or sometimes physically) for the evil deeds of other members among these groups. With so much faith in democracy, surely some would think that if it were somehow proven that the majority of members of such a group routinely engaged in some unsavory activity that has nothing to do with the group they belong to, that surely all could be condemned. This would again be wrong. Some people seem to think that committing crimes can be inherent in an otherwise peaceful "group," and they ignore the human nature and difference of perspective at the root, demonizing the group as subhuman monsters.
This calls for three large clarifications -
First, if the "group" is by definition objectively immoral, the aforementioned does not necessarily apply. For example, the KKK is by definition an immoral organization. This is not up for debate. They admittedly advocate discrimination against other members of society.
Second, my religious examples actually complicate this whole issue, because there are certain implications in many religious texts that are up for interpretation, which is one reason I don't engage in (organized) religious belief.
Third, and most importantly, it is how we respond to the judgments we make that lends any real importance to what I'm trying (read: struggling) to explain. It would seem to me an entirely acceptable response to abstain from attending catholic masses given evidence that any number of children have been molested by priests. So would avoiding a reportedly dangerous area (more on this later).
There are many examples of the reverse throughout history - internment of Japanese Americans during WWII, vandalization and acts of violence against mosques and American muslims after 9/11. If your judgment leads you to aggressive force against someone you don't know...you're probably doing something wrong.
One of the reasons why government is so sinister is that it attempts, at least visibly, to spread around accountability in a way that deteriorates this dynamic. Thus, when individuals in the military perpetuate a horrific crime against humanity, not only were they enabled to do so by being systematically dehumanized in training, but they are just "following orders," although in some cases acts of extreme violence can emerge from the "mob mentality," catalyzed by the ever-present idea that it's "us vs. them" (see my blog: The Perils of Collectivism). On up the ladder, the general was just acting on "solid intelligence," and so on. Not to mention that war in and of itself is baffling to even the most casual scrutinizer, and for good reason, but that's a separate article (hint: self-interest meets enormously disproportionate power structure).
Believe it or not, I didn't get to the point of my initial thought, but it's lucidity has faded. Hopefully this article is not too tangential - I know it's kind of sloppy. Forgive me.
As voluntaryism defines both my political and moral ideology, I am about as socially liberal as it is possible to be. In fact, my personal sentiments take this a step farther in that I believe our judgments built upon our own man-made constructs and categorizations distract us not only from the equal humanity in all of us, but also from the beautiful individuality within each person. I'm appalled by both the superficial notion of compulsory "diversity" and the more traditional institutions of racism, segregation, and assimilation. The mindsets that promote either are on opposite sides of the field, but are in reality playing for the same team. Both serve to divide us as human beings.
Without getting into a whole bunch of scientific talk that I don't know about, I think we'll all agree that there are at least two phases of judgment. The first is the subconscious or semi-conscious judgment, based on your experiences, upbringing, opinions of others (regarding someone or something), initial sensory stimuli, and probably a myriad of other things. The second is your conscious judgment, based upon empirical evidence - personal interaction. In many ways the two overlap, but I like to think that we allow ourselves to let one drive.
For example, several years ago I deliberately conditioned myself to judge people based on my personal interaction with them (or at least observation of them). However, there is an undeniable part of everyone's psyche that summarizes their accumulated knowledge of people that have certain characteristics. The memory operates via association, so you would expect this to be no exception. In my experience, it is the amount that we consciously suppress this impulse as it influences our judgment that makes the difference. Simply put, regardless of preconcieved notions, a stranger should begin with ten points, with only the ability to lose them in the interaction, rather than beginning with no points, and having the ability to gain some.
The critical point is that the groups that we have segmented people into - which to some degree is natural - do not "do" anything that is not central to the definition that we have for them. So, it would be accurate to say that all christians worship Jesus Christ and muslims Allah, or that all "black people" have darker skin than "white people" (I'm not sure this would necessarily be true for "african-americans," in the objective sense of the term). You could say that all gay men and lesbian women are attracted to members of their own respective sexes.
Now, let's test out some of the more insidious stereotypes. Not all muslims advocate violence toward westerners. Some do. Not all catholic priests molest children. Some do. It would certainly be unfair to the peaceful, decent members of these groups to be attacked (verbally, or sometimes physically) for the evil deeds of other members among these groups. With so much faith in democracy, surely some would think that if it were somehow proven that the majority of members of such a group routinely engaged in some unsavory activity that has nothing to do with the group they belong to, that surely all could be condemned. This would again be wrong. Some people seem to think that committing crimes can be inherent in an otherwise peaceful "group," and they ignore the human nature and difference of perspective at the root, demonizing the group as subhuman monsters.
This calls for three large clarifications -
First, if the "group" is by definition objectively immoral, the aforementioned does not necessarily apply. For example, the KKK is by definition an immoral organization. This is not up for debate. They admittedly advocate discrimination against other members of society.
Second, my religious examples actually complicate this whole issue, because there are certain implications in many religious texts that are up for interpretation, which is one reason I don't engage in (organized) religious belief.
Third, and most importantly, it is how we respond to the judgments we make that lends any real importance to what I'm trying (read: struggling) to explain. It would seem to me an entirely acceptable response to abstain from attending catholic masses given evidence that any number of children have been molested by priests. So would avoiding a reportedly dangerous area (more on this later).
There are many examples of the reverse throughout history - internment of Japanese Americans during WWII, vandalization and acts of violence against mosques and American muslims after 9/11. If your judgment leads you to aggressive force against someone you don't know...you're probably doing something wrong.
One of the reasons why government is so sinister is that it attempts, at least visibly, to spread around accountability in a way that deteriorates this dynamic. Thus, when individuals in the military perpetuate a horrific crime against humanity, not only were they enabled to do so by being systematically dehumanized in training, but they are just "following orders," although in some cases acts of extreme violence can emerge from the "mob mentality," catalyzed by the ever-present idea that it's "us vs. them" (see my blog: The Perils of Collectivism). On up the ladder, the general was just acting on "solid intelligence," and so on. Not to mention that war in and of itself is baffling to even the most casual scrutinizer, and for good reason, but that's a separate article (hint: self-interest meets enormously disproportionate power structure).
Believe it or not, I didn't get to the point of my initial thought, but it's lucidity has faded. Hopefully this article is not too tangential - I know it's kind of sloppy. Forgive me.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Update!
Well, it's been...a long time. I really have to wrestle myself down and strap my wrists to the keyboard to make myself write. The problem is, I have a lot of subject matter, but I moll it over in my head so thoroughly, that when the time comes to write it, I'm already worn out on the subject.
But enough of that. I am currently residing in Skaneateles, New York. Every day I wake up, get ready for work, and by the time I'm out the door (inevitably a few minutes late already), I see my car windshield, and realize that I'm going to be later. For some odd reason it's impossible for me to remember this simple fact.
Fortunately, I live less than a mile from my work, so when my car battery committed suicide about a month ago, I could walk to work in only moderate discomfort. In fact, I rather enjoyed the walk - I would listen to Gogol Bordello in the morning and evening travel, and imagine that I am in some bizarre tundra in Ukraine, rather than a hibernating village in upstate New York.
This quarter has been an alarming lesson in my own willpower. After my car began working, I wanted to continue walking because of the enjoyment I derived from it. However, the convenience of the car almost always wins. I bought an expensive keyboard and brought along painting materials because I'm tired of wasting time in the ways that I normally do, and thought it might be beneficial to hone some skills. I would spend hours banging away at the keyboard, and finished an entire painting in one night...before my internet and cable starting working.
When I arrived in Skaneateles, I had an apartment set up already. It is one of those corporate housing-type arrangements, which, upon first encounter, looks identical to a hotel room. I immediately shifted around some of the furniture, hid all the brochures, and consumed the complimentary foodstuffs. Three weeks later, I recieved a note on my door that made it very clear that the landlord was not pleased with the way I was treating the apartment. I found this pretty surprising, considering the state of the apartment was about one tenth of the deterioration factor that I allowed to plague some of my previous residences. Apparently, my stray reciepts and papers were interfering with their dusting though, so I resolved the problem.
Overall, living by myself for the first time has been quite what I expected. I absolutely love it, and absolutely hate it. I'm pretty sure my life has never been less exciting, which was something to be excited about in and of itself, initially. I have time for reading, writing, and artistic endeavors, and I can do precisely what I want at any given time. Had I things to do on what I like to call "the outside world," this setup would be ideal. Home has never been the kind of reprieve that I've always heard it should be, although living with only my roommate in Cincinnati is pretty damn close, because we tend to share a wavelength.
Before this, there was Seattle, which was fine, but I lived with two other guys in what was essentially in student housing with apparently paper-thin walls. The noise alone would have kept me awake but it didn't help that I slept on a box spring for half of the quarter.
California wasn't bad, but an unstable, pill-popping roommate made for a nerve-racking experience.
In Atlanta, I lived with a guy who called the cops without telling me because he thought I was smoking weed in my room (I wasn't). He also habitually turned the thermostat to like fifty degrees in the height of summer. After moving out of there, I shacked up with a guy who lost all sense of ...sense when alcohol touched his lips, and his "girlfriend" down the hall would come ring the doorbell at all hours of the night and start crying and wailing as soon as she entered the apartment. Naturally, I spent many undue wakeful hours on my oversized bean-bag.
In Rhode Island, I lived with an utter sociopath who could not understand the concept of being alone for a moment.
Every time in between I lived in Cincinnati with five other guys in a filthy, dilapitated and chronically loud apartment.
Of course, before that I was living with the parents, who are perhaps the worst roommates of all.
Now, don't get me wrong, I'm thrilled that I was able to live at all of these places. I revel in discomfort and a certain amount of chaos, if merely for the learning experience it inevitably brings. But as far as homes go, these don't exactly describe the quintessential elements. Which brings us back to my original point, which is, as an apartment, this place kicks ass. As a lifestyle, not so much. If you think I'm just being dramatic, consider this: There is not a single bar in town. No shitty little pool hall, no bowling alley, no seedy local haunt. The village consists essentially of one intersection, and there is no foot traffic to speak of at any given point. Oh well.
I spent a weekend (and change) in Canada, two weeks after my arrival here. Myself and two other co-workers spent four days working overnight to put up displays in a newly opened Wal-Mart. I can say unequivocally that this was the least rewarding work I have ever done, but considering the overtime I was paid for it, I'm ecstatic I was able to do it.
I was later employed to take down a similar display at a place called Mack Studios in Auburn, New York. While we were taking immense custom pieces of Plastic, Cintra, and Aluminum and throwing them into makeshift dumpsters, I asked a co-worker how long the display had been up in the Target store it was designed for. He replied, "Oh, this one has been up forever...probably about five months."
This statement confirmed the sick feeling I had in my stomach while I was installing the Wal-Mart displays. Not only was all of this stuff transient and virtually meaningless, but it would be carted off to a landfill in a matter of months. This was only one store, and this does not even consider the enormous amount of plastic garbage that these meaningless displays would help to sell. We were in the cosmetics aisle of all places, too. If anything can make a person with any semblance of a conscience question his or her profession, it's putting up wasteful and meaningless displays to sell wasteful and meaningless packages full of wasteful and meaningless product. The whole process has no real value. Of course, you could argue with me over the value of makeup, but regardless I think my point is clear.
It feels absolutely stupid that I should have to deliver a caveat to explain my position, but I am not, historically speaking, an eco-crusader. But this profession (industrial design), really makes you consider your impact on the earth. You don't even have to care about nature to be concerned about it - the sheer volume of garbage with no intrinsic value that we generate is mind-boggling. Just the other day I was working on a product that would be licensed with Disney characters. My fellow designers told me that there is typically about a three day turnover for projects like this one. I couldn't help but consider the irony that this "bang-it-out" job would produce MASS QUANTITIES of stuff that in likely a matter of months would be discarded and replaced with something new.
Unfortunately it is a fantasy to think that if I didn't participate that it wouldn't happen. The environmental crises we face parallel that of the political, in that our own individual efforts are overrun by the madding crowd. It is no wonder why the political machine is referred to as just that. It's like a locomotive, either hop on, or get the hell out of the way. Sure, I could protest the government in a way that makes sense to me, and end up in jail, or have physical harm visited upon me. Likewise, I could protest the manufacturing industry, and end up penniless.
Basically, I have narrowed my life goals into two options, dictated by not only my political and social ideology, but also by my own nature. My first option is to try to find a consultancy that shares my concerns and only designs products that have real value, as well as submitting to the force and violence of the government as much as I need to in order to survive, while attempting to slowly convince people of it's evils. My second option is to make some money and tour the world until I find a place that speaks to my heart and is devoid of all the soul-crushing consumerism that becomes more and more offensive every year.
Even as I write this, in the back of my head I can picture myself doing what is "reasonable," which is to find the least offensive job...eventually, and traveling the world as a tourist. I believe that if I don't get out of the states while I am young, preferably in a less-than-responsible manner, I will be stuck here, and fall into the rut known as life. It seems that so many people had wild aspirations as a youth, but abandon them as they become more of a "realist." Well, it seems the door is closing on the era where Americans have the means and the privilege to travel the world - though I've been wrong before - but I certainly don't want to be another bitter xenophobic man sitting in an armchair somewhere talking petty politics to his disinterested progeny.
But enough of that. I am currently residing in Skaneateles, New York. Every day I wake up, get ready for work, and by the time I'm out the door (inevitably a few minutes late already), I see my car windshield, and realize that I'm going to be later. For some odd reason it's impossible for me to remember this simple fact.
Fortunately, I live less than a mile from my work, so when my car battery committed suicide about a month ago, I could walk to work in only moderate discomfort. In fact, I rather enjoyed the walk - I would listen to Gogol Bordello in the morning and evening travel, and imagine that I am in some bizarre tundra in Ukraine, rather than a hibernating village in upstate New York.
This quarter has been an alarming lesson in my own willpower. After my car began working, I wanted to continue walking because of the enjoyment I derived from it. However, the convenience of the car almost always wins. I bought an expensive keyboard and brought along painting materials because I'm tired of wasting time in the ways that I normally do, and thought it might be beneficial to hone some skills. I would spend hours banging away at the keyboard, and finished an entire painting in one night...before my internet and cable starting working.
When I arrived in Skaneateles, I had an apartment set up already. It is one of those corporate housing-type arrangements, which, upon first encounter, looks identical to a hotel room. I immediately shifted around some of the furniture, hid all the brochures, and consumed the complimentary foodstuffs. Three weeks later, I recieved a note on my door that made it very clear that the landlord was not pleased with the way I was treating the apartment. I found this pretty surprising, considering the state of the apartment was about one tenth of the deterioration factor that I allowed to plague some of my previous residences. Apparently, my stray reciepts and papers were interfering with their dusting though, so I resolved the problem.
Overall, living by myself for the first time has been quite what I expected. I absolutely love it, and absolutely hate it. I'm pretty sure my life has never been less exciting, which was something to be excited about in and of itself, initially. I have time for reading, writing, and artistic endeavors, and I can do precisely what I want at any given time. Had I things to do on what I like to call "the outside world," this setup would be ideal. Home has never been the kind of reprieve that I've always heard it should be, although living with only my roommate in Cincinnati is pretty damn close, because we tend to share a wavelength.
Before this, there was Seattle, which was fine, but I lived with two other guys in what was essentially in student housing with apparently paper-thin walls. The noise alone would have kept me awake but it didn't help that I slept on a box spring for half of the quarter.
California wasn't bad, but an unstable, pill-popping roommate made for a nerve-racking experience.
In Atlanta, I lived with a guy who called the cops without telling me because he thought I was smoking weed in my room (I wasn't). He also habitually turned the thermostat to like fifty degrees in the height of summer. After moving out of there, I shacked up with a guy who lost all sense of ...sense when alcohol touched his lips, and his "girlfriend" down the hall would come ring the doorbell at all hours of the night and start crying and wailing as soon as she entered the apartment. Naturally, I spent many undue wakeful hours on my oversized bean-bag.
In Rhode Island, I lived with an utter sociopath who could not understand the concept of being alone for a moment.
Every time in between I lived in Cincinnati with five other guys in a filthy, dilapitated and chronically loud apartment.
Of course, before that I was living with the parents, who are perhaps the worst roommates of all.
Now, don't get me wrong, I'm thrilled that I was able to live at all of these places. I revel in discomfort and a certain amount of chaos, if merely for the learning experience it inevitably brings. But as far as homes go, these don't exactly describe the quintessential elements. Which brings us back to my original point, which is, as an apartment, this place kicks ass. As a lifestyle, not so much. If you think I'm just being dramatic, consider this: There is not a single bar in town. No shitty little pool hall, no bowling alley, no seedy local haunt. The village consists essentially of one intersection, and there is no foot traffic to speak of at any given point. Oh well.
I spent a weekend (and change) in Canada, two weeks after my arrival here. Myself and two other co-workers spent four days working overnight to put up displays in a newly opened Wal-Mart. I can say unequivocally that this was the least rewarding work I have ever done, but considering the overtime I was paid for it, I'm ecstatic I was able to do it.
I was later employed to take down a similar display at a place called Mack Studios in Auburn, New York. While we were taking immense custom pieces of Plastic, Cintra, and Aluminum and throwing them into makeshift dumpsters, I asked a co-worker how long the display had been up in the Target store it was designed for. He replied, "Oh, this one has been up forever...probably about five months."
This statement confirmed the sick feeling I had in my stomach while I was installing the Wal-Mart displays. Not only was all of this stuff transient and virtually meaningless, but it would be carted off to a landfill in a matter of months. This was only one store, and this does not even consider the enormous amount of plastic garbage that these meaningless displays would help to sell. We were in the cosmetics aisle of all places, too. If anything can make a person with any semblance of a conscience question his or her profession, it's putting up wasteful and meaningless displays to sell wasteful and meaningless packages full of wasteful and meaningless product. The whole process has no real value. Of course, you could argue with me over the value of makeup, but regardless I think my point is clear.
It feels absolutely stupid that I should have to deliver a caveat to explain my position, but I am not, historically speaking, an eco-crusader. But this profession (industrial design), really makes you consider your impact on the earth. You don't even have to care about nature to be concerned about it - the sheer volume of garbage with no intrinsic value that we generate is mind-boggling. Just the other day I was working on a product that would be licensed with Disney characters. My fellow designers told me that there is typically about a three day turnover for projects like this one. I couldn't help but consider the irony that this "bang-it-out" job would produce MASS QUANTITIES of stuff that in likely a matter of months would be discarded and replaced with something new.
Unfortunately it is a fantasy to think that if I didn't participate that it wouldn't happen. The environmental crises we face parallel that of the political, in that our own individual efforts are overrun by the madding crowd. It is no wonder why the political machine is referred to as just that. It's like a locomotive, either hop on, or get the hell out of the way. Sure, I could protest the government in a way that makes sense to me, and end up in jail, or have physical harm visited upon me. Likewise, I could protest the manufacturing industry, and end up penniless.
Basically, I have narrowed my life goals into two options, dictated by not only my political and social ideology, but also by my own nature. My first option is to try to find a consultancy that shares my concerns and only designs products that have real value, as well as submitting to the force and violence of the government as much as I need to in order to survive, while attempting to slowly convince people of it's evils. My second option is to make some money and tour the world until I find a place that speaks to my heart and is devoid of all the soul-crushing consumerism that becomes more and more offensive every year.
Even as I write this, in the back of my head I can picture myself doing what is "reasonable," which is to find the least offensive job...eventually, and traveling the world as a tourist. I believe that if I don't get out of the states while I am young, preferably in a less-than-responsible manner, I will be stuck here, and fall into the rut known as life. It seems that so many people had wild aspirations as a youth, but abandon them as they become more of a "realist." Well, it seems the door is closing on the era where Americans have the means and the privilege to travel the world - though I've been wrong before - but I certainly don't want to be another bitter xenophobic man sitting in an armchair somewhere talking petty politics to his disinterested progeny.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
