Internet Art: Chapter 2 & 3

The Barbie Liberation Organization was a publicity stunt in which the voice boxes were switched between nearly 300 Barbie and GI Joe dolls. This caused an uproar in the media, which was the very intention of the BLO. Mothers should have thought of this as a movement and a message instead of a prank to confuse their kids. The main point that the BLO was trying to make was that toys encourage negative behavior in children by exposing them to violence and sexism that Barbie and GI Joe represent.

Personally, I thought this was hilarious. As a babysitter I have seen the negative effects that certain toys and games have on children. It is sad that the innocence of a child can be overlooked as ignorance. Just because they may not fully understand the idea of sexism and gender rolls, little boys still have a habit of making fun of kids that play with toys like Barbie and therefore will grow to see women as less superior. I thought that even though parents were upset about the who dilemma, that there was no real harm done. If anything, the kids had a good laugh about it and probably looked at Barbie a little differently ever since.

Valie Export was an icon for feminist reform in the late 60's.The idea of letting strangers grab my boobs does not instantly strike me as art. After reading this chapter I began to understand the reasoning behind such a bizarre attempt at a statement art piece.  She used her body as the focus of the piece which showed her radical feminist strength.  She called Touch Cinema "the first genuine women's film." Her bravery and shocking approach caused the public to really think about the power of the human body and how women should contain the will to express their bodies without fear or meditation.

Letters to a Young Contrarian: Ch. 10-13

"I repeat, what really matters about any individual is not what he thinks, but how he thinks. Our conversation has been about the constituents that might go to make up an independent and a questioning person; a dissenter and freethinker. This project cannot best be approached or undertaken in a kneeling or prostrate position."

We use faith as a guide and tool for making our OWN decisions based on our own freethinking mind. He thinks that because someone has faith that they cannot think for themselves. However, this is never the case. Dare I say never? I do. I say this because having faith in a higher power does not cause our mind to become brainwashed mush, but rather to look at the world in a different light. One can simultaneously think freely and also believe in a higher power.

Believers (myself included) doubt, question, and challenge our faith in God on a regular, if not daily, basis. It is only human to think freely; the belief in something does not hinder your mind from making its own decisions. That's like saying because you think aliens exist that you look for aliens everywhere you go and it effects every decision in your day to day life; absurd.

Wouldn't someone who considers themselves to be a "freethinker" consider the possibility of a higher power?

Can someone who counts it out as an option completely consider themselves to be a "questioning person?"

He seems to question things, but only things that he wants to. Does that make him a dissenter or biased and arrogant ass hole?

Does the authors absolutism make him a hypocrite?

Does his judgmental and biased book serve as a tool for creating a dissenter, or for creating a follower?

Letters To A Young Contrarian Chap. 8-9

Okay, for these couple chapters I was irritated to say the least. I don't mind hearing another point of view on the sensitive subject of religion, but something about his wording angered me throughout my reading it.  I'm going to spend this post quoting and debating some interesting points he has made. 

"He or she must also claim to have at least an inkling of what that Supreme Being desires." 

In this point in the book, he is basically calling believers arrogant because they feel like they are doing God's work and they are therefore godly; and that very well may be true for some believers, but that does not mean that a person cannot have faith and be humble. 

There are believers that can stay humble give all the credit to God, never take credit for the good they do nor do they look at themselves as anything nearing godly. To Christians in particular, we strive to be godly, but we know there is no human alive that can ever come close to God in comparison. We are all sinners and just because God has wiped our slate clean does not mean that we see ourselves as perfect, but we see ourselves as loved. 

There is an apparent difference, but obviously not apparent enough for Mr. Hitchens to see. He seems to be someone who has a lot of hate and anger in his heart, therefore it does not surprise me that he finds some of the most humble people on Earth to be the most arrogant. I find it sad that he sees something as beautiful as faith to be so undeniably ignorant.

"So the whole apparatus of absolution and forgiveness strikes me as positively immoral, while the concept of revealed truth degrades the whole concept of free intelligence by purportedly relieving us of the hard task of working out ethical principals for ourselves."

I laughed... out loud. Okay, lets think of this philosophically shall we? There have been ethical leaders throughout the existence of man. People have been creating morals and ethics forever. What makes this any different than finding morals and ethics within the bindings of a Bible? The author of the ten commandments can be compared to philosophers such as Aristotle or Kant in the way that they spell out what they know to be good and bad, right and wrong, ethical and moral. 

My point is, there is no difference in "working out ethical principals for ourselves" through the guidance of a Bible, Immanuel Kant, or your very own mother. 

As a conclusion to this post and as a little note to Christopher Hitchens, I will quote non other than Immanuel Kant himself; 

“I believe that the existence of the Bible is the greatest benefit to the human race. Any attempt to belittle it, I believe, is a crime against humanity.”

Well said Mr. Kant. Well said. 

Letters to a Young Contrarian Ch. 14-ENVOI

For this last post on the book I will be more positive about the author as he does raise very good points. Some of my favorite quotes in the last chapter are as follows:

"No self-description or definition can be relied upon."

"Suspect your own motives and all excuses." 

"Picture all experts as if they were mammals."

These all resinate with me and apply to my life. These are things that I either need to work on or that I find importance in. The main point that I would like to talk about is the quote;

"Do not live for others any more than you would expect others to live for you."

This is something that as soon as I read it, I read it again... and again. You always hear "treat others how you want to be treated," but I have never thought to live for others the way I would EXPECT them to live for me. There is a difference between the way you would like to be treated and the way that you expect to be treated. I find myself giving too much of my life to others and I end up disappointed because they didn't give the same in return. This quote led me to realize that I cannot expect others to treat me the way I want to be treated, and that I shouldn't live for someone who wouldn't live for me. 

Letters to a Young Contrarian: Ch. 14-15

"Humor ought to be pointed-ought to preserve its relationship to wit- and it ought to be fearless"

I agree with these three points. In order for something to be truly funny it must be directed at a person, thing, event, feeling or a place. If it is not directed at something in particular, it is hard for it to remain on the track of hilarity.

As for wit as it relates to humor, I agree that they must be in total harmony. Wit is the heart and soul of humor as it gives intellectual evidence that helps draw attention to a theme being presented by the comedian.

Along with these two points, the third is extremely important. A comedian cannot be afraid of anything; of hurting peoples feelings, of saying something politically incorrect or of ruining their own reputation. If they fear anything, they will hold back. This hesitation takes away from the humor of it all. Daniel Tosh is funny for his fearlessness. He pokes fun at every race, religion, orientation, and gender. He doesn't hold back and he is not afraid of making people mad, and that makes him all the more funny.

RiP! A Remix Manifesto

The act of remix is well defended throughout this film. I personally loved the film and the manifesto they created. My absolute favorite point made in the film was the Disney debate.

Walt Disney was and will be forever considered an artist. To the world he was a visionary, but was it his original vision? No, Disney used story lines, characters, and other artists ideas to inspire some of his most notable work.  He built something new from a compilation of other artists works, just as remixers do today. He used ideas from the movie "Steamboat Bill" to make the infamous "Steamboat Willie." Once he died, the Disney corporation sued anyone for using Mickey Mouse. The mouse that nearly founded the Disney corporation became famous by what the company now considers "stealing."  Oh, the irony.

I'm not sure what the future holds, but I hope that remixers keep fighting for the rights to express their creativity. I am rooting for remixing artists like Girl Talk; and I call him that because he IS an artist... not a thief.

Favorite Topic in Class

I found the surveillance and "Big Brother" topic to be really interesting because I strongly believe that as Amercians we should have the ultimate right to privacy. My favorite video that we watched was "PoliceState" where the remote controlled cars were linked to a police scanner that once it detected certain radio codes having to do with terrorism it would make the cars move a certain way. The video itself wasn't visually interesting, but the idea and concept behind it makes it a work of art. The idea was to make the "police become puppets of their own surveillance." It signifies the role reversal of who has power over information and who should.