Project ReRen

The beauty of art is its capacity for innovation. The human soul’s expression of feeling is something that we can hardly categorize, much less define. Take Julian Beever for instance. He created new boundaries in art when he began creating breathtakingly realistic sidewalk chalk paintings in the 1990s.

Remember he’s simply using chalk and a sidewalk! *1

Beever is living proof that although science can be predicted through graphs, numbers, and intuition, the direction art will take in a society cannot. Unfortunately, the only direction art in America has taken is down. This is because our consumption in capital and business has led us to fail as a society when it comes to creating a job market for innovative new artists. My passion is the recognition, proper nurture, and creation of art of all kinds. In order to properly illustrate the dilemma that has taken on our society and led to the ultimate death of the humanities in America, we must first understand the problem and its causes. Secondly, we seek to Identify the underlying ideals of this problem, thus isolating it’s importance to our society. Finally, I propose to you a simple, yet theoretically effective solution. Let’s set the scene- society’s initial objection may be that cases like Beever’s are rare. And after all, Beever WAS able to pursue his passion as a career. They’re right that Beever’s case is rare- he was one of the very few lucky artists showcased as part of a cultural hip hop movement in the UK. He was later commissioned by large corporations in light of the movement. Talent-wise however, Beever’s case is an common as could be. This is not to downplay Beever’s talent- each artist’s talents are unique, but their talents are also equally commendable. Another area of remarkable progress that is often shunned by society is that of digital art. Take Daniel Conway for example. This piece of art was done completely on a computer and took nearly 100 hours to complete. Note the incredible amount of detail on the waves.

Digital art has been long ignored simply because it is not a traditional form of art. *2

Daniel Conway has also been able to gain recognition as an artist and work on commissions while holding a day job, much like Beever. Also, like Beever, Conway is an artist from the UK. These two artists have gained popularity simply through the attitudes of the UK youth and their appreciation of art. It is important to note that there are countless American artists who are equally talented and breathtaking, but not recognized. Hubs such as deviant art.com and elfwood.com are beautiful examples of the home grown artistic talents of Americas youth. From photography to traditional art to computer manipulations, writing, and digital art, these websites are the art appreciators dream come true.
On Deviantart, a member has the option of opening up a prints account, which allows them to sell their art online. When I first heard about it, it sounded like a great idea and a great opportunity to earn money and publicity for my work. I was very excited when I sold my first beautiful 8x12 glossy wall print for fifteen dollars… and a little less excited when I realized that I had just made a grand 85 cents profit from it. Even after selling fifty prints, I’d be making a meager forty-two dollars and fifty cents. I suddenly saw the term “starving artist” in a whole new light. This represents the artist’s first challenge: lack of funding.
Remember how Daniel Conway spent nearly 100 hours painting one picture? Not surprisingly, he’s not alone. The intricate amount of work required cannot be rushed. Lucky for you and I, we can purchase 100 hours of Daniel Conway’s time on a beautiful glossy 4x6 for only ten dollars. Daniel’s fame has allowed him to demand such a price for a 4x6, which most artists would sell for two dollars or less with profit margins of only a few cents. Here is the artist’s second challenge: time. Even if an artist was given the opportunity to create commissioned artwork as a side job, is it possible to set aside 100 inspired hours from a busy 40-hour work week? The answer is with difficulty, to say the very least. Logically, then, an artist should pursue art as his or her main career. Once again, selling 100 hours for even 100 dollars will not pay the rent. For this reason, many artists abandon their careers as artists when they enter high school or join engaging activities that limit their time. I did so, and was very unhappy to watch my very talented younger sister follow suit. It is not at all uncommon for one of the amazingly talented artists on these websites to be fourteen or fifteen years old. If they excel so rapidly in such a short period of time, what are the possibilities if we allowed them to continue developing their art?

Lilith is only fifteen, and yet this piece of art displays not only her painting abilities, but her ability to create pixel art and graphic design as well. *3

As I mentioned before, numbers cannot predict the outcome.
At this point in time, it may have crossed your mind that Art is a career field and there are many successful colleges that cater to the market. While it is true that many artists in our society sell their art for ridiculous prices at auctions (easily in the thousands), we must emphasize that these artists are generally traditional, and a very small portion of society. Only art from the common man and from the youth can truly define our society and broaden its artistic horizons. Were careers in art more accessible to the general public, I feel that our society would experience a Renaissance- that is, a period of great resurgence and enlightenment in the areas of art, literature, and learning. Thus, I present to you a proposed rerun of history: Project ReRenaissance, or Project ReRen.

The goal is to create a method that allows for the common artist to generate income and pursue art as a career, rather than being forced to conform to high-income occupations such as doctors or lawyers. The proposed vehicle is society and it’s appreciation of fads. During the Renaissance, wealthy families had family artists. The family clothed, sheltered, and fed the artist who worked at his leisure painting family portraits as well as whatever else he desired. While I’m not suggesting that we turn aspiring artists into domesticated pets, it is important to note the underlying concept in this situation- the wealthy support the talented.

The Renaissance was a time of artistic rebirth.*4

Especially in America, where there is often a great disparity between the upper and lower class’ incomes, we watch celebrities throw thousands of dollars around on frivolous items such as makeup and shoes. If we could mobilize social interest in artists through a magazine and a website, it would be possible to create a fad out of discovering and sponsoring new artists. Much like a company is sponsored, artists would also be sponsored. It would also put our economic resources to good use. Additionally, artists would receive publicity and from there a multitude of potential jobs- artists are needed for almost every entrepreneurial endeavor imaginable. Perhaps most importantly, however, it would raise cultural appreciation for art which would conversely increase the worth of art as well as the investment in and purchase of it. Prices naturally increase as demand does. As an effect, not only would my wall print sell easily for more than fifteen dollars, but many more people would buy it. Here we see that we would not only be relying on the wealthy, but the middle class, who can easily afford smaller prints. When purchased by a considerably greater number of people, even a 2 dollar print could raise a lot of money. Thus my profit would increase considerably. Additionally, with such sudden power thrust in the hands of artists, new guilds or unions would probably form in order to ensure that I received more than eighty-five cents for every fifteen dollars of art that I sold.
Is it possible? Si, se puede! The best argument to support this is the music industry. Music itself is an art, and the large amount of money made in the business every year is very similar to what printed art could achieve. Art has the ability to move and intrigue people, and I feel that the artistic sculptures that go for thousands of dollars today isolate the general public rather than appealing to them. The art found on many of these websites, much like music, caters directly to its creators- the common man.
All in all, project ReRen will serve to allow artists in general to increase profits from work and encourage them to continue to create art. It will reallocate funds from the wealthy upper class and channel them to support self-expression and art in our society. I feel that through this project my passion has finally become functional as well as philanthropic.

Word Count: 1,470

-----------------------------
*1: http://users.skynet.be/J.Beever/
*2: http://arcipello.deviantart.com/
*3: http://azninsanity.deviantart.com
*4: http://hoylelamps.com

Me Defined Re-defined.

I've always been hard to define. I never fit in one group or another. Thinkers vs Feelers, Objective vs Emotional. Detailed psychology tests like these always place me in that "small percentage of the population born to be a leader" group. Interestingly enough, all my characteristics are listed as moderate. Is that perhaps what makes a leader?

Can we really define ourselves in such a black and white manner?

As the test predicted, this defining of people frustrates me. As I pour over all these descriptions and characteristics I realize more and more that the traits that fit me are scattered about. Most everyone identifies strongly with something or another, and not being able to do that always makes me feel like there's no solution for me. Once again, as the test predicted, my soul searching phase never seems to end. People like me "can never quite shake the feeling that a part of themselves is split off"(Jung, Online).
In regards to reading and writing in specific, I believe my tendencies are skewed through training. Many questions were difficult to answer because there's a difference between what kind of writer I am naturally as opposed to the type of writer I've grown into. Competing in Speech & Debate has allowed me to develop several skills in areas that I was not naturally talented in. For instance, impromptu speaking. I've always been able to write without preparation, but speaking without preparation in a structured manner with examples is another thing. Impromptu speaking is an event where you are given a topic or quote and one minute to think, then six minutes to speak coherently and persuasively on the topic, with non-personal examples. At first, I found this difficult, but within a year I became fairly competent.
One area where the defining line is heavily blurred is between thinking/feeling. I'm a very logical writer, leaning very often on "objective analysis, cause-effect"(Meyers-Briggs, 395), and all my writing is usually very structured and detail-oriented, full of support and justification for all my beliefs. I believe DBs have actually been the only exception to that, and perhaps that it because I treat them more like journals- little bursts of expression rather than objective writing. I let my thoughts meander across a variety of topics, and in the end I learn a lot about myself. DBs express another side of me as a writer that always shows up even in my structured and logical writing- I'd "rather talk about values and their feelings. Giv[ing] human examples"(Meyers-Briggs, 395) is also another tendency. I always like to personify my writing and connect with my audience so as always to remain "aware of [my] audience"(Meyers-Briggs, 395). Judging/Perceiving is also another blurred area. "Judging types tend to write quickly... and produce more writing"(Meyers-Briggs, 404), while "perceiving types tend to select broad topics and dive into research without limiting them"(Meyers-Briggs, 404). I seem to do both at the same time- as this DB shows, I tackle a broad topic in a short time span. This trait seems to be at the heart of Plan II.
In essence, I believe this combination of traits is what creates "The Portrait of the Champion"(Jung, Online) effect- the ability to bridge the gap between those who think and write objectively and those who think and write when motivated by feeling. People like these probably often end up lawyers or are involved in politics in other ways, which they use as a platform for large-scale change. This is why they are labeled "Champions", but really they are no different or better than anyone else- they simply specialize in an area that allows for great social impact.
Thinking about all these things immediately fills me with regret. Social impact, reading, writing, test results telling me that's what I'm meant to do, people telling me that's what I've got the potential to do- pressure. And regret that I'm forcing myself to do pre-med instead. That's why I like to stay away from these tests and pretend that I'm everything these tests tell me I'm not- calculated, unswayed by emotion, objective, detail-oriented, organized, and born to achieve in a systematic and conventional way.

Social impact- being a spokesperson for a campaign would be a dream come true.


"The Portait of the Champion (ENFP)

The Champion Idealists are abstract in thought and speech, cooperative in accomplishing their aims, and informative and expressive when relating with others. For Champions, nothing occurs which does not have some deep ethical significance, and this, coupled with their uncanny sense of the motivations of others, gives them a talent for seeing life as an exciting drama, pregnant with possibilities for both good and evil. This type is found in only about 3 percent of the general population, but they have great influence because of their extraordinary impact on others. Champions are inclined to go everywhere and look into everything that has to do with the advance of good and the retreat of evil in the world. They can't bear to miss out on what is going on around them; they must experience, first hand, all the significant social events that affect our lives. And then they are eager to relate the stories they've uncovered, hoping to disclose the "truth" of people and issues, and to advocate causes. This strong drive to unveil current events can make them tireless in conversing with others, like fountains that bubble and splash, spilling over their own words to get it all out.

Champions consider intense emotional experiences as being vital to a full life, although they can never quite shake the feeling that a part of themselves is split off, uninvolved in the experience. Thus, while they strive for emotional congruency, they often see themselves in some danger of losing touch with their real feelings, which Champions possess in a wide range and variety. In the same vein, Champions strive toward a kind of spontaneous personal authenticity, and this intention always to "be themselves" is usually communicated nonverbally to others, who find it quite attractive. All too often, however, Champions fall short in their efforts to be authentic, and they tend to heap coals of fire on themselves, berating themselves for the slightest self-conscious role-playing."

Your Type is
ENFP

Extraverted	Intuitive	Feeling	Perceiving
Strength of the preferences %
33	50	62	56

As the Cause Complains about the Effects

"Almost all knowledge of the inner nature and feelings of others must come through the imagination"(Bate, 131).

In order to further understand a large part of my society (and even class), today I take an opposing stance to my original belief that the left is not solely responsible for anti-American feelings in the Muslim world through the aforementioned "sympathetic imagination"(Bate, 131).

We can assert that the left is indeed largely responsible for anti-American feelings in the Middle East by observing the image leftists create for America, further revealing the lack of logic in their beliefs against the backdrop of their actions, and finally depicting the leftist addiction to being negative and blaming others.

The Daily Show is one of many critical media outlets.

As D'Souza points out, there are multiple "liberal outlets... aimed at further humiliating the U.S. government"(D'Souza, 255). The goal of these leftists seems to be to destroy morale and encourage people not to have faith in the government. Anti-patriotic notions such as these initially developed during the sixties during and following the Vietnam War. In essence, they're creating hyper-hippies. And if they're criticism can turn Americans on their own government and society, imagine what it can do to those abroad who actually suffer at the hands of this government. It's much like being threatened by a kid who has no confidence in himself. It becomes a joke. This lack of faith or "confidence" is solely due to leftist media coverage and anti-patriotic attitudes.
Extreme Democrats argue that we impose upon the traditions and cultures of Muslims and Middle Easterners, created resentment towards the United States. However it is to be noted that the very culture these traditional Muslims detest is that of these Extreme Democrats. Non-traditional practices such as homosexuality and pre-marital sex are much more prominent amongst Democrats. Thus, we find the cause complaining about the effects. The left justifies it's actions on the basis of "liberal morality... what used to be considered sexually deviant or perverted under the old order becomes permitted as an expression of autonomy and individuality"(D'Souza, 143). This idea of putting one's "self-expression" above all else is viewed by Muslim society as a lack of control over one's desires. Thus, our largest problem; the leftists are seeking to aid those who detest them.

Anti-patriotic ideas have resurfaced in the face of another apparently unjust war.

Not only are they creating negative ideas overseas by appalling traditional societies, but they have also managed to blame the Right back at home. They are essentially spreading negativity in all directions. The Left seems to be very good at simply criticizing other institutes, but honestly does very little to rectify the problem. It is even more illogical that their passionate calls to action have little or no effect at all aside from further dividing America and creating skepticism as well as guilt.

The left is therefore at the heart of our problem overseas. In the absence of these radicals, perhaps the middle east would be able to relate more easily to America and it's true culture.

Curiosity killed the Cat and Censorship the Virgin

I don't believe public censorship is necessary, for a multitude of reasons. My view is made clear through discussion of the level at which censorship should be enacted and the preservation in censorship's destruction.

The Quran is an interesting source to turn to when tackling the topic of censorship. It mandates censorship of hair through hijaab, yet warns very strictly against the possibility of censorship of the Quran. In fact, all Muslims must learn to read and write Arabic and read the Quran in the original language in order to ensure that no parts were censored or meaning lost in translation. Thus, we are presented with a desire to censor the physical and opposition to censoring ideas and knowledge.
Now, when presented with the idea of censoring sex and violence on TV, a dilemma is created: this is precisely where the spheres of the physical and the ideal meet. After all, are reproduction and blood not part of the essence of humanity?
Enter the idea of "Shariah Reasoning"(Kelsay, 340) is a fairly controversial one. Whereas it does not censor any part of the Quran, it reinterprets it for "changing times"(Kelsay, 340). This accounts for the disparity between modern and "extremist" Muslim beliefs. Those many call extremists are simply those who feel premodern ideas should be "not so much interpreted as applied"(Kelsay, 340).
Now, we can take Shariah Reasoning outside of the context of the Quran (although I'm pretty sure relating censorship of the Quran with that of Sex and Violence is very blasphemous), and apply the general idea of reasoning to media censorship.
Regardless of what you may believe should be censored, the more important question is - who is to decide what should be censored? It is a very controversial issue, and we all have our own opinions. This is mind, can a government truly decide so casually what the people feel? For this reason I believe that by citing the great American values of Democracy and free will, the duty and decision to censor falls upon the individual. There are some things children should not watch- so don't let your children watch them. If parents aren't going to make an effort, then children will see sex in violence in alternate forms. For this reason it is most beneficial to vote for candidate A, who opposes all media censorship.

Hunting renders a child much more capable of violence than video games do.

Questions immediately arise- seeing sex and violence on TV will encourage underage people to have sex and kill people! Incorrect assumption. Studies have shown that video game violence does not affect aggression negatively. Rather it serves as an outlet. Serial Killers are often those found outside, torturing animals. Sociopaths are those who enjoy tormenting others much more than killing any pixel-made man. We can look to the lack of censorship in Europe, and although there is more sex in Europe, there is much more SAFE sex. In our changing world, we cannot expect everyone to remain chaste and not have sex out of wedlock, but the least we can do is educate them. Sex is already very strongly suggested in our media, but it is not shown, leading the viewer to be curious. And as we all know, curiosity killed the cat and apparently censorship the virgin.
Linking back to Islam, Dinesh D'Souza vouches that lack of censorship has lead Muslim countries to believe that popular culture and "the immorality of blue America... represent[s] all of America"(D'Souza, 278), thus fostering anti-American feelings. There is a simple response- since when do we care? No, just kidding. However, it is important to note that lack of censorship does not mean that every show from Barnie to America's Next Top Model will become Girls Gone Wild. And as society becomes comfortable with uncensored media, there will not be as much of it. It's very much like the child that is told he cannot have chocolate. When he is finally on his own and able to buy as much chocolate as he wants, after a period of obsession comes moderation. I believe this theory will apply in our case as well. Additionally, international perspectives are not entirely based on media. The uncensored media of Europe is not scrutinized by Middle Eastern countries. Thus, this is a faulty source of resent. Additionally, it is a misconception that all Muslim societies promote Burkhas. Try watching a music video in Iran, where a sweaty man and woman dressed in sexy clothes trade glances. It's not only America.

Poking a little fun at "middle eastern censorship."


Conclusively, censorship is the duty of the individual, and perhaps lack of censorship benefits maturing members of our society.

Don't Hate, Moderate!

D'Souza makes a lot of sense.
Now many of you may have already categorized me in a group of psychos alongside D'Souza, but hear me out, just like I heard him out. D'Souza makes a lot of sense; his conclusion does not.

At first glance, I dismissed D'Souza as a raving extremist lunatic, but after reading The Enemy at Home, I can't help but notice that many of my beliefs are actually harmonious with his. And if you call someone narrow-minded without actually reading his work, congratulations, you're a hypocrite. You see, part of what D'Souza is fighting for is what our first president, George Washington, was fighting for when warned the country in his final public address, "A house divided cannot stand". What he meant by this was that America should not function as a bipartisan-style government. Now, while D'Souza by no means embraces Blue America, he does scrutinize them for spreading anti-patriotic ideals. Interestingly enough, isn't he doing the same thing by calling them out? Really, there's no other way. Sometimes an accusation against the cause is in order. Today I'd like to talk about another side of D'Souza- the details of his work as opposed to his difficult-to-swallow conclusion that Democrats are the sole cause of anti-American feelings in the middle east. First, let's affirm his ideas on the importance of unity and the underlying motive of moderation. Secondly, we can further observe his work and reveal a few points of hypocrisy.


Happy American protesters dividing us. =)

Unity. D'Souza vouches that the cause for American-hatred starts at home as when "the cultural left has routinely affirmed the most vicious prejudices about American foreign policy"(D'Souza, 2). Personally, a part of me has always disliked Left-wing extremists. Believe me, I'm going to kill a whale just because you want me to save one. Okay, maybe not that far- I do actually love Nature a lot, but after hearing people complain over and over, you do tend to get irritated. Things are only as big of a deal as you make them. If you want to save the whales, more power to you. Talk to a congressman, ask me for my signature, but don't ask me to pledge to donate $500 to your organization every year until I die, because if it's going to take you that long and that much money to get control over your cause, you must be doing a lousy job. Either that, or you're never satisfied. Disguised as causes you feel "passionately" about, you're just complainers. The latest trend in complaining has been to redirect forces and un-backed feelings towards the United States of America. Many extremists don't believe in Patriotism, proudly deciding to "fuck the government" for all their evils. This infuriates me. I encourage you silly little kids with your graffiti to live in a third world country for one week, and then let me know how much you hate America. These spoiled, complaining brats simply never learned to count their blessings. It is one thing to be dissatisfied with governmental progress, and it is another to be angry and narrow-minded. Many oppose complete Patriotism for fear that our society will become the spitting image of Fahrenheit 451's, but I find that quite a silly fear. Has anyone ever heard of moderation?


Fahrenheit 451 depicts a society brainwashed and manipulated by the government.


In my second point, we validate D'Souza's idea that the non-conservative sector of America has created a "land of the great Satan"(D'souza, 122) in the eyes of many conservative Muslim societies through practices such as premarital sex, abortion, and gayness, amongst others. He asserts that Muslims dislike the American image due to liberals. This brings up a very good question- if Muslims hate them, why do so many Muslims vote for the Democratic party? Here, it is important to note that D'Souza specifically mentions the fact that "the term "cultural left" does not refer to the Democratic Party"(D'Souza, 1) in his introduction- however the Democratic party does reflect the Democratic ideas and lifestyle. Thus, the Democratic party's success is our best statistical measure of the Muslim reaction. Until we dig deeper- it's true that culturally, traditional Muslim beliefs line up much better with conservative beliefs than Democratic, but it's about acceptance as well. Most of my father's friends are very conservative individuals- however his ballot is always Democratic. Just as Democrats alienate conservative Muslims through there actions, Republicans are equally guilty for condemning them with their words. If Republicans were to be as welcoming to the minority as Democrats were, they would win every election by a landslide. Thus, both parties are essentially guilty, and D'Souza blaming this problem entirely on the Left is quite hypocritical.