Tuesday, December 28, 2010
Homeland
Monday, November 15, 2010
cognition, creation, comprehension
I might be an abstract expressionist, not just on a canvas but also in my dreams, thoughts, and view of the world. I am a being of feeling, of emotion. Though I am also rational, I connect the dots of sensory experiences with feelings and experiential emotions.
As theorists point out, “an artist need not have the feeling in question in order to express it (Freeland 156).” Many people will tell me that they experience emotions all at once or more than one at a time: angry and sad at the same time; loathing and lusting at the same time, happy and sad at the same time. I think we can feel all of these emotions in a minute’s time, but none of them at the exact same time. It’s impossible. I’m beginning to sound like a philosopher. It could be because of this class or because of my current course in philosophy. Or, maybe I’ve always been a philosopher.
As I continue, I wonder how an abstract expressionist and philosopher go together. This could end up being another one of my self-discovery writings, but there is no harm in that. See, there I go philosophizing again.
When I wake up in the morning, I feel the monotony of life: the fact that I have to wake up to another day that ends at the same time, that is filled (for now) with many of the same people. My face is the same. My eyes are still the same color. My heart is still mine, and it will continue to feel this day. On the other hand, my face is mine! And my eyes are the same color! And I’m going to feel in my heart that this day is for feeling…for newness, for growth.
Life is monotonous. It is also fresh each day. Is it possible to be these two things at the same time? Opposition could be relative, just as multitasking with multiple feelings could really happen. I am a philosopher because I think in theory and I base it on knowledge and experience. I am an abstract expressionist because, as you can read in this paper, I am experiencing utter confusion about the mumbo jumbo I am writing, and I am creating this work of writing (or art) about it. I think that’s the jest of it. Narrowing things to the jest generally helps me simplify the idea. I am a confused, empathetic, and admittedly wishy-washy person. Though I hate these terms sometimes because of their derogatory notions. This writing is abstraction: freedom from representational qualities in art; the state of preoccupation; the process of considering something independently of its associations, attributes or concrete accompaniments.
But I ask, why should things be stuck in concrete form all the time? Why can’t something work independently of its connotations, cultural assumptions, and art world criticism? It’s because we are human, I’ve figured out, that we understand things in concrete form and in context. This is art. Even though an artist’s work may be abstraction, we still have to put it into a concrete box to digest it, associate it with either the artist’s intention, our reaction and interpretation, and our judgment. I wish to be free of this monotony.
The fresh factor must be transcendent of the concrete box of this world. I believe that the nature of this God exists, and he wants us to feel it, but not necessarily understand it.
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Auto
Thursday, October 21, 2010
philosophy excerpt - a design argument for God
As I drive with my friends to Kansas City for our annual trip to Worlds Of Fun (this time, during fall break), having sarcastic arguments with underlying themes about what it means to exist (which is how I interpret them), I ponder the reason for our existence, sitting in this van, talking and laughing with one another. What are we doing here, and, of all the billions of causes for our existence here and now, there was one first cause.
It still scares me, like it did when I was a little girl, when I think about something causing these causes and how this something never had a cause. This something is God. It’s like I’m looking down a restricted line through a very narrow point of view. I look out at the trees that point up to the sky which holds the stars which extend out into the universe, however vast and large, and at the end or the beginning (or both) or encasing the entire unimaginable vast area of the universe is this strangely frightening causer, God.
I look at my friends, and first, I wonder if they think the same thing. We’re contingent beings, dependent on another. Last night, I spend time with the same friends. We were sad together because we missed our friends who have already graduated and/or have already started student teaching, taking on internships, and finding jobs. At this point in time, we are dependent on each other for fun and happiness, confidentiality, and a sense of belonging. If we were necessary beings, why would we feel this way, not as Christians, but as mere human beings?
There is a pattern, not just among Christian communities but also at the lunch table in a high school cafeteria, in the workplace, in college. We look for those in which we can see something of ourselves, so we’re not entirely dependent on our beliefs (and doubts) about existence from an ultimate creator, or an ultimate creation (the big bang theory) that eventually led to our short so-called life on earth. I even venture into the city once in a while and observe groups of friends heading to the bar, school children playing together on the playground, elderly couples walking into bingo night together. Humans are dependent on one another. This brings back a point I made in earlier writings: “How do you define yourself without comparison to others?”
I will argue that it does not matter if you’re Christian…atheist, agnostic; there is an undeniable value put upon other beings of similar substance. If you’re a “people-person,” sure it’s obvious, but even if one is a serial killer, there is some kind of significance from the human being that makes he or she worthy or unworthy of living. In other words, humans have an effect on other humans, good or bad, in the moral sense. Therefore, the value put upon existence is something of a higher power that exceeds human thought and rationality.
We just listened to a song on the radio by the Black Eyes Peas entitled, "Where Is The Love?" The final line of the song goes like this: "Father, father, father help us, we need some guidance from above." The song illustrates the need for something to look up to, to explain our existence, and to explain our existence for each other. It doesn't necessarily come from "above," but from the foundation of all causes: the first cause.
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Typography
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Dancing in the minefields
Monday, September 6, 2010
Light
-Reinhold Marxhausen