Wake up in the morning with a head like 'what you done?'

I never really respected Picasso until I saw some of his earlier works, including very detailed, realistic pencil sketches and paintings. When I saw these and realized that he had mastered realism before choosing/evolving into cubism, I accepted his later work with a newfound appreciation. It's still hard for me to really accept certain "modern" pieces that I feel are within my grasp both creatively and technically. Leave that to the utilitarians.

So yes, I prefer my artists to have technical abilities as well as creativity. Hopefully it's clear I'm not implying that cubism has no technicality, because it does. In Picasso's case, I simply admire the fact that he had complete control over what he was doing before he did his nutso paintings.

**

I took a Philosophy of Aesthetics class junior year. The teacher was a young redhead who sat, barefoot, on a table in front of the class, leading discussions on true beauty and Plato and Welles and artist intent and form.

The discussion inevitably wandered to the idea of copies of art being inferior to the original, which was fascinating. (One of our books was filled with thought experiments on the philosophy of aesthetics – breathing new and weird life into it.)

After some thought, I have decided that I am decidedly proletariat in the way I experience art. While I love museums, and mentally note the difference in seeing original pieces – Dali, Van Gogh, Rembrandt, these are all fabulous – I enjoy copies almost as much. Especially copies which are identical (ie. same materials used, etc.) Even if I were incredibly wealthy, I would be content with/prefer owning copies to owning originals. There is possibly something off in my brain, that I would settle for this secondary experience. But I am content in my contentment.

Today's Quote: “Unlike in music, there are no child prodigies in painting. What people regard as premature genius is the genius of childhood. It gradually disappears as they get older. It is possible for such a child to become a real painter one day, perhaps even a great painter. But he would have to start right from the beginning. So far as I am concerned, I did not have that genius. My first drawings could never have been shown at an exhibition of children’s drawings. I lacked the clumsiness of a child, his naivety. I made academic drawings at the age of seven, the minute precision of which frightened me.” -- Picasso.


I found this thought fascinating. Especially the last line – at age seven he was so self-aware that his actions could frighten him.

**

Boredom is a funny thing. I have known several people who have claimed to have either never experienced the feeling, or have only experienced it once or rarely. (On a side note, I really like the idea of ennui. Great concept.) Concerning this topic, I honestly relate with these people much more than others. Boredom is almost completely illogical to me. Dissatisfaction, certainly. Laziness, definitely. Helplessness, understandable. But boredom?

There is always, always something to be done. And when there is nothing to be done, there is always someone to talk/be with. And if the previous selections are unsavory, there will always be more knowledge than can be retained in a lifetime, available at our fingertips. So, so many books to read.

**

I was talking to a friend tonight, who informed me that I have a lot to say and I have a lot of ideas. (It's always nice to be informed of these things:P). This assertion was based on the fact that I constantly blog. I don't necessarily disagree – I do have a lot to say (you think I'm verbose on here?), and I do have a lot of ideas (again, come talk to me) – but this blog is just a small outlet for some of them. I process through writing, which is nicely tangible.

Everybody has something to say. The key is tapping the right button to get them talking and hoping that it's a form of positive manipulation. Ah journalism. Ah life.

**

Facebook Finds: This is a new section I'm starting. Yes, it's similar to Lamebook, but it's not necessarily lame stuff I find. It will also be interesting/funny. Today's Facebook Find amused me greatly. It was a wall post between two friends that showed up on my newsfeed. (And honestly, if people don't want me to touch their posts, don't make them public. Especially if you're friends with me.)

"My mom decided that I, too, have the hand clams.
I thought now that I'm in the club, you would tell me all your clam avoiding secrets!!
Should I install pocket fans into all my pockets to dry my hands out in private?
Must I survive on a dry diet so that no moisture enters my body - dare it come out my hands?
...Do I simply hand people a neatly printed disclaimer explaining the constant state of my hands before shaking theirs?"

Oh, the joys of hyperhidrosis.

Life Lesson: Paper mache is always, always, always fulfilling.

**

I have rediscovered a new pet peeve. Pet peeves are actually a pet peeve of mine – mostly because I tend to show up on my friends' lists in one form or another, but also because long lists of peeves tend to perpetuate negativity.

But this one bothers me, has always bothered me, and doesn't seem to bother others: using the "out of his/her/my league" term, or saying that someone is "too good" for someone else. (And yes, this spiel has been hovering on the outskirts of my mind since the movie came out.)

Of course I understand that we aren't all equal, no matter what the constitution says. To bring up Dr. L's class again: One day we discussed what the ff's meant when they wrote that all men are created equal. "Look around you," Dr. L said, "Clearly we are not all created equal." One girl's response worked for me: "We are not all equal in functions and attributes, but we are all equal in value."

So, yes, some people are better looking or more impressive socially than others, but to stick people in "leagues" is dehumanizing and, in my opinion, disheartening. It also implies more of a value judgment on their whole self, rather than one aspect. Same with "you're too good for her/him" or "she could have done better." Really, what kind of a thing is that to say? Is it really okay to place a value judgment on someone's worth? Slamming people with words, in their face or behind their backs, leaves little room for improvement and creates self-fulfilling prophecies.

"Words are living powers, not merely articulated air." (Coleridge).

I understand that most of the time, using this type of language isn't intentional. Most of the language/words used around me isn't. Including my own.

**

Youtube recommended a video for me because I've been 'learning' Swedish. I thought it was pretty funny. The top comment on this video was "We're like Astronauts." I also thought that was pretty funny.