Ban Mario!!!

Mattey Damey Carl a Benny (updated)

I’m kind of busy right now, so I’ll just share a couple of videos I’ve watched the past couple of weeks that I thought were funny.  I have some thoughts on all of them (other than haha), but, for now, I’ll leave it your imagination.  

  

 

 

 

 

Urinal.

The artist himself may not think he is religious, but if he is sincere his sincerity in itself is religion. - Emily Carr

It interests me that throughout history where religion has been, art also has always necessarily followed (whether it be Russian propaganda films, Byzantine icons, or the Sistine Chapel).  I am not a religious person, in the sense that I do not subscribe to any one conventional “religious” system, but strangely, I would still consider myself “religious.”  That is, I have strong beliefs… even if I am not always fully aware of them; I have conviction, even if I am not always sure how to act.  Emily Carr wrote that “the artist himself may not think he is religious, but if he is sincere his sincerity in itself is religion,” and I relate strongly to that.  Religion is not in a word or a symbol, a painting or a speech, it lives always in one’s own beliefs.

What concerned me most while working on this piece was that very question of belief.  I am at a point in my life where conviction seems a tricky, fickle thing – but an absolutely necessary thing nonetheless.

Just recently, during a media history screening, a film called “Armageddon” was shown.  I found it strange how so many people left, and of the few who did remain, many of them did so only to laugh derogatively at the movie.  I can understand this, I too felt an almost instant sense of…. superiority.  But why?  When judgment comes so easy, it is usually a sign that ignorance is near.  If it is wrong for a “common” person to quickly pass something off as “artsy,” how is it right to pass of another as “commercial?”  Perhaps it is a question of semantics, perhaps not, but I honestly feel that their is worth to be had, knowledge to be learned, in everything, regardless of intent.  An open mind is acceptance, it is strange that in an art school there seems to be so little of it.

“Bad art is always more tragically beautiful than good art because it documents human failure.”

I understand that the backlash is against certain conventions, and blind, ideologically irresponsible decisions (made in the film)…. but, I think, what people fail to recognize is that very reaction is itself convention.  We are spurred by a collective unity.  In this way, “art” is no less a mindless system of thought than, say, Religion or Commercialism, Consumerism or Communism (the “bad” kind).  Like these things, art too seems to have a system of almost taboo arbitrary codes; ways we should think, talk, look, act. What I strive to remember is that this collective identity of “art” has, in fact, absolutely nothing to do with art – Being an “artist” has always been after the fact.

There seems to be a misconceived notion that conviction, belief, and confidence require solidity and foundation… while they ARE a necessary foundation, they should not borrow the connotations of that word.  Belief should never be nailed to the ground, conviction never cemented, rather, they should be in constant negotiation.  Uncertainty is the Mother of all things beautiful and pure. Belief, conviction, confidence – these are things that should be founded on an ocean of constant change.  When judgment is passed without question, judgment should be brought to trial. 

In my piece, formalistically, all in all, there are 10 religions referenced (Christianity [Holy Cross], Judaism [Magden David], Sikhism [Sword, Dagger and Shield], Taoism [Tai-Chi, Yin-Yang], Buddhism [The Dhammachakka], Hinduism [OM], Islam [Crescent and Star], Indigenous Religions [The Quartered Circle], Confucianism [The Trigram], and Jainism [The Swastik Chakra], centered around an outline of Michel Duchamp’s, “Fountain.”  Below is an idea for where I would like to put it and how it would look (though I would be open to other suggestions.)  The only thing I am concerned about is whether the detail within the circle is too fine…. in which case I could take away one of the duplicates and enlarge it (though that would omit Toaism…)… I’ve attached the alternative as well.

 

One Week of Food Around the World

One week’s worth of food by various cultures

• Germany: The Melander family of Bargteheid
• Food expenditure for one week: 375.39 Euros or $500.07

• United States: The Revis family of North Carolina
• Food expenditure for one week: $341.98

• Japan: The Ukita family of Kodaira City
• Food expenditure for one week: 37,699 Yen or $317.25

• Ital: The Manzo family of Sicily
• Food expenditure for one week: 214.36 Euros or $260.11

• Mexico: The Casales family of Cuernavaca
• Food expenditure for one week: 1,862.78 Mexican Pesos or $180.90

• Poland: The Sobcnyscy family of Konstancin-Jeziorna
• Food expenditure for one week: 582.48 Ziotys or $151.27

• Egypt: The Ahmed family of Cairo
• Food expenditure for one week: 387.85 Egyp tian Pounds or $68.53

• Ecuador: The Ayme family of Tingo
• Food expenditure for one week: $31.55

• Bhutan: The Namgay family of Shingkhey Village
• Food expenditure for one week: 224.93 ngultrum or $5.03

• Chad: The Aboubakar family of Breidjing Camp
• Food expenditure for one week: 685 CFA Francs or $1.23

• Vancouver: Me (Ericsson S.P. Chu)
• Food expenditure for one week: priceless. (or $42.93)

 

I don’t know what I’d do without the internet.

9 times out of 10 people will pick the shortcut, the fastest possible route – see the microwave, the car, the television, the supermarket, the airplane.  The internet.  That’s what technology is all about – convenience, speed.  I think we forget that sometimes the means is as important as the ends, and every step we sacrifice, I think, cheats us of something really worthwhile.  Theirs this concept that one somehow always gains by doing things faster, but a minute is a minute is a minute, nothing is really lost, only negotiated.  We are so bloated, blinded, by the result, we forget that their is magic in the journey.  People like to call the internet an “information pipeline,” and I find that quite fitting.  The thing gushes and flows, giving whatever you want, whenever you want.  

It’s ironic that a little bit of the spontaneity, the adventure, of the now is relinquished in the ever persistent search of it.  I sometimes wonder if all this searching, all this information, serves merely as a distraction; perhaps it is just subterfuge of the mind for the mind.  After all, we pick what link to follow, we choose what article to read.  Are we getting more intelligent?  Or more ignorant?  Are we honestly searching, or, in fact, digging our heels further and further into our own established beliefs with minor gives and evolutions?  After all, there is strength in numbers, and our confidence in ourselves can only be strengthened by similar confidences – to know that somebody else cries “yes!” to our yes is comforting, empowering.  Yet, similarity sometimes breeds only more similarity, we see this in our family, in our friends, and in our cultures. 

People will argue that the internet signals the proliferation of choice, but I don’t know if I agree.  I don’t know if I agree, because I think groups tend to, in the long run, assimilate one another; monopoly, in an ideological sense, is almost always inevitable, and the same runs true with ideas; an original thought is not an original thought, it is an accumulated one.  A “pipeline” implies a source, what happens when we centralize it?  Cultural tyranny?  In the long run, what happens when everything is shared? Dilution or saturation? What happens to choice?  What’s happenned already?  The choice between democrat and republican, socialist and capitalist,  hell, mac and pc, google and yahoo, hd dvd and blu-ray, lcd and plasma, Mcdonalds and Burger King, Telus and Rogers, CNN and BBC,  you have to ask yourself, are these really choices?  I know they are choices, relative to each other, but is that enough?  I’m honestly not sure.  And, in the face of the internet, this scares me.  This scares me because the world is becoming more connected, differences are fading.  I know their are positive to this, such as minimized racism, perhaps greater potential for sympathy, but their are also negatives, because difference is uniqueness. Difference is choice.  Then again, perhaps a little sameness is what this world needs.  I don’t know.