Good Ol' Andy

After reading Andy Warhol's The Philosophy of Andy Warhol (From A to B and Back Again), I began pondering his section on beauty. It struck a chord - and not only because I had just been in the bathroom diagnosing my pores. 

I find his stories on beauty and self-evaluation to be genuine and real - as well as highly entertaining. Throughout his text, and specifically in this section, I find his writing style and insights mirror his art: real, simple, and yet philosophical in their own right. 

I find this line to be an extremely honest approach to how human naturally behave: In regards to temporary beauty flaws which, according to Warhol, we should air - saying that we're working on them, and things wont, in essence, always be this bad - he writes, "If they really do like you for yourself, they'll be willing to use their imagination of what you must look like without your temporary beauty problems" (65). He doesn't mention them accepting you for who you are and that beauty isn't the most important thing, as some authors do. But, rather, he says if you're liked, they'll be willing to look past your temporary flaw until you're able to fix it. Hilarious. 

And, very true. Beauty DOES matter. A person, by looking good, will find individual's around them respond better. They'll be more receptive. This can be true when flashing a smile, smelling nice, or putting on a pair of earrings. It's humanistic. We, as humans, are naturally attracted to beautiful things. It would defy nature to say everyone has equal opportunity in this regard. Although, having a beautiful mind can set an individual apart from the rest - in a different, more distinct way - beauty is something we're born with - there's no rhyme and no reason, and it certainly isn't far - but, there it is. 

What I find most interesting about beauty, however, he doesn't touch on: how and why people define beauty. Everyone's definition will be slightly different. And, is there anything or anyone that is universally beautiful? 

Since I'm in the IAS program, and its emphasis is on interdisciplinary studies, I think I ought to reference a text I'm reading in BIS 380: Art and Its Context - which touches on beauty as well. Alberti, in his text entitled On Painting, discusses beauty's definition as dealing with proper shading - thus nothing with dark or very light angles. As well as having proper symmetry. Thus, beautiful people will be those who have proportional features, as well as no jutting lines of point on their faces or bodies. It is ironic that Warhol, who embodies unfortunate, unsymmetrical features riddled throughout his face, has decided to dedicate his life to art - and the beauty he finds within it. 

What I do find most beautiful about Andy Warhol is his ability to relay interesting tid-bits of knowledge in a genuine manner. It seems, just like Breton did, that he is writing as random thoughts flow into his head about any given subject. It feels natural. And yet, he is conveying a deeper message. Taking what had been intellectual, deep, researched, and heavy concepts and fitting them into the everyday thoughts that we, as rational humans, ponder as well. He is thus, allowing for philosophical thoughts to fit into his everyday musings. He is the ultimate, natural, everyday thinker. And, that is, in itself, beautiful. 

Speaking of beauty: check out my transformation into Oprah below :)

Celebrity Morph by MyHeritage

MyHeritage: Family trees - Genealogy - Celebs

In class Screenings

1. I, for one, found these two films to be fascinating!

2. Alfred Leslie's "The Last Clean Shirt"

What I wrote as I watched:

1st round: "I want to put the tape over her mouth. No seat belts. The only time she stops talking is to take a drag. Invading his space. She has a wedding ring. Singing. Animated. He laughs briefly. She does not have an agenda: you could put her in any setting anywhere and she would keep doing and saying the same exact things, without cause. 10 min. journey. 

2nd round: "Capitalizes script to show emotion. 'I wish men would take better care of themselves' - then she lights up. Filmmaker must think she is the antithesis of bring 'nature of all of us, we want to want to be connected' - honks and responses from other drivers in reaction to their presence mirrors this thought. 

3rd round: Man's perspective. "nothing worse than someone else thinking'. I can think of something worse than that: thinking for someone else. 

3. "Chantal Ackerman "News from home" 

The shots are visual representations of her own reactions to reading the letters. The intermissions are her daily dealings in between letters - her emotional state in between letters. 

At least this is what I have conceived. 

I like her filming technique. It is memorable, intriguing, and sparks thought. 

In fact, these films both spark thought. Most movies I watch leave me antsy. It's almost like I am over-stimulated by the fast flickering objects and realistic techniques. But these, very simple and basic films left me wanting more. Bazaar. 

One random thought I wrote down while watching: "Coughing and babies crying are the two most annoying sounds" - I thought about why this would be - "because they are engrained in our survival mechanisms. Avoid coughing - leads to illness. Fix the crying - help the child to be content. If we, as humans, found these sounds to be pleasing we would not be survivors. " 

That's all I've got. 

I love how this class almost evoked randomness. I am quite enjoying not having to overanalyze - but at the same time, I am completely aware of what I am continually synthesizing - on a level I was not previously aware of. Once again, bazaar. 

Response to Nadja

 I found Andre' Breton's Nadja to be riddled with pearls of wisdom; but, illusive wisdom that was swirled around and not exactly forthcoming. Almost as if he, without having a plan, sat down and wrote whatever popped into his mind. And, it is this visual - of an artist hunkered over a table with pen to lip, spark of thought, and the continual scratch of pen - that made me want to wade through his ostensibly random and compiled pearls - keeping the very best for myself. 

And for some reason, I feel the need to randomly list those thoughts of Breton's I found most interesting: so, here they are without method on my part, and with no call to action on your, the reader's, part: 

It is our particular aptitudes which will define our own, unique experience of the day-to-day. Thus, no one individual's experience will mirror another's. 

How are mind arranges thoughts and actions is far more interesting, according to Breton, than how our mind regards the arrangement of certain objects or events. Thus, the dream state is particularly interesting because it is our brains synthesizing and arranging what it has experienced. 

authenticity is sublimely important. Breton advocates it for himself and for others. Be you! And, furthermore, write about yourself - not about characters who are like you. For that only muddles and polishes over the rough edges that define and make an individual who they uniquely are. Live in a glass house. Sheltering oneself from the world, and in turn sheltering the world from all that makes us who we uniquely are, is not honorable. 

He is a judger it would seem. But, in doing so, he is discovering what he is not - and who he does not want to be - his "ghost" form. He is also discerning his own individual life's purpose. 

He takes the time to focus on facts - facts which may appear to be pure observation to most individuals, but which to Breton are possible signals. And with this thought random, purposeful appearance of Nadja in the text is set up. 

I love how he just randomly writes, stating "I shall discuss these things without pre-established order, and according to the mood of the moment which lets whatever survives survive" (23). 

Breton's banal images evoke deep thought. Very surrealist. 

They, though, interrupt the reader's natural reading rhythm. 

Breton, throughout the text, seems to be working out his everyday emotional reactions to everyday circumstances - thus, he has used Nadja as a way to catalogue his thoughts (without actually organizing or cataloguing anything)

Self-evaluation should be feared. It is inadequate. 

It is as if Breton is making a point not to arrest meaning from what he has written. He would like the pages with his words on them to hit the floor - never to be diagnosed, only to read, categorized, and filed away in our dream state. To perhaps be revisited but only on a subconscious level. 

And this concludes my random thoughts regarding Breton's own random thoughts. Hopefully they too will be meaningless and murky. 

The Nature Of Everyday Man: As Seen Everyday

An Everyday Example of Everyday Life

I was watching Seinfeld last night, and it came to my attention that the very premise of the show was the everyday. It was literally a show about nothing. Just the day to day dealings of friends, and the everyday, universally-charged problems, interactions, associations, ups and downs every human experiences. 

Here's the Seinfeld blog:

which, to be honest, if more of nothing. But interesting nothing, at that. 

On this site "Stan the Caddy" writes, "Seinfeld was a show about nothing. But what does this mean? How can a show be about nothing? When pitching the 'Jerry' pilot to NBC, in The Pitch, George describes the concept: 'nothing happens on the show. You see, it's just like life. You know, you eat, you go shopping, you read...You eat, you read, You go shopping.' The show about nothing was a show that dealt with every day life. Take The Parking Garage, for example. Here is an entire episode that takes place entirely in a parking garage, as Jerry George, Kramer, and Elaine search for their car. Similarly, The Chinese Restaurant is an entire episode spend waiting for a table at a restaurant. It was a show about nothing!"

I couldn't agree more. In order to help the class grasp the very essence of the every day we should, perhaps, watch an episode or two? I'm only kidding. Sort of ;)

Monopoly, Baby!!

I love Monopoly. Maybe it's my love of money and winning that fuels my desire for competitive play. I've caught myself smelling the fake bills before (embarrassing!). There are so many wonderful things about this game: #1 I usually win. It is very much a game of strategy. Well, alright, so it's mostly luck. #2. You get to buy property: how fun is that? Especially in the new themed editions that they keep releasing. Seattleopoly is the best! #3. You get to handle fake money and pretend it's real #4. The little pieces are charming and they're actually made of metal-versus the plastic things they spring on us nowadays. #5. Alliances can be forged, cheating is encouraged, and if you get up to pee you're probably going to be missing a few bills when you return to gameplay. 

The only downside to this fabulous game is the time it takes to play. Now, for me, who can be categorized as an any-time, any-day avid player, this little set-back is a no-biggie. But, I have found, for others this is a huge deterrent. So, finding a group who's ready to get their game-on has, at times, been difficult. I have noticed with our increasing age, my  peer group is less-likely to be willing to play long, drawn out games. Most games don't take as long as Monopoly, so they're voted on over my beloved game when it comes time to decide which one to play. 

Time is definitely a factor, not only for those who have decided to begin playing, but for the actual gameplay itself, as well. In the beginning, gameplay is rapid. Roll, buy, go to jail, roll, buy, have a freak-out over how quickly your money depleted: then, once all the properties have been bought-up, the "waiting for doom" commences. Inevitably, overtime, someone's money supply will slowly dwindle as they repeatedly land on another's property. And, inversely, another's will grow with the added funds. Until, the dreaded words are uttered: "I'd like to buy hotels". And from there on out, it's dunzo for anyone not on Annie's team. So, like life itself, this game mirrors the everyday: it begins with rapid growth...holds stagnant... there's a slow decline..and then in one fell swoop, the game is over. 

This game is also reflective of the "real world" in that it is a game based on competition, money (or forms or trade), bribery, tears, elatedness, survival, partnerships, possessions, stagnation, decline, and eventually death. What a lovely thought. 

This game, surprisingly, gives great insight into my everyday life. Firstly, it shows that I revel in doing small things. I mean come on, it's just a game, but I love it! Secondly, my love for Monopoly is an insight into my temperament: I am able to slow down in a fast-paced world. Thirdly, alas, it's probably also a reflection of my productivity-level: three hours go by..what have I done? If it's a good day I beat someone at a game. :)