I love History and I believe that the knowledge of History is very important to know who we are and why we act / react the way we do.
One example is how the cultural heritage of the colonizers persist throughout the ages.
The USA was colonized primarily for people in search for a haven where they can follow their beliefs (religions), this is why the first amendment (the freedom of speech) is so important for the USA. But recently this fundamental foundation of the American nation has been shaken by the Fear (the fear of terrorism). Can the notion of first American settlers and the Founding Fathers be supressed by the Fear of an idea the Americans know very little?
The Americans have not realized that they are not fighting a war against a Nation, a race or religion, although the media and the majority of the American intellectuals think the opposite. Terrorism does not mean the Arabs, the muslim world or the Al-Queda, it is in fact a means to the end.
IMHO they should look at why someone chooses terrorism as an act and try to reinforce other means to achieve the same objectives.
Besides fighting against terrorist organizations, they should enfasize organizations that adopt other more peaceful means, one example is the peaceful Tibetan resistence led by His Holiness the Dalai Lama of Tibet.
In the Merriam Webster dictionary terrorism means: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.
They are fighting against power coercion (to be more precise: against one of the ways power can be exercised - with terror).
The paradox: in fighting against Terrorism, the current administration can be generating terrorism!!! Therefore in this case they have to fight against themselves!
But somehow the word has been obliterated to the meaning of all the US enemies that uses a violent method besides diplomacy or straight war confrontation.
Thursday, April 20, 2006
Saturday, April 15, 2006
The end of art as we had known it
In the process of the de-construction of art that initiated in the 20th century, I named as my favourites: the Dada group and Marcel Duchamp.
What I like in the Dadaism is the irreverence and the intent to completely break the art conventions. They introduced (or emphasized) the illogic and the randomess (before Jackson Pollock).
But it was Marcel Duchamp that put the nail in the coffin in the traditional art (and in my humble opinion destroyed the art). What to expect more of the artistic movement when the urinal is displayed as art and the start of the ready-to-made objects? When any object can be art, what distinguishes what it is art or not? Is the museum or the exposition that turns an object into art? Or is it how the audience sees an object? Then what is the role of the artist? Is the artist responsible to turn our attention to an ordinary object that we see every day? When an object stops being only utilitary to be an artistic object? When does it gain life? How does it gain life? It is us (our experience) that gives emotional significance to a mere object.
But when the artist exhibits a mere everyday object as art what is the meaning of it if we are not informed about the background that made it meaningful or does it imply that the object will have an impact on the audience. The obvious big impact is the shocking originality of it which will lose impact for other ready-to-made objects after that it is just an object with empty meaning... an empty art.
After Marcel Duchamp's urinal, I started to think of the modern and post-modern art and the artistic movements with skepticism. Except for Joseph Beuys nothing stroke me.
Still waiting for another Joseph Beuys (or Duchamp) to challenge my notion of art.
What I like in the Dadaism is the irreverence and the intent to completely break the art conventions. They introduced (or emphasized) the illogic and the randomess (before Jackson Pollock).
But it was Marcel Duchamp that put the nail in the coffin in the traditional art (and in my humble opinion destroyed the art). What to expect more of the artistic movement when the urinal is displayed as art and the start of the ready-to-made objects? When any object can be art, what distinguishes what it is art or not? Is the museum or the exposition that turns an object into art? Or is it how the audience sees an object? Then what is the role of the artist? Is the artist responsible to turn our attention to an ordinary object that we see every day? When an object stops being only utilitary to be an artistic object? When does it gain life? How does it gain life? It is us (our experience) that gives emotional significance to a mere object.
But when the artist exhibits a mere everyday object as art what is the meaning of it if we are not informed about the background that made it meaningful or does it imply that the object will have an impact on the audience. The obvious big impact is the shocking originality of it which will lose impact for other ready-to-made objects after that it is just an object with empty meaning... an empty art.
After Marcel Duchamp's urinal, I started to think of the modern and post-modern art and the artistic movements with skepticism. Except for Joseph Beuys nothing stroke me.
Still waiting for another Joseph Beuys (or Duchamp) to challenge my notion of art.
Friday, April 14, 2006
About American Press
One of the movie surprises for me was Good Night, Good Luck: a very well-written and directed movie.
But apart from the artistics qualities of the movie, it made me think about the Press in US and the role of the media in US.
In the end of the movie. Edward R Murrow and his crew is expelled from the newscast of a big broadcast company in US. Pressure from the sponsors.
The sponsors pay for the news program so that theire product can be exposed to a great number of people. The bigger the audience, more exposure, more satisfaction to the sponsor. Therefore the sponsors don't like news that can scare the audience.
The main question is:
Should the TV news program expose the Truth not matter how hard, harsh, unfavorable it is to the audience or should it please the audience?
Truth or the opium for the people.
In the movie, it is clear what was the choice they have chosen.
What about now?
If I am a conservative I will watch Fox News, if I am a hardcore conservative I can watch O' Reilley in that way they will give me what I want: news and opinion (which are very intertwined in their broadcast) that will re-inforce my point of view of the world.
I find it hard to separate the fact from the Truth in the American media. But I have to take my modesty aside and remark that I have a much better knowledge about World History and Geography than the average US citizen (which does not mean that I am an expert, just that the average American has a very poor knowledge of these subjects).
Try to imagine the confusion in the minds of the average American citizen...
We are in an era where information is readily available and easily dissiminated.
If the people are not prepare to filter the information and assimilate the hidden motives and the "inner Truth" behind each news then the flood of information will be lost.
Like if you pour the water into a upside down cup no water will flow inside the cup, if you pour the water in a cup with a hole, the water will pass through the cup but it will not be retained, if the cup has poison in it the water inside will be contaminated and not drinkable. Most of the times, the last case happens.
(I took the liberty to copy the parabole from 'The Words of My Perfect Teacher' by Patrul Rinpoche).
Bread and circus... The American democracy more and more is looking like the Roman Empire ...
(the decadent phase)
I will leave the rest to the experts....
One of the movie surprises for me was Good Night, Good Luck: a very well-written and directed movie.
But apart from the artistics qualities of the movie, it made me think about the Press in US and the role of the media in US.
In the end of the movie. Edward R Murrow and his crew is expelled from the newscast of a big broadcast company in US. Pressure from the sponsors.
The sponsors pay for the news program so that theire product can be exposed to a great number of people. The bigger the audience, more exposure, more satisfaction to the sponsor. Therefore the sponsors don't like news that can scare the audience.
The main question is:
Should the TV news program expose the Truth not matter how hard, harsh, unfavorable it is to the audience or should it please the audience?
Truth or the opium for the people.
In the movie, it is clear what was the choice they have chosen.
What about now?
If I am a conservative I will watch Fox News, if I am a hardcore conservative I can watch O' Reilley in that way they will give me what I want: news and opinion (which are very intertwined in their broadcast) that will re-inforce my point of view of the world.
I find it hard to separate the fact from the Truth in the American media. But I have to take my modesty aside and remark that I have a much better knowledge about World History and Geography than the average US citizen (which does not mean that I am an expert, just that the average American has a very poor knowledge of these subjects).
Try to imagine the confusion in the minds of the average American citizen...
We are in an era where information is readily available and easily dissiminated.
If the people are not prepare to filter the information and assimilate the hidden motives and the "inner Truth" behind each news then the flood of information will be lost.
Like if you pour the water into a upside down cup no water will flow inside the cup, if you pour the water in a cup with a hole, the water will pass through the cup but it will not be retained, if the cup has poison in it the water inside will be contaminated and not drinkable. Most of the times, the last case happens.
(I took the liberty to copy the parabole from 'The Words of My Perfect Teacher' by Patrul Rinpoche).
Bread and circus... The American democracy more and more is looking like the Roman Empire ...
(the decadent phase)
I will leave the rest to the experts....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
