Artsy Fartsy

Artist unknown (unfortunately).

“Art is of the people, by the people, but not for the people” – Me.

Yes. I just quoted myself. I am taking a swipe at someone with that, but nobody will know just who. I am also grinning snidely right now, even though I know that this person will not even feel the breeze.

The person who I am taking a swipe at exists amongst a group that I have labelled Art Elitists. This is no coincidence. While I trust you can comprehend just what an art elitist is, I feel the need to expound on what makes them eye roll worthy.

In a nutshell, art elitists believe that they are at the pinnacle of society; they are culturally and intellectually superior to the rest of us. They have small gatherings where they sip on wine and discuss art and literature and pat each other on the back for their innate cleverness. In fact, when I told another elitist acquaintance (a well known artist, I might add, but mum’s the word) that I enjoy visiting exhibitions every now and then, he asked me in his usual perverted breathy manner, whether or not I didn’t enjoy being in the company of a more sophisticated calibre of individual. What he thought was a rhetorical question that should only be met with the affirmative, was met with a raised eyebrow and incredulity. I also wanted to smack him. He was staring at my breasts the entire time with what I can only assume was an air of erudition.

A conglomeration of art elitists offers the opportunity to lament society’s negligence of the arts. This grievance, of course offers the opportunity of solidarity in ostentatious disdain for the rudimentary country bumpkin who prefers to spend his or her days struggling to put food on the table rather than forge an artistic masterpiece. The contempt for the ingenuous commoner is typically coupled with events and exhibitions that are poorly publicized in seeming deliberation to maintain their exclusivity. I look to a current event circulating amongst that group of individuals with a capacity of four hundred social network invites (or so it would appear). Compare that with a wine (the other kind) and jam event at Zen and wonder at the numerical disparity. In their defence, why should anyone want to invite us plebeians when we probably don’t have the funds to dish out on these priceless gems in the first place?

Note: we never see newspaper advertisements of these exhibitions, but we certainly get to see who attended in the paper a few days later, don’t we?

At the same time, I get it. I really do. And you know what? Maybe elitists are really more acute than the rest of us.

Hey, if I could create a work of art that addresses the concerns, complications and/or consequences that arise from the decolonisation of our nation and call it “Original Copy: a Teardrop” by randomly splashing and smearing paint all over a canvas and slapping a hefty price tag on it, I would! The subsequent media write ups, museum displays and eminence won’t be too shabby either.

Note to self: invest in paints and canvas tomorrow. I’m going to be famous (kind of).

So, I decide in the end to paint something more picturesque. My subject matter of course will be fishing boats, coconut trees, beaches and sunset, dancing women, sexy women of colour, fat women of colour with cows and other rural scenes depicted using earthy browns, greens and blues that so accurately represent the masses, the people of the soil. After decades of independence, our elitists continue to revere the reproductions of our artistic predecessors in our contemporaries. I will then announce the relationship of identity, space and time that I explored, my influences and my imaginative teenage aspirations, all manner of watered down bullshit that makes elitists and tourists alike, squeal with delight, all of this with my trusty wine glass in hand, mind you. None of what I represent, however, will confer any ideas of our current political, social or economic status, because that’s not what we learn in our history and cultural classes. Stuart Brown could only be so apt to refer to the “sleazy tourist art” in Piarco that we want to sell (out).  I am willing to concede that maybe because after all these years, nothing in this country has really changed, politically, socially, or economically, so maybe all that will ever be produced in this postcolonial society is clichéd ‘Caribbean’ art. “Original Copy: a Teardrop” remains an appropriate title.

Unless the more common, more experimental forms of art were to break loose from their mediocre creators and become trendy and hip, the fate of working-class art that mirrors their society is fated to be washed away, or painted over on city walls or forgotten in the homes of others. Graffiti (I mean er... the mural) is one such form of art that is all the rage, but several years ago, it was considered to be the nefarious opus of street urchins who had nothing better to do than defile public spaces with their unskilled eye for ugliness. In the same way graffi- I mean, murals, ascended from its baser associations, comic book art does not seem likely to. Their art is strictly commercial, available to the masses (Oh horror!) and has nothing to arouse the elite intellect.  Comic book art is concomitant with tacky humour; it is the habitat of superheroes and villains; the niche of pubescent boys ogling busty, spandex adorning two-dimensional women and worse yet, you can sample them in your daily newspaper.

I mean, who are comic book aficionados trying to fool anyway? Comic books do not examine social issues, they do not discuss culture, nor do they tackle politics. They are simply bi-products of men who never grew up and harbour fantasies of supremacy. Aren’t they?

But, you know what’s even lower than comic book art? Digital art! Oh yeah! The stuff that’s printed on our toilet paper wrappers could never be considered art, unless you smoke a lot of weed and are Andy Warhol. Digital art is just too commercial. Added to that, it’s just too easy! It is merely a poor replica of traditional art, which requires far more patience and technique. All a graphic designer (not a digital artist, pfft!) has to do is click on some buttons and voilà! They’ve created a toilet paper commercial.

Don’t get me wrong though. I love art; just like Nolan’s Gotham believes in Harvey Dent, I believe in the power of art. I will go so far as to suggest that the relevance of art parallels that of medicine or engineering, because if the latter allows us to physically prosper, then art allows us to grow spiritually and psychologically – it balances our egos with our conscience (not to be completely mistaken with Freud’s, id, ego and super-ego).  I also enjoy wine.

At the same time, I have no inclination towards fashioning a hierarchy of art due to style, or genre or form. There is such a thing as good art and bad art, but to turn up an elitist nose at something that is different, and more importantly accessible, only puts a limitation on what art could be.

So while sipping on that wine, art elitist, try to remember that your appreciation of art of the people that excludes the people doesn’t make you one of the people. It makes you an artsy fartsy douchebag.

A real woman should do what she likes.

Almost everybody who knows me knows that I am a feminist. Yet not a lot of people know what a feminist actually is. The average person envisions a feminist as a female Sasquatch likely to obliterate anything that looks like it owns a penis walking by. People are also likely to assume that these women are the products of neglectful and abusive fathers; that they were dumped by some man and have since then turned to other women to satisfy their needs or that they are so ugly all they have got left in the world is to hate on the men who will never love them.

Anyway, I don’t imagine myself to be any of the above (though I refuse to negate or confirm my hideousness). I own a razor, I love my father and my relationship status is none of your business.

While calling myself a feminist, I mean that I believe in equal rights for all, regardless of gender or sexual orientation. The feminist mentioned in the former is associated with radical feminism (but even then it is never a good idea to stereotype). Radical feminists are much more popular because quite frankly nobody is interested in learning about us peaceful hippies; they’re more interested in the crazed knife wielding Lorena Bobbitts in the news. Everybody loves a good horror story after all.

Even though I am not as angry as a radical feminist, there are things that do in fact make me angry.

Easily I point to this Internet meme floating around in cyberspace.

The photo portrays a woman standing in the kitchen bereft of any attire save for a white thong undergarment while holding some sort of indiscernible kitchen utensil. The words that hover to the side of the photo so as to not obstruct the view of the lady’s bounteous boomcie read: “A real woman never lets her man leave the house hungry or horny.”

As the photo floats around, being propagated and affirmed, I cannot help but feel the message conveyed in the image particularly disturbing (and I am not talking about her bare ta-tas being exposed to the stove’s fire).

The meme lucidly asserts that in order for a woman to be ‘real’ she must cook a meal for her man while simultaneously providing for his raging libido. Okay, that statement might be as amplified as her buttocks - she may not have to do it at the same time… but still. She has to submit to her man’s needs at the risk of being deemed fake, or not good enough.

Now the obvious arguments are, “What if she is sick? Does she have to cook for him then? Does she have to spread her legs open then?”

Those are relevant questions, but I have more questions.

Can’t the man cook for himself? If he can’t cook, shouldn’t he get off his lazy ass and learn to do it himself?

Shouldn’t he try to satisfy her too and not just try to get his? After all, women could just turn the aphorism around and say that he is not a real man because of it.

Why should the woman have to cook if she just doesn’t feel like it? What if she just wants to lie in bed and relax?  Seriously, if he is hungry and she wants to relax, he should get up and make something to eat himself.

Why should she have to accommodate him sexually, if quite frankly, she is not in the mood? If her man is horny, and she doesn’t feel up to it, just spend fifteen more minutes in the shower; I am certain she won’t mind.

What if she can’t cook? What if she hates cooking? Surprise, surprise – not every female is adept in the kitchen, and not every female likes cooking, though we do like eating. Wait. How did I get in that last statement?

Shouldn’t she have a choice in the matter? It is after all, her body and her mind.

The issue in question here, is the idea that in order for a woman to be considered worthy, she must serve. A ‘real’ woman must please her man. It has nothing in that meme that suggests that she is serving herself, other than pandering to the desire to be ‘real’. And that is absurd. Why should a woman have to oblige someone else to feel a sense of self? She should take care of herself to get that feeling.

The other scary part of this photo, are the comments from women in accordance with the archaic concept of female subjugation. Women once again, betray themselves. Women so desperate to get a man and to keep him, that they are willing to subject themselves to his every whim, to betray that sense of sisterhood and community that is so often sold to us in popular culture.

Well, here’s an idea. A real man would not be afraid to be with a real woman who does not pander to his every need, but finds balance between his needs and desires, as well as her own. That type of man is the one to aspire to be with when he unabashedly posts his well-balanced thoughts on how women should treat him, and how he should treat them.

Never settle.

So, while I post these opinions, I am fully aware of the snide comments that will arise from cynics and sexists alike. Well, here’s my predetermined rebuttal to all of you. Your quips about kitchens and sandwiches are neither funny, nor are they clever. You can try to convince yourself, but we both know you were not original enough to come up with your own sexist joke, but had to ride on the coattails (or mammoth fur?) of some other cave dweller’s joke.

Not only are you a bad driver…

It was a bright and sunny afternoon. My excursion home was so mundane (nearly as mundane as the beginning of this post) I could dodge every pothole, bump and stray dog that materialised in my path like an automaton.

Yet, the banality of this afternoon’s drive was to be disrupted.

On approaching the usual traffic-light moderated intersection, I was overtaken by an individual driving a bronze automobile on the left side of the roadway with opposing traffic ways. In Trinidad, we drive on the left side of the road, so by law, we are expected to overtake (especially on a single roadway, with opposing traffic ways) on the right side. The unperturbed driver brought his car to a stop in front of mine placing my car and myself in mild danger.

I shook my fist and scowled menacingly at the aforementioned douchebag with the fatalistic anticipation that he could see my discontent by glancing in his rear-view mirror.

However, whilst glaring at this inconsiderate cretin, I became aware of a protrusion from his driver’s side window. The red, white and black object was unmistakable: a miniature of our national flag, a $10 relic from Trinidad and Tobago’s independence celebration just a few weeks ago.  

I didn’t know whether to laugh or be disgusted. What a conundrum.

This man, this flag, represented a person who feels proud of his country’s accomplishment of 50 years of  (arguable) independence but in the same breath paradoxically showed flagrant disregard for the country’s basic traffic laws!

It made me think of all those other displays of red, white and black all over the country that flaunt patriotism, yet how many act on it? Those who bawl repeatedly, “Sweet, sweet TnT!" And then toss their garbage on the roadsides, curse their neighbours and chop up their children. No concern for the people who make up this country, but they just love being a Trini. Maybe being a good Trini to some people means being a self-absorbed cur.

Anyway, it got me to thinking of all the bad drivers I’ve seen in this country, and a distinct pattern emerged.

Apart from pseudo-patriots, bad drivers have a propensity to be pious. I have been intercepted and bombarded too many times with vinyl decal bible scripture, prayer hands and self-proclaimed absolution.

Three hypotheses could be derived from this observation:

• that the abominable automobilist truly is blessed, therefore he is granted the liberty to drive how he pleases, with reverent disregard of all other creations of God, as he is superior to us all. The decals are after all angel-enforced, so he can fly if he needs to;
• that because the motorist is so exalted that even if he drives parsimoniously, not only would he survive, but we would too;
• that God is sending me a message. I am not worthy to be called Christian, or human for that matter since I stole five Reese’s chocolates while on my diet and pretended it never happened so this prayer on someone else’s rear window is the last thing I must say before I die.

At any rate, I really wish the bible would have some print against being a douchey driver rather than the douchey driver having bible print on his vehicle.

Then there are the famed “Baby on Board” stickers on random car windows, letting us know that we need to drive cautiously around baby. If we didn’t see that sticker how else would we know that is not okay to ram our vehicles into yours?

Unless we are supposed to drive safely all the time, because all life is valuable and easily forfeit? I dunno, maybe?

But then, if there is a baby in your car, and I am expected to tread carefully around baby, why precisely are you driving like a jackass? Why are you bobbing and weaving through traffic, breaking traffic lights and driving way past the speed limit? Did baby take a rather large dump in your car, thereby ruining your leather seats and temporarily mitigating your concern for baby’s safety?

And then you’re the ones in charge of our future generations.

Even if your child survives your reckless driving, he/she will still have the misfortune of being parented by an imprudent jackass.

This pattern appears warranted: bad drivers are indeed wolves in sheep’s clothing. So God bless you, you patriotic chauffeur of babies.

...

I know, not the most creative way to title a post about the ellipsis.

I present to you, my ravings about grammar, more specifically, the ellipsis (duh).

I have noticed the increased popularity in usage of the ellipsis, especially on social media sites such as Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Google + - the only social networking sites that I use. I have also observed the proliferation of its misuse and abuse all over these social sites. I acknowledge it is inconsequential to bemoan grammar fundamentals on Facebook, or I should say, lack thereof, as 90% (this is a made-up statistic, but bears a great deal of semblance to the truth) of social networking users have no recognizable concept of the rules of basic orthography, morphology nor syntax. And yes, I used those particular words to sound like a condescending Grammar Nazi of douchebag proportions.

The ellipsis serves several purposes, one of which is to omit certain words in quotations that may be irrelevant to your intentions:

And yes, I used those particular words to sound like a … douchebag….

The three dots are also used to show a break in thought, or an idea being trailed off. The ellipsis would then be placed at the end of a sentence…

The person in the comment used the three dots at the end of his sentence, but why were his thoughts trailing off? It seemed like a complete idea to me. Unless he intended to bring his wetsuit, his Speedos, tanning lotion and an assortment of beach necessities that he couldn’t quite remember.

The other notable usage of the three dots is to indicate a pause in a sentence. This is of particular concern to me, as this is what people tend to misunderstand on Facebook. Ellipses used in this manner are intended to make writing seem conversational which does seem like a good idea. But what happens when it is misused and abused?

Look at this fellow:

The ellipsis has been mistaken in his usage for a full stop.  It now serves as an awkward pause in an otherwise angry post. Added to that, there are not three dots, but five freaking dots in that sentence. FIVE! One would think that people tend to make typing easier by shortening words and phrases. This individual has used five dots making it certain that he is not interested in saving time, even if his time could have been better spent researching how to use an ellipsis. But he alone is not guilty of this folly, I have seen two dots in place of three, I have seen seven dots, I have seen quantities of dots that I do not feel inclined to count and for what purpose? What do two dots in the English language even mean? What do seven mean? A short pause and a long pause respectively?

What about:

This person is guilty of all three desecrations of the ellipsis. More than three dots have been used, three dots placed at the end of a sentence for no apparent reason, and a rather absurd pause introducing and in a date. Commencing (long ass pause) Saturday (long ass pause) 9^th? If ellipses are meant to make the written language sound conversational, can you imagine someone actually talking like this who isn’t Captain Kirk?

In the end, if you don’t know how to use an ellipsis, just do us all a favour and desist. You’re embarrassing yourself and irritating me (and other Grammar Nazis, if you think my irritation is not enough). If you do not cease defiling the ellipsis, well…

The Judgmental Wagon

20th of July, 2012. Trinidad and Tobago Police Service. 

Trinis on Facebook have gone apeshit.

This photo had been uploaded on the 20th of July, 2012 by the Facebook page of the Trinidad and Tobago Police Service.

It depicts a child holding an unloaded weapon, a riot gun, I believe, under the supervision of police officers in a demonstration to inspire young people to become protectors of this country.

However, many people on Facebook do not see it so. They view the photo as largely irresponsible and believe it sends out various messages of negativity. 

They are of the point of view that a child should not be allowed to hold any kind of weapon, unloaded, or toy. They believe that the photo represents the idea that guns are cool, thereby inciting young people to go out and get their own at some point. It enforces the idea that weapons and violence are glamorous.

I laughed. People do tend to blow things out of proportion don't they? Granted, I am in the minority. I see the photo within its context as completely harmless. I repeat, within its context. As mentioned before, the photo was taken as part of a demonstration for awareness of a police officer's job. Knowing this, the intention of the police officer was more than likely to show tools that a police officer uses, and the safety gear required in its application. 

I marvel at those who denounce the photo as advocating violence in an impressionable mind. The same people who have no problem taking their own children to go see violent films, play violent video games and listen to violent music. 

O wait. You don't allow your children to see any of that? Well, I hope you also cover their eyes and ears whenever they walk down the street, or go to school. That way they also won't be able to see the neighbours across the road assaulting each other, or read that comic book that their best friend may have smuggled to school. You must not have thought of that huh.

Violence is everywhere people. You can't hide young people from it.

Instead of being lazy and deceitful, be honest and take the time out to talk to children. Teach them the importance of peaceful living (especially through example), talk to them about the difference between fiction and reality, and most importantly teach them the significance of respecting people around them and the value of life - their own and others around them. It's much harder than censoring images that you think are inappropriate for them, but it certainly is far more honorable than pretending these thinks don't exist.

Instead of jumping on the judgmental wagon, see the photo for what it was intended - to inspire young people. Who knows? That child may grow up to be an effective and dutiful officer some day. I hope then, that people hearken back to this photo and realise that maybe, just maybe not everything and everyone has  bad intentions.

"When a child asks you something, answer him, for goodness sake. But don't make a production of it. Children are children, but they can spot an evasion faster than adults, and evasion simply muddles 'em."
- by Atticus Finch, by Harper Lee, To Kill a Mockingbird 

Inform Yourselves!!

Here comes my second blog rant. Hurrah to me! I actually stopped playing Diablo III to write this.

What has provoked me to record my tirade? A certain Facebook page, that I had ‘liked’ called Inform Yourselves!!  Note: I didn’t make an exclamation - that’s the name of the page.

The admins of aforementioned page posted a status that concerned me:

Facebook has decided to limit the amount of posts that you all can see, with intent to charge us to advertise in order to communicate with all of you. Luckily, George Takei has found a workaround, and it doesn't require hitting warp speed!
 1. Click MORE on the bottom left menu on your home screen
 2. In the INTERESTS section, click "Add Interests"
 3. Click "Create List"
 4. Click on our page
 5. Click the NEXT button.
 6. Name the list anything you want. (Set the list to "Public" so friends get to share the fun!)

So, I decided to Google this information, to find out whether or not it was true. All I found was a rumour, that Facebook was considering it, and not from any particular renowned news website.

Now, any reasonable-minded person would then go to the source of the information and ask what is the source’s source.

Note: I have to do a great deal of ad-libbing since I was unable to make a screen cap of the interactions that I had with the page’s admin but I will try to be as truthful as I can remember.

On posting on my question, "Where could I find the above-mentioned status?" I was met with a surly, arrogant response hinting that I was apparently stupid for asking such a question. I believe it was something like, “You’re asking that, here? Smh.”

Of course, I was perturbed as to the hostility, but asked, “Is the page Inform Yourself!! actually suggesting that I believe everything they say, without informing myself? O irony.”

I was then met with an even surlier response, directing me to the page’s Information section, followed by a rude,  “O IGNORANCE.”

The page’s about section here:

It is important to keep in mind that we are not, in any way, experts. We are but fellow truth-seekers. We post relevant articles and information regarding the everyday world around us, and the issues we all know are important! But it is up to YOU to research for yourself and form your own opinion, bring new information to light, and help inform your fellow metaphorical brothers and sisters! Here we are ALL about OPINIONS, THOUGHTS, COMMENTSNOT citations. I understand the importance of FACTS (and obviously citations are important to prove them), but a lot of the time here I am looking for YOUR OPINIONSWhich a lot of us have forgotten how to do, or have just been so beaten down that we no longer care to have one.There are a TON of pages here on FB that provide an ENDLESS flow of AMAZING information that we are NOT trying to compete with. This page is about YOU and how to get you THINKING and INTERACTING with other people all over the world. THINK. SPEAK. THINK. SPEAK. REPEAT!!! Inform yourselves!!

Here’s the thing though, I already did search the information for myself, found nothing, so that’s why I decided to ask. It is clear that the person’s response showed that he/she was not informed as he/she jumped to an uninformed conclusion about me.

I, of course offended at the suggestion of what I don’t think was ignorance, told the admin off. I told him he shouldn’t speak to members of his fan page that way and he made an incorrect assumption about me. I tossed some curse words his way as well. I am not sorry: the jerk deserved it.

We had a back and forth that included the admin telling me to get off the page if I didn’t like it. Of course I intended to, but not after I gave the admin a piece of my mind. And then irony struck again.

I was blocked from commenting on the page! Hilarious, considering the page constantly posts things that suggest that they are not about censorship, and for open-minded discussion. But when met with someone who did not sing their praises, they felt the need to cut off that person’s tongue and toss it in a box. (This is the main reason, I was unable to make a screen cap of our argument, because, I accidentally clicked refresh... my comments were all deleted.)

Undaunted, I used my old profile to laugh at their childishness and was also blocked. I used the significant other’s profile to then comment on their rather hypocritical follow up status:

SO MY AMAZING FANS! What's your favorite thing about this page? What do you think we could improve on?

Cruel irony strikes again! I then suggested (via the special fella’s profile) that they should be open to criticism from others with a “Censorship!” war cry. But I was again blocked.

I wonder, then how they can post up their highlighted Facebook status:

So you are all aware...This is not a place to speak hate, towards any race, culture, creed, denomination, etc.Hate only blinds you from seeing the real issues at hand.All of our fans are welcome to comment on anything we post, and we expect some conversations to get heated, but please do it without hate in your hearts.This is not a place to criticize people, or a group of people, on how they live, where they are from, what they believe in, etc.This is a place to receive information, and discuss how this affects our lives as a people.Remember, WE ARE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER.Some choose to be out for themselves, and live for no other reason then to hurt, others can't sleep at night unless they attack someone's beliefs or try to diminish their character.Understand where I am coming from, I am not trying to censor speech at all, but hateful comments serving no purpose are NOT welcome here.I have no tolerance for ignorance, or the hate that accompanies it.I hope this can grow to become an amazing page, full of wonderful people, with brilliant minds, who have insightful conversation.Happy truth seeking.~One of your admins- Nikki

It seems that a stance on anti-censorship should only be used in convenience.

Yay bigotry?

Or… yay for the page, Inform Yourself, they managed to convince some 200 out of their 2,000 Facebook fan page to include the page in their Interests, without informing themselves.