Being vague.

People tend to take offense when being Vague. I'm attempting to understand why this is. People have a need to take things seriously, probably because vagueness is a lack of conviction. Vagueness is not having much to say but saying something any way, so its a step up on nothingness. It could also be viewed as the excess of saying nothing. The last point seems to mirror most Relationships, i mean this in all its connotations. The way to avoid vagueness is to write something and over time pad it out with Meaning, this is the same with life, you pad it out over the course of it. This will move a thing away from vagueness but its sort of dishonest, but you can't argue with progress either. That is If you consider a move away from vagueness to be progress. 

I like the device of being vague and will always opt for it over ambiguity. Art dislikes vagueness but will zealously promote ambiguity, because its easier psychologically and there is always the need to believe there is something beyond the superficial. 

Television likes vagueness, it allows viewers to passively participate. It lets you fill the gaps by allowing for gaps, leeway. Its a sort of guided freedom where the amusement is as much in your head as it is the show (some art does this).   

 





   

Seinfeld, indifference and irony

My understanding of why i like Seinfeld took a big step forward. All four of the characters have a hefty level of indifference towards most things, even Elaine (what a woman). Because of this the show overwhelms with an excess of irony. Their indifference implements many of the key ironic moments, they appear to constantly test of the boundaries of convention within everyday life.
Tommy. 

This feels very much like a situation i could have instigated. 

   

Indifference is Ironic.

This statement I found hard to comprehend for some time. I'll start with Art. Art is like the handicapped child of the world, people work with it and hope that it will come to fruition at some point but all are unsure how so. Art in the past has had a purpose, the works with religious and biblical references were used to aid the church in altering its subjects perceptions. Portraiture was used for posterity and to demonstrate ones importance. The paintings of Claude Monet are beautiful which is enough reason for me.

Today the art forum tries to convince (itself mostly) that it is a powerful force, bringing about social improvement. Art can only every be used as supplement for altering models of thinking (in general) and this is where it stops. As it is people thoughts, actions and words thats really change things. Art will always be confined to a supplementary position.

Indifference is ironic because indifference is recognizably a greater investment into something. Its the choice of maintaining a distance towards a thing because one does not fully agree, or doesn't like the appearance of been in unconsidered agreement. But really it is just a slightly altered take on the same situation and thats what really makes it ironic, its a redefining of the same situation. Indifference is really just slight difference.

Tommy

Zizek! the movie.

Slavoj Zizek on Toilet 

I was made aware that the Whitecliffe library had just purchased a copy of the 2005 Documentary Zizek! So I was set upon seeing it before leaving, as i would be losing direct access to it. http://www.zizekthemovie.com/
Parts I particularly like are: When he speaks about telling someone you love them and how we always distance ourselves within the process, whereas the ancients would have said it and meant it. so he purposed that it is us who really believe its excessive meaning, i guess thats irony. 
Also when he uses the example of an old fashion totalitarian father telling his kid that they have to see their grandma on sunday, whereas the tolerant postmodern father would say something like "you know how much your grandmother loves you, nether the less you should only go see her if you really want to. This statement contains a more powerful form of control, because now the kid knows they have to go but also like it. Zizek states this is the same within out current culture of tolerance and understanding, calling it dishonest. 
Within the intro there is his comment: "theology doesn't solve problems, it redefines them." I like this as it is the same with everything. This past year i have been stuck on Resignification. 
He also picks up a Copy of the film Being there with Peter Sellers, its one of my favs!   

The Matrix.

Picked this image due to it being out of focus, something i am infamous for. 

The matrix is a movie that my mother took me to see when i was 11 (twice). The first time i couldn't grip the ideas, or even the story. The second time with a little help from my mum i begun to understand it, it was quite an epiphany for me. The creators clearly had a thing for Jean Baudrillard. Baudrillard seemed to detest the film and distance himself from it. But i believe he misses the point and can not see outside of himself http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/24/opinion/editorial-observer-a-french-philosopher-talks-back-to-hollywood-and-the-matrix.html?pagewanted=1. The point; although at my current age of 22 the ideas does appear over simplistic, at 11 it was a dramatic exposure to complex concepts, lateral thinking and speculative thought.
I think People miss the real power of Christianity. Its power comes its teachings in the bible, not because they are true but because of their ability subvert general thinking, exposing the masses to modes of lateral thinking and speculative thought. Neo's path has some uncanny similarities to that of Jesus, I am not suggesting that this a major influence of just the matrix but that of all out ideas.    


       

Marilyn Monroe

I needed something to write a post about and I just couldn't get past the images of Marilyn Monroe. She seemed to know that, in order to achieve a compelling photograph, you need to be able to dramatize aspects of facial expressions, like a caricature. The minuteness of a regular expression doesn't translate to photographs, there isn't enough distance between many. Perhaps this is why there doesn't seem to be a bad photo of her in existence. Unlike models of today, who clearly have no idea of their faces or the performative aspect. She new that the camera can not distinguish when someone is faking it. There isn't a present day model that can stand next to her.        I hear Angelina Jolie may be playing her haha, I really hope not.               

Nip Tuck. vanity, we make it look good.

Deeply Superficial, haha yeah thats it. 

The show Nip/Tuck, A show i felt i should write a little about. 


Every episode starts with the line "so, tell us what you don't like about yourself." (perhaps this is what we should start ask people who we just met, instead of the usual, so what do you do?) It is a question that could be associated with a therapist, which they are clearly not. This imposing question is the reverse of the genuine display of compassion, It isolates away the concept of humanity and instead reduces someone to the comical value of their most distressing traits.
The question itself is at a ironic distance from social normality. This is much like how Woody Allen is always revealing what he doesn't like about himself, showing a formal acceptance. But with the patients of nip/tuck, they have not. This to is ironic and further removes them from the realm of humanness. But despite the bleakness of this position, i believe there is something inherently beautiful about western vanity.


Beauty like money is a fetishistic item, its hard to understand how it works. We know that for a lot of people it is quite consuming. None of us are sure if we have enough so the easiest solution is just to accumulate more. We shape ourselves around those we consider to possess it. Nip/Tuck tries to reveal the desperation and ugliness that can be observed with this almost normal cultural obsession. The show makes use of the myths and stories seem to never tier of being told among us. This is sort a synopsis of our postmodernist times, where the most interesting elements survive and eventually all else loses it time share. Leaving us with a surplus of bizarre happenings. Although most of us possibly only experience a couple of these in our lives, by proxy we all hold onto many more and in a way are more and more likely to repeat them in slight variations. But the point I'm trying to make is that this exaggerated vanity is a shared desperation, the fact that appears ironic proves that we have admitted this and hear in lies the beauty, Western vanity is met with indifference and indifference is always ironic. Ironic in that the position held is one maintaining a distance from pathological vanity, while acknowledging it as a valuable part of our culture, a part all of us contribute to.  


Tommy.