The Truth in Shadows

I went to the art museum and was immediately struck by this piece and another like it. 

What interested me most about them was that it was extremely difficult to make sense of the shapes and lines I was seeing. There were so many intricacies that I was a tad overwhelmed. However, after a few minutes my eyes needed a break, so I looked at the wall, and that's where I began to spark something. In looking at the shadows of the sculptures, I was better able to understand what they were and methodize what I thought of them. It's because the shadows only showed what was most prominent in each sculpture and diluted the details. The shadows showed the core of the piece. This led me to wonder what it is that we see in the shadows of humans and what we can do to influence that. If the artist of this sculpture intended for the observer to focus simply on its shadow (who knows, maybe he did?), what would he have done differently to manipulate it? What would we as humans do to manipulate our shadows if we had a choice? I don't mean changing the way we look, but more the way our inner selves are represented. Is it when we reach 'Z' that we don't feel the need to tweak our shadows - when our shadows already truly represent ourselves?

From Objects to Equals

This piece is from the art museum, and it immediately reminded me of The Second Sex by Simone de Beauvoir.

I'm not sure if both sculptures are of women, but for my purposes they will be. This is a great representation of what de Beauvoir described society's view of women as: beings with mishaped minds and bereft of arms or hands to help themselves out of the pit of submission they were thrown into. That's a lot of words, but basically there is a common portrayal of women being less intelligent than men and helpless in the matter of promoting themselves in the world. There is a stigma that women cannot serve in a political office simply because they are women who go through P.M.S. and cannot be relied upon to make important decisions. There are a lot of stigmas like that, and I like to think that this sculpture is ironically mocking those misconceptions. I like to think that the way they are descending the steps in the sculpture means that they are taking themselves off the pedastals they were put on by men as objects to look at and immersing themselves in the world as equals.

Clones and Species-Being

I'm currently reading a book called Never Let Me Go, and it's about an alternative society in which there are clones of people that live their lives for the purpose of eventually donating their organs to their original versions, and this whole idea made me think of Karl Marx and the idea of species-being. This type of living - going through the motions of school and relationships all the while knowing their fates - it made me think about what Marx is trying to ward humans against, which is simply being a "slave to nature." These clones are not only losing themselves in the mindless production of objects - they are the objects. For the most part, these characters did nothing to rebel against this system they were thrust into, which I found surprising. They are clones, but they are also humans with human needs. I think the obstacle that was stopping them from fighting their fates was the fact that they didn't know they had a choice. Dare I bring Sartre into this discussion? Going back to my main point, these clones were being harvested for their organs, and these organs were going to people who would somehow use them better.  How would they use them better? I haven't finished the book yet, but my guess is that it is believed that the clones have no souls. Under that assumption, maybe the choices the clones would make would not be as ethically or socially acceptable, therefore their rights to make them should be taken away. So is it the presence of our souls that gives us the right to make decisions and live a full life? Is that part of our species-being?

The Evolution of Fruit Loops and Humanity

I was having Fruit Loops for the first time in a long time and I had one of those moments like in Swann’s Way Overture when he had a blast of a memory. It was really strong of my grandma’s lake house up North because she always had them in the mini cereal boxes I was obsessed with. It got me to thinking that I was truly convinced that each color of Fruit Loop was a different flavor; purple was grape and yellow was lemon and green was apple... I was so convinced that I really tasted the difference. I really did. So what kinds of differences do we still “taste” as adults? The distinction between races? Between men and women? One day, will society "taste" everyone the same? 

Is It Possible to Understand the Future?

A couple of days ago I watched a movie called A Single Man in my TCOM class. The basic premise of it is a man (the lovely Colin Firth), so heartbroken over the loss of a loved one (Matthew Goode), that he spends the entirety of the movie either preparing for his suicide or flashing back to better times. One of the big messages in the film was the idea that when everything becomes clear, when all the troubles and problems of your life either dissolve or become solved, that is when you will die. This is because there is nothing left to live for really. There is nothing left for you to figure out. My professor, after the movie was over, made a joke that he gets really worried whenever he feels like he's figured something  out because then he thinks, "Shoot! Am I about to die?" So this idea is an interesting one to ponder. I can relate it back to To The Lighthouse because this clarity could in a way be 'Z'.

However, when looking at a quote from Leaves of Grass, which says that "The past and the present wilt - I have filled them, emptied them,/And proceed to fill my next fold of the future" it offers an opposing view. I get the impression that to fill and to empty the past and present is to come to an understanding with them. Therefore, to understand them is to reach clarity, and according to A Single Man that's the end. But Whitman says that he proceeds to fill the future. Does that mean that when you reach clarity in your life it is impossible to have a future? Or is it just impossible to understand the future?

What If the Lighthouse Flickers?

I think this should have been my first blog post, simply because I chose my background with this video in mind, but I'm glad I waited because this artifact means so much more now after reading To the Lighthouse.

So I watched this video on HitRECord.com and it was so amazingly beautiful that I couldn't quite make sense of it at all. Now I can make connections. And these connections are pretty grand.

We've talked about the lighthouse and how it is possibly a guide and a thing to strive toward. We've thought of it as a 'Z'. Now let's think about it as something that flickers. In the narration that goes along with this video (which I have included below), flickering is something to be desired. When you think about the lighthouse flickering, it seems like that would be a bad thing. It means that something in the connection is going wrong. But maybe not. So what does this mean if the lighthouse flickers? It could possibly mean that the 'Z' in your life is weakening slightly. Maybe the flickering represents the uncertainty of what you want your 'Z' to be. It's turning on and off and becoming unreliable as a steady source of light toward your goal, therefore you might need to make some changes in your life to strengthen that light yourself, so to speak. When something is flickering, there is an automatic need to fix it.
So do you have to go to the lighthouse in order to tighten that lightbulb and stop the flickering?
How do you get there if your lit path is unclear?
Does this lead to a more challenging course?
Does this change the course completely?
Why bother going to the lighthouse at all if even that path is unclear?
Is this related to the idea that you have to struggle a little bit in order to really learn and understand things?
I know this is a lot of questions, but there's a lot of thinking with this entry.

So here's the text:

give me all the flickering lights!

tiny specs of fluttering rays

and city glitters shimmering

but only from far away.

i want them all it's an addiction

i want the christmas lights buried in snow

and the blips in science fiction

films from years ago. 

give me all the night sky's twinkling sprinkles

and the red pulsing eyes

on tvs that standby

fading, flirting in and out

like a game of cat and mouse.

bits of foil in the distance

blowing kisses from the sun to me and

showing no resistance to the photons

that consistently pass notes on

from one lover to the other

like cupids tiny brothers.

give me all the flickering lights.

light every candle and wave every phone

glinting and bleeping and

imprinting glowing circuses

that linger while I'm sleeping.

an orchestra of weeping light

swan singing like star crossed choirs

who play themselves to me 

all night.

And here's the link to the video:

http://www.hitrecord.org/records/1236887

Virginia Woolf and Emily Dickinson Would Be Pals

When I read the line, "He could almost pity these mild cultivated people, who would be blown sky high, like bales of wool and barrels of apples, one of these days by the gunpowder that was in him." I couldn't help but relate it to one of Emily Dickinson's poems, in which she compares life to a loaded gun. However, the two connections to a gun are almost opposites. When Woolf describes it, it's the thing that has already blown, but Dickinson uses it as something that has not and may not ever blow. So why does this matter? I think it's interesting to note that like life, a gun can either make a huge impact and explode on the people around it, or it can remain unused and carry in it the potential for more. Which one is better? Each author would defend her own use of the word, but in my opinion (and in a completely non-violent manner), I would rather be a gun that fired. If my sole purpose is to shoot something, that's what I should do, I guess.

So here's Emily Dickinson's poem, "754":

My Life had stood - a Loaded Gun -
In Corners - till a Day
The Owner passed - identified -
And carried Me away -And now We roam in Sovereign Woods -
And now We hunt the Doe -
And every time I speak for Him -
The Mountains straight reply -
And do I smile, such cordial light
Upon the Valley glow -
It is as a Vesuvian face
Had let its pleasure through -
And when at Night - Our good Day done -
I guard My Master's Head -
'Tis better than the Eider-Duck's
Deep Pillow - to have shared -
To foe of His - I'm deadly foe -
None stir the second time -
On whom I lay a Yellow Eye -
Or an emphatic Thumb -
Though I than He - may longer live
He longer must - than I -
For I have but the power to kill,
Without--the power to die--