Intelligent Artists?

Firstly, I'm far from saying that artists aren't intelligent, I mean we take ownership over mother fucking Leonardo da Vinci. Hell, I think I heard more often he was an artist than a scientist, musician, anatomist, geologist, inventor, cartographer, writer or botanist. What I'm asking is why do people who call themselves 'artists' knock the rest of their intelligence?

My 'facts' for this 3:00am rant-essay, ransay, ranssay, essant? Essant. My 'facts' for this essant come from my classes. I've heard time and time again that 'writing is hard'. Why? Why do people who prefer to create visually automatically discount their ability to think critically? Why does it seem to be a given that just because you create that you can't question the world around you? We can critique one another and fine our faults with various eras of art history, but why do people who call themselves 'art majors' think that they can't write? Why is thinking analytically magically not something that contemporary art students think they can't do, or is that just at my school?

Looking into art history Michelangelo di Lodovico Buonarroti Simoni (the Ninja Turtle) was an engineer, poet, architect, painter and sculptor. Zhang Heng was a scholar of hiatory, poetry, philosophy, mathematics, cartography, geography and an artist. Mikhail Vasilyevich Lomonosov was a scientist, artist, studied optics, philology and mineralogy. Thomas Jefferson was a musician, lawyer architect, naturalist, botanist and inventor. These people created and studied the sciences, why can't modern artist be analytical in ways other than creating?

I ask this because, yes, I did start college by taking biology courses, biology makes sense to me. Writing is easy, I mean look at the essants I have on this blog, they may be typo ridden, but every now and again I have a poetic turn of phrase or an interesting way to re-express an idea. It's disparaging enough as a creative who has a weird combination of vanity and low self-esteem in relation to the things I create, but I rarely doubt my true intelligence or the things I can do. I fear failing so I don't always want to go out on a limb, but I have a ton of passive-aggressive issues which still don't excuse why I haven't been more out going. I know I can write, I have few problems with writing or knowing how to write and put together a more or less cohesive idea.  I think it discouraging when I hear from faculty that they don't expect their art students to be able to write.

Words are power. Having an average or even moderately above average grasp of language can help your argument, it can never hurt your argument because if you can think up you know enough below it to talk to anyone. Then there's the issue of knowing when to exercise one word or another, but that's being sociable and knowing how to read people.  Having a strong grasp of vocabulary  as someone who creates things and put them out for the world to see and critique is important because you have better ways to explain yourself when it comes time to hear from the artist.

I don't think that faculty should accept substandard writing from art majors. Why should someone who can throw some crap together as a sculpture, or mix some pigments together on a canvas get a pass at things outside of their educational focus? I find aspects of education to be incredibly irritating, but that doesn't mean it's a bad thing for me to try to learn something new, to push my boundaries. I have few classes I honestly didn't enjoy. I understand biology and find it to be incredible fascinating. Plants are amazing machines this planet takes for granted. Philosophy and sociology are great at finding other ways to convey a complex concept in words of iconography. History is the story of the winner, but digging deeper or to the side you can find the losers and the people stepped on  in the annals of history, these give a more human connection to things that seem to have just been a government lead period of time. English and language courses give you the words, the opportunity, to connect with more people. With the little bit of Spanish I was taught (notice I said taught and not learned) I learned a bit about a different culture. How a language is used in different countries, how honorifics or person change to be respectful help me to consider different things when I'm out in the world. I may use a rude tense in Spanish every now and again, but I'll apologize because I realize I used the wrong one and cannot remember the correct one.

Having an art only education is faulty and not expecting students to know anything outside of what they want to do with their lives is a pitfall in our society. Yes, sometimes I do just want to take studio classes, get my degree and be done with school, but I am grateful for all of my classes. Having my thoughts and ideas challenged, strengthening my lexicon so I'm a more verbose person has been a good thing. I think that students in the arts should spend more time writing, looking up more words and understanding how to make language their bitch because a painting can sometimes only go so far. Words are an easy sign of intelligence, by not accepting this, you're putting you into a smaller box, making it more difficult for your point to get across.

Artists, don't fear words, make them your friends. Don't fear questioning the world around you. You're doing it already, why else would Duchamp turn a urinal on it's side, or Picasso affix handle bars to a bike seat? These are their ways of challenging convention and what people think the world should be. The Surrealists questioned perception of the world and contorted it, in their own way they were analyzing the world that could be. Every piece you make is a way of questioning the world around you, you just need to accept this and accept that you are being analytical, even if you think not.

Scientists study the world we've been given and share what they understand. Artists study the world we've been given and pus that idea further by questioning why it isn't different from what we have and show their results. Both study the world.

Jasmine P.

Higher Education

I don't understand why people complain about where they've ended up for college. It doesn't make me doubt choosing ODU, but I question why other people 'settle' for it. I'm in one of the computer labs on campus and I can hear people complaining about choosing to attend this school. Saying it's 'where you go when you don't get accepted into any other school in Virginia.' What the hell is with that sentiment. If you're not happy here, go the fuck somewhere else. I have had a mostly fantastic experience here. The few short comings have been with my dormitory roommates, and a few faculty members who have made keeping an extra-curricular activity running smoothly on the difficult side.

What I mean is, I was accepted to every school I applied to. I was accepted to Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond and chose not to attend there. I was accepted to George Mason University in Fairfax County, that was too close to home for me. I was also accepted to Hampton University and too turned that school down. I turned down three relatively prestigious schools to come to the not as well known Old Dominion University.

Well, for one, it is a 'university' we have the means to grant students graduate degrees which is pretty fucking special in my mine. This school is apparently a really good school for dentistry. I've had questions about the dental program from my dentist and the technician every time I've gone to get my teeth worked on just about, since I told them I was attending ODU once I graduated from South Lakes HS. I mean, yeah, I ragged on SLHS when I was there, but it was a good school. I was challenged by my International Baccalaureate courses, I enjoyed my environment, but I did overall enjoy SLHS.

Why complain when you did make it somewhere? Be satisfied and transfer if you hate the school so much. I'm in no means saying there are a lot of things I 'love' about ODU, there are plenty of things I find irritating, but I really wouldn't want to be in a different school. I I wasn't at ODU I'd have no Borjo, I might not be fencing, I'd have no Local Heroes, I might not be as into Western comics as I currently am, I'd be an entirely different person. I've also met some awesome people in and around the campus area. But It kind of comes down to I really don't think I'd be happy elsewhere. Maybe that's their issue, they're not happy.They need to find a better coping mechanism than bitching. I mean, when I wrote this we were just barely through our second week of classes, and I think those bitching were freshmen. Not positive on that though.

Jasmine P.

Behind Closed Doors

Last night I saw Milk, starring Sean Penn, Emile Hirch and Josh Brolin. It reminded me of things I knew but it introduced me to many things I hadn't ans it showed the severity of the hatred people have for others.

I know people have issues with homosexuality but I can't understand why? Why do the Christian Fundamentalists believe that they're trying to 'recruit' children to love those of the same sex? Because some men sexually abused children doesn't mean that all men want to. It did say that statically child abusers were heterosexual. I saw somewhere once that abuse is primarially a rift on power, for the man to feel as if he's in control.

But today I've read over Harvey Milk's life, I've read over the 'Save our Children' campaign and at the moment I can't read about John Briggs or his Initiation. It's painful and illogical. That amout of idiocy in the world, why? Why do people hate so much? Why do the they feel the need to shut down people who have done nothing wrong. Yes, I understand homosexualty is a sin, but when did humanity become God? Just because you believe wiht all your heart that it's right, but science or something can prove you're wrong, that doesn't mean you're right.

I truely don't know what I'm trying to say here, but if people are allowed to be discriminated on and they're banned from housing and work, what are they supposed to do with themselves? There's nothing wrong with their cognitive abiities but they can't have a home because they love their own gender. How does that hurt other people? People go to prison because they are a danger to the world around them, but how is homosexuality a danger to the surrounding world? Unless they're knowing transmitting diseases, they're not a danger.

I don't know if I truely want to understand what those type of people think. I don't think I want to understand why because I'm that much happier not knowing. My homosexual friends are fun and amazing to have. People are people before their sexuality. People eat, breath, live and want to pursue whatever their happiness is, so how does who they sleep next to fut into this?


Jasmine P.

Displaying my Art

While washing some dishes and playing my usual game of 'If I I Meet A Celebrity, I'll Ask Them These Questions' I was explaining why I was curious for 'one of the harder parts you did in your opinion' instead of 'what is the hardest part you've ever played' because trying to define something as a 'hardest' of any extreme is not easy, and it's not something I condone because verything has it's own difficulties and eases.

I was explaining my wording and relating it to pieces I do. There are things I dislike about most everything I do, and no matter how many things I dislike, there's usually some little thing I like about a piece I've done. And That got me to thinking about why I show people my art.

I don't show people my art to be told 'it's great' because most of my friends are not artists. They think damn near every doodle, every sketch, every finished piece is amazing. I sure as hell don't, not for my art, or anyone else. There are aspects I like. But what I had gotten around to thinking was I show people my art for their reactions. Their responses, questions, understanding, acceptance, confusion. I'm not digging for compliments. I'm digging for responses that I can file away. There are people whom I show my work who most often respond with 'that's nice, but why are you showing me this?' it gives me the chance to explain something I've created, in turn explaining myself, but it gets me away from the 'yes men' who think it's amazing that I an hold a pencil, a pen, anything in such a fashion that I am able to make something out of it.

My line of questioning is more on the aspects of a film, of a project and working on it more so than a laundry list of favorite, least favorite parts. My questioning gave me the 'why' What was a hard aspect of a part? Why? What is something about a past performance you'd want to change? That damn near gives me the 'why' without having to ask it. This question is also fun because actors always want to change and improve a performance, but can't. I think it'd be fun to hear about some of the things they wish to change about their performances, or parts they disliked and wish they hadn't done, or any myriad of things. My list of questions goes on and is probably terribly redundant after a while.

~~~

Part of what got me thinking about this was reading 'A Guide TRYS' the book that inspired the movie. It's interesting to see that Dito didn't so much as write about himself whereas he wrote more about the people around him and his interaction with them, which at the same time says a lot about himself. He's not vain and he loved the people he was around. A Guide is also great because of how it's written. It's not one long narrative, it's written more like how he'd be telling the story to someone else. There are interjections about how a past event made him feel and so forth. That makes it interesting. And the chapters aren't terribly long. It's just about one chapter per interaction. 'Tag' was one chapter, but it was about general tag games, and one special tag game. Nothing's really in chronological order which also makes it interesting to read as time just around.

Reading this was making me think of the movie and commentary with how Dito kind of let the actors do what they would and how things worked. I remember hearing RDJ talking about filming the movie with Dito and how only Dito would make a movie with five acts. Or from Dito talking about how he had the actors really go at it in a scene, like the scene where Young Dito was being beaten up by the Reaper, he told the actors to really wail on LaBeouf for the scene. Or in the retaliation when Antonio attacked the Reaper, Dito told him to hit him as hard as he could upside the back of the head with the prop bat. It made me think about difficulties that actors have with some directors, but also how different directors tackle a movie, or people who aren't 'trained' as directors but become directors.

Did I mention a spoiler warning? Too late.

My point in bringing in Dito's directing style is that letting the actors give everything they could as they saw necessary, as they felt the characters felt gave them a real humanity and at the same time showed a real vulnerability int he actors. It would also prove to be more difficult for everyone involved because it wasn't the lack of directions the actors didn't have, it was showing so much of themselves in these characters. It was a different sort of challenge for the actors to go for it which made it's own difficulties. That lead me to my who thing about my own art because as I pose these questions in my head I give my responses for other people which have little bearing on what their responses would really be because I don't know more than what I've read online or gleamed from commentary or interviews.

Jasmine P.