Beauty, in all it's Beauty

            Wow. I do not know if I shall be able to look passed the last three minutes of the video series objectively enough to give credit to all the truth it contained. Even writing the end of that sentence made me a little ill. Shake it off….whew. So first you tell me that when beauty was based upon the principles of beauty as defined by Christian religion (yes, mr. video-man, you did mention other religions, but your screenshots only showed churches and cathedrals – I can only assume that Christianity is the one you meant to highlight) that it was done right. You say that the moral and spiritual needs of man fulfilled in man-made beauty (art) were grasped completely when God was the standard upon which that pursuit was based. Then you tell me that when science got in the way and people became skeptical of those bases, that art turned to ugliness and real beauty was forgotten. Then you tell me that beauty is a SUBSTITUTE for this religion that captured and DEFINED it?!?! What the….?!?!?! I’m sorry, but did you just miss everything else you just said?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? Really?! Seriously ?! a SUBSTITUTE?!?! Up to this point, the video described an inherent connection between what real beauty is and an attempt to connect to, reflect, and reveal some sort of “God”. How could beauty as defined in the video even exist apart from that, if all of beauty’s standards were written with that connection! Really, how could “religion” be a “beauty-substitute”? If this incredible heaven-beauty connection that video-man was pushing is true, then beauty serves to prove religion just as much as religion serves to define it. Religion cannot stand alone as something put in place of beauty – the beauty of God is intrinsic to that which truly is Christianity! Not only was that statement so contradictory to the rest of the video(s) that it made me ill, it reveals an awful understanding of religion and horrible, horrible logic!

            Okay, I feel I just repeated the same thing like, four times, but that took me so completely aback that I cannot bother to care. Anyway, up until the end, I believe that the essay and the video were in pretty strong accord, save for the fact that the essay acknowledged the hand (and duty) of Christianity in regards to beauty, rather than the hand of beauty in regards to religion. The essay was pretty spot-on I believe. I myself have heard of the contrasting symphonies of which it speaks, some completely insane and some very orderly and graceful. What I feel was not defined enough (in either the essay or the video) was the delineation between “truly creative” and “ugly”. This is something I have struggled with quite often. Even though the symphony in complete discord does not perhaps reflect “Christian beauty”, but the understanding of music, the vision, the talent….everything that went into just how bizarre it was…can be incredibly imaginative! Those sorts of pieces require a vision that so few in this world could ever even dream of. Real, quality instruments, put to unique tempo and unique sound…there is something to be said for those pieces by those who understand what the composer is doing. It may not be the most seamless song, but there is something there. And no, I’m not describing trash that is just sound. These sounds had a purpose. Like…hm…better example: contemporary art is mostly crap. However, if an artist can take something normal and beautiful and do something completely different with it, something unique, something with a real vision and use of talent through whatever medium, that doesn’t make it ugly. That doesn’t mean it is valueless just because it’s in pieces. I mean, Venus de Milo has no arms, but she’s “beautiful”. Michelangelo’s David’s hands, head, and feet are not true to real human proportion, but it’s still “beautiful”. There is a certain type of artistic license that can be had with nature and its beauty, but this fine line between inventive/unique/creative and ugly I feel was not addressed. I mean, I sculpted an iguana once. It’s a pretty awesome iguana - really accurate and well done - however just because I can replicate nature, to me doesn’t feel like I’m actually an “artist” (although some would think I am). Some people think I’m a musician too, but I am not. So I know a few chords and can appreciate the more intricate things in music that others may not recognize. So what? …We addressed this in class, when Mr. Dyck spoke about his nephew that can play music vs. his niece that can “play” music, but I just felt like the essay and videos didn’t. Those who can actually “do” will do something more.

            The video and the essay did both talk about uplifting the mundane though, and I suppose they had a point there: putting the simpler things into certain lights so that we will appreciate the truth and beauty behind them. So cool, my iguana is a “beautiful” iguana. Maybe, maybe not. Perhaps it is that I think more in terms of music. That song of Mary’s mourning at the end of the video series really spoke to that for me, as do many string-based symphonies: There is a story behind them that can only be shown by a particular manipulation of the music; one that writing is just so beyond me in grasping. I mean, if you want to make something sound sad, use minor chords. Twinkle Twinkle Little Star in a minor key is incredibly depressing. Thank you Bryan. But to turn a story into sound requires a level of real vision and composing ability that absolutely boggles my mind. To me, THAT is creating real art. That is abstract in the most beautiful form. Soooo beyond me. I wish both the video and essay would have spent more time on music….

            Overall, the way by which art should reflect real beauty and truth as expressed by the essay and (most of) the video I agreed with. Sometimes I struggle with what real creativity is, however….for myself, it is often times the creativity and ingenuity behind the work that is more beautiful and fascinating than the end product. 

Conundrum of a Cloud

Okay, so this poem isn't that great, but it has a real meaning to me. People think I'm a good artist, but the truth is I am not. Whether the medium is words or graphite or paint, I can only ever make decent art when my mind goes to a particular place that I can never get it to by sheer will. It's really annoying. Honestly, no matter how I try, that wolf I painted on that reversible coffin for Walker's class not only could I never ever replicate, but I couldn't paint anything that decent right now. I couldn't sculpt like I made that iguana, I could not envision a Model-T in a box of pencils. This frustration came to a head last night when I watched Hugo. That movie was the most AMAZING piece of art...my mind totally went to that place, like, extreme. But when I tried to draw, I couldn't hold on to anything. See, when I do create a good sketch, or make something people think is "good", it's only ever a crude replication of something that's already there. I can't REALLY create anything, like the stuff in Hugo. While I can only roughly mimic the beauty of the world around me, there are others in the world that can do so much more. I love/hate those people!! I couldn't even hold on to one vision to replicate after watching that movie though. It was really frustrating. Soooooo I turned my symbol of a "cloud" from class into a poem about all this. Yay! Here goes!


Mimicry is the 
Most sincere form of flattery,
They tell me - 
Just look up, see
That celestial ballerina
Extend her cotton arm o'ertop the 
Ethereal silhouette of a mushroom?
Look, how effortlessly she skims and flits 
Across the undulating topside of a crocodile,
Morphing west as impatient winds
Cause 't to give chase to migrating geese!


Is that all?
I reply. Their semblances are crude
at best.
No matter the dreams 
Forged within the endless billows of white
and grey, 
A cloud can amount to nothing
but rain.
And even less, I confess,
Without the true artists' visions
Who alone may aspire to more
than mere mimicry.

Islamic Church and American State?

Mixing? Doubt it. It is one thing to be knowledgeable about Islamic culture, and sensitive to it. Perhaps I would even go so far as to feel it would be alright to have pro-sensitivity laws (ignorant Americans don't do anybody any good, and are much too prevalent for my liking). However, to promote laws that are inherently biased against the minorities that America so uplifts like women and homosexuals? And on top of that, to only show favor to one specific religious group? Goooooood luck with that. 


I guess that means we have to kill...hmmmmm...most of Americans for not being Muslim? This spells alot of trouble for capitalism and democracy too. The entire machine that is America is honestly too far 1st-world to support real, strict Shariah law. 


That journalist did have a point - to mock a religion without knowing a thing about it does make one look like an ignorant doofus. However, ignoring the laws already in place to condemn that man and pardon one who reacted violently towards him in the end only serves to support violence. Yay violence?


Please, by all means, make people more sensitive. But Shariah law would only dethrone America's entire way of being - equality (however corrupted) would be dead, many pro-equality movements would be quashed and probably rise up in anger at being thus silenced in a world where they are used to freedom of speech. ...in the words of Bartok from the cartoon Anastasia movie, "this can only end in tears!"

That's a Laugh

To think, that the corrupt government of a corrupted society could possibly by the determiner of laws! Laws are created to regulate and bring justice. What could a law be based upon, what standard, what truth, where it up to but a corrupt group of old men (and women...) in fun-looking robes who argue all the time? Yeah, we should give to Caesar what is Caesar's, but this authority is all God's my friends. 

Not Fear, But Love

How would I respond to this? I suppose I would respond with my character more than anything. This passed summer I worked with three females who were all lesbian, and one got married while I was still with them. I never hated, I never treated any of them any different. I actually became good buds with them all, proved myself through hard work (I was a Restoration Laborer) and deep, insightful conversations. If we had ever discussed the topic, I do not think they could accuse me of being that kind of hateful, judging person. If at all possible, I would prove with my character that real Christians know how to say "I love you, I just cant "walk" with you" (walk meaning the walk of lifestyle). I would know, then, how to assert this point. What good does it do for either persons' agenda if I hate? Besides the feelings that would get stirred up, which would lead to no good in and of itself, but logically, what good would come of that? There is plenty of evidence after mentioning this - Biblical, Scientific, and all the crossroads of the two - to support where I stand and how I choose to act about it. How exactly I go about introducing these things and just how successful I am will depend on the temperament of whoever I'm talking to.

A Necessary Evil ?

Q:    Sarah and Mark think that the government is not involved enough in the family.  What do you think should be the limits of government involvement in parenting and why?

A:    This is a rather touchy subject. As a Christian looking in on a Secular world, I find that it will be very difficult for a society with no base for their values to answer this sufficiently. If I were to get right to the heart of the matter, I would say that parenting - both in discipline and lunchmaking, as these seem to be the topics at hand - should be completely dependent upon parents. However, the reality of mankind's fallen condition makes this impossible. Because people are inherently untrustworthy, because there is no single foundation upon which to base that which is "proper parenting", and because people come from so many financial and ethnic backgrounds, some regulations by an overarching authority (government) must by necessity be set forth. In a society where the attitudes of the people and the realities of their lives determines the state of mind held in that governing body, those regulations will inevitably be imperfect and oftentimes dissatisfying in one way or another.

        All this being said, it honestly is hard for me to care one way or another what government regulates. In all three of these articles, the issue at hand actually reminds me of the gay marriage legislation going through Washington state right now: throwing the problem of discipline (behavioural or in terms of food intake) at the state and throwing the desire for gay marriage to be legalized at heart contain the same basic motive, the same basic yearning. It is a cry for normalcy. Nothing more, nothing less. The only reason people even need question if the government should or shouldn't regulate something is because they no longer know how to do it themselves. Without the Bible as your basis for both your personal standards and the standards of general consensus, you are left floating out in space. Basic instinct inside you calls for a human society, a loving family, all these good things...however, without the proper base, humankind has no way to properly meet those ends. Gay marriage is in question because marriage is a standard for life that people want. Do they even know why they want it? A structured, able, caring family that knows how to discipline properly (as the writers of Proverbs did) and know how to properly care about their children's physical and mental needs is something strongly desired by all, but with no all-encompassing means to that end. 

        My point is that it may become necessary that the government become more involved. Life now is not like the life Mrs. Obama had - people are more casual, less respectful. There is a greater and easier access to the foods that are detrimental to one's health, and there are fewer mothers able to set time aside to cook a family dinner because so many have to work now. But that is mainly on the part of foods. If a child is being abused, and they tell someone, the parent can be arrested and the child protected. CPS is enough when it comes to regulating the way a parent can discipline their child. With the overarching philosophies of the modern day consisting of a skewed view of tolerance, a complete lack of moral character, and a "you can do anything" message, a reality check can really only come from one's family and/or church family. Or friends, whoever closest to any particular individual actually has a brain between their shoulders. 

        This does not mean I am by any stretch of the imagination a proponent of government involvement in any of this - quite the opposite really. And while I hold absolutely no expectations towards man's behaviour -so often they err on the side of sinful- I have every hope and every faith in the God-shaped hole inside them. This hole cannot help but recognize God's goodness and the beauty of the simple complexities that are His flawless plan for the life of man, especially if thrown in contrast to the reality of how broken a godless world truly is. 

        So I suppose this still leaves me on the fence, save on the singular point of discipline. I do not want the government regulating that ever. That can only lead to more brainless, moral-less proponents of marijuana (and other sinful behaviours/lifestyles, haha). In this case, I see the "necessary evil" of government as more detrimental than "necessary". Perhaps I am just disaffected and ignorant of what life is like when one is actually, actively dancing the government's tango - that is very possible. But that LAST article especially just seemed to be a whole lot of nothing. 

Biff and My America

   "I tell ya, Hap, I don’t know what the future is. I don’t know — what I’m supposed to want...I’ve always made a point of not to wasting my life, and every time I come back here I know that all I’ve
done is to waste my life." (Biff, Act I).
    ...Aye, there's the rub. Biff Loman is caught in quite the predicament for most of the play: he is enamored with the idea of working with his muscles, and is completely caught up in the simplistic beauty of helping colts deliver their foals and watching them together. At one point, Biff even gets Happy caught up in this idea of working together, just two brothers and their physical abilities. This was his dream. However, Willy completely disapproves: "when he was young, i thought it's good for him to take a lot of different jobs. But it's more than ten years now and he has yet to make thirty-five dollars a week!" (Act I). Willy's dream is monetary and success-driven, associating the worthiness of a being with their job status. Sadly, with Willy's combined disapproval and threats of suicide, Biff feels like his Texas dream is not only taboo, but a serious waste of life-energy. He tries, for his father's sake, to start living the corporate dream and being "successful" by going to Oliver's office and trying to get a job. When that falls through, Biff's momentary delusion evaporates and he sees more clearly than ever the fallacy of chasing after Willy's american dream.

"He walked away. I saw him for one minute. I got so mad I could've torn the walls down! How the hell did I ever get the idea I was a salesman there? I even believed myself that I'd been a salesman for him! And then he gave one look and--I realized what a ridiculous lie my whole life has been! We've been talking in a dream for fifteen years. I was a shipping clerk." (Act I)

Biff confronted his father with combined shame and resolution, and at wit's end tells his father "Pop, I'm nothing! I'm nothing, Pop. Can't you understand that? There's no spite in it anymore. I'm just what I am, that's all...Will you let me go, for Christ's sake? Will you take that phony dream and burn it before something happens?" (Act II). Biff, although still broken over the fact that he feels like a failure in the world that is his father's house and his father's dream, comes to terms with the fact that Willy's dream is not only fruitless, but actually damaging to one's life. In the very end, Biff acknowledges completely that Willy had "all the wrong dreams" (Requiem), and completely embraces his own.


     Biff's journey to his dream contains a pretty simple message - the corporate american dream achieved through Willy's methods is flawed, broken, and fruitless. The real american dream, the only reliable dream even in this growing corporate world, and the original american dream, is found through hard, honest labor and being true to your natural abilities. Trying to reach for a wealth and status you cannot attain, or degrading yourself into believing you have attained it, is complete folly. It is better to do what you love and can do well, and break your back doing it, then working a dead-end job just to pay the bills. 


   My dream is the same - mostly - and actually rather similar to Biff's. In the end, Biff made a decision based on who he finally realized he was. My junior year essay was about establishing who I am in Christ, as opposed to figuring out what I'm going to fill my future doing. With college looming, however, what I'm going to be doing is becoming a much more pressing question. Not a question I'd like to tackle so preemptively, the whole college and scholarship process honestly disgusts me. I hope that, like Biff, I can find something I love to do that fits into who I am. What concerns me the most is how well, or...extremely un-well...my dream will fit into the current secular regime. I really should have been born in like the 1500s or something, where a simple trade was passed down from mentor to apprentice. I feel that'd give me more time to develop my person, while still doing something productive that brings me into contact with other people. I really don't have a forte - I'm just relatively good at a lot of things. So finding a forte, even if I got an apprenticeship somewhere, that I'd like to pursue is near-impossible. I suppose I'll just have to trust that the Lord will take me where I need to be, because I KNOW I need to do something - I want to be active with my life, as opposed to wasteful... but I honestly do not know what that means for me. We'll see, I suppose.