Facebook

It's ironic.
Facebook is what they call a networking site. In large parts it is just that, and when its used that way its a beautiful thing. Facebook is also a good place to find lost friends of the past. But what I have found to be the main use of facebook is self-aggrandizing, and self promotion. People write about "themselves", their favorite songs, movies, and books. They write notes, and make witty and/or interesting statuses. Think about how easy it is to make yourself look at least 6 times cooler than you really are on facebook. The presentation of oneself that is put on facebook, may be the grossest exaggeration of that human being in the history of the world. Most of my friends are flawed, dirty, humans; regular people. But on facebook, I'm actually proud they're my friends! I am not exempt from the propensity to promote yours truly on facebook. It's too easy. It's ironic. It's sadly ironic. Because the point of facebook is to network and meet people, and make things happen in our world. But chances are the person you see on facebook is a cooler version of the actual person, and therefore not really the person. Therefore you may have 2,000 "friends" and none of their pages represent them truly. Of course, we never befriend people we don't already know, so this eases the phoniness a bit. But the irony remains. Facebook sadly has not lived up to it's potential. We can curb this trend though, by simply refusing to view facebook as an opportunity to push #1, but by seeing it as an opportunity to make a global impact in some sort of creative/positive way.
I don't know. It's still going to be difficult to not have the coolest statuses. I actually use facebook for this as much as anything myself. And you have to admit friends, I have a way with words.

Peace on Thanksgiving

Are you the only politically liberal person in your family? Did you just spend your thanksgiving enduring an endless amount of Barack jokes? Are you the only political conservative in your family, and spent your thanksgiving enduring the "greedy white man" comments uttered by rich white people? Are you the only Roman Catholic, the only animal rights activist refusing to eat the Turkey your aunt slaved over, the only Protestant, the only agnostic, the only Christian, the only football fan, the only non-football fan? And yet you would never say to these people who are so different than you what you say about their kind to your friends. For instance you may think that "all Republicans need to taken outside and shot!"; except for Grandpa right? Sometimes, these differences divide families, but more often than not the differences themselves are the result of deep wounding. And usually in healthy relationships, the differences don't divide the relationship. Hmm...? I wonder if the family members who get along are compromisers? I wonder if they are peacemakers? More thoughts later.

Commercialism

The problem that a lot of people have with liking the more popular music is that it is too commercialized. It seems that eventually everybody's favorite band breaks up or sells out. It is a common indie theme to talk of the dilemma between having an art and having a career and how it doesn't seem that you can have both. A lot of times when a band signs on to a major label, it means that they going for a wider audience and so they broaden their music's "appeal" which usually means that they become a little more shallow, or bubble gum than they were before. Many people claim to be angered that their band has now sold out, or gone commercial, but what they don't seem to acknowledge is that they've always been commercial. Isn't just selling your music commercial? You may be legitimately upset that they've changed their style to reach a bigger audience, but you can't say that that automatically makes the new music bad, or imply that they were never commercial. The issue is that you want to see someone's "genuine" art, not the music they make to impress others. I can get that, but that has nothing to do with the quality of the music. There is excellent popular music and terrible independent music. Independent music tends to produce more genuine artists, with a more genuine fan base. But independent does not automatically equal quality.
Also, commercialism is not one of those things that you can be wishy-washy with. It's sort of a black and white thing. If you buy anything, that's advertised for the purpose of making money off of you cannot complain about commercialism. Perhaps capitalism and commercialism is stealing our souls and replacing it with a need for materials. But maybe its not. Economics is a consequence of the fall of Adam, and any system set up is a system based on the knowledge of the potential of sin. Every economic system is a system of distrust, a failsafe, a check on society. Therefore if an economic system is right in its assumptions, that at least enough people can't be trusted, then it will compromised. Ideally, capitalism seeks to provide good for everyone by providing work for everyone, but this also makes a way for exploiters to take advantage of it. Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water. If the issue here is authenticity, let's agree to be up front about what we're selling, and actually sell something that's worth having, not for greed's sake, but for simply making a living. Let's sell good music, because we believe its beneficial to hear, not because we want to make more money than we need. Because some are greedy, let us not dismiss an entire economic system. For authenticity is not derived from a any system, but from honesty within the system. Let no one hate.

Musical taste is subjective. (A rant)

I'd rather be the shallow clueless adorer of pop, than the self-righteous snobbish follower of wherever the underground is these days. In fact I assume that to someone or some society out there I am a lame sheep following that rest of the "indie" herd, and that these people whoever they are have no such label. Perhaps they are the real independents. I could live my life clamoring through old record stores to find the diamonds in the rough, to always like the band that nobody's ever heard of, or I can like what I like come what criticism, and nose raising may. I could realize that I am not taking my cd's with me when I die and that God will not love me more for watching foreign films and hate me more for owning everything Death Cab ever did. It's all relative anyway; the whole scene thing. Some of you are saying "Death Cab?", and I am saying to you. "They're better than whatever Taylor Swift crap you're listening to", then tomorrow some kid who is cooler than me will show me some CD put out by some electronica punk country band from Russia called "I can see Sarah Palin from my Bathroom", who only sing in 2nd century Latin, and I'll say I've never heard of them, and they suck. And this kid will inevitably say to me "They're better than whatever Death Cab crap you're listening to. "Shall I at this point be ashamed of Death Cab?" No. If I don't know where this indie enlightenment ends, I am content to end it here.
By the way I am convinced that snobbery goes both ways. People should be allowed to like what they like without people with inferiority complex's making them feel guilty. But really, some of you perpetuate the snob image, because you actually think of yourself as better if you have "better taste" in music, or wine, or coffee, or anything. Just get over it please. Everyone like what you like and demand that Taylor Swift propaganda stops being pushed on the increasing herd complex of our youth. If you like bad music, you like bad music. But don't act like you know its good. For there's always someone out there who will say about your favorite band what you say about somebody else's favorite band. You know what; musical taste is subjective. Sorry. It is. I am really not as angry as I sound in that last part. I intended this to be satirical and funny. So... please get that vibe.

Lies

Sometimes I say things and those things are lies. I do not intend this to be so when I make the original statement. I do mean what I say. I did mean to write about God and art, but upon writing about it I discovered that I didn't know what I was talking about. It was vomitous mass of the worse kind; a disjointed tirade that is not even funny, nor true. I am sorry. Shall I cease to assume that my mere opinions matter that much? I am glad they seem to matter to you. Thank you for allowing me to rant and to rant again.

Briefly, art is 1) a creation or 2)the denotation of the enterprise of creation. If the thing was not there before person A put it there then the now existent thing, abstract or concrete, is art. God is the original artist. Therefore, whenever one endeavors to create a work of art one endeavors to copy God. There is no shame in this provided that the artist realizes that his art is a copy. But most artists today don't seem to realize this. The pinnacle of modern art seems to be originality, coupled with aesthetic beauty. This combination we call creativity, a term that we consider, curiously enough, unquestionably virtuous. Creative people in our culture are sought after, praised, adored, financially compensated and sometimes exploited. And creative people exist everywhere. They obviously exist in the world of music, art, fashion, theater, and writing. But creative people are sought after in the worlds of business and athletics too. Creativity is a hot commodity. But as it pertains to artists i.e. painters, sculptors, writers, etc. , the cancer of egotism has somehow invaded the scene. Today's artist seems to be as protective of his art as he is his own soul, because his art is indeed his own soul, and perhaps this is the major problem. Perhaps another related problem is our modern perception of art as being a personal expression. I will try to show here what the problem is and why it's a problem, why proper art is an expression, that lays no claim to originality, or the personal and how this view of art will effect how it is used in the church.
A work of art isn't necessarily a personal expression. It certainly may be, but may easily not be. I may take a block of wood, carve into the shape of a swan, go show my friend my creation, and he may ask: "What are you trying to say by this swan?" and I might legitimately say. "It is a swan?" It may not be a personal expression of anything. But most of the time, art that is meaningful is expressive, and what it expresses is of great importance. Today, art often expresses the artist's feeling. It may sound insensitive to say that this is shallow, but think of a public speaker who means to say something profound to a group of eager students. And then he gets up, and says, "I am happy". I am assuming that art ought to communicate beyond mere expression, but some seem to think that there's merit in the mere expression, and the that the follow-up question: Why are you happy? is not only meaningless but almost contemptible. Any expression has meaning as an expression, but that something has meaning does not demand it be said. It is not fair to assume that your audience ought to be as engaged as you the artist are with you're feelings. It's very simply and yes crudely, whiny. This is not to say that art that is subjective or self-analytical is not worth our attention. Surely, human feelings can be portrayed in such a way that they have universal appeal, at least enough to be discussed. And surely every person has a right to express their feelings however they want, but it does not follow that I have to consider every expression worth expressing. What I want to see from an artist is more than just an expression, but an expression expressed in a technically artful, original, beautiful, and profound way. Is this subjective? Of course, but it's art.

Oops

One post in between. Sorry. I am a liar. Jack Kerouac is a fascinating person, a legend, an impossibly brilliant handler of words, a romantic in its most complete sense, the voice of a generation, a major literary influence, a genius, and a merely average novelist. Jack writing the way that he writes about what he writes, his novels are only about traveling the country and being really stupid. But what gives the novels substance and value is not the plot, but the meaning that Kerouac seems to give to every thought, instance, moment, emotion and happening. I said he is a novelist. I am not so sure he ever really told a story, ever had a legitimate plot. But by virtue that Jack wrote it, its more than worth the read