Poem a day is on a break as i am travelling in Malaysia for a month but check back for travel updates if you like.
So the idea here was that i love poetry and wanted even more of an excuse to read some. I will hopefully cover some classics but also unearth some lesser-known poets and their poems for you. There should be a real range of nationalities, eras and subject matter the only unifying element will be their quality. Only one poem will be shown at a time but previous days's poems will be listed at the bottom. I hope you enjoy them.
Previous poems:
26th July: To a Friend Concerning Several Ladies by William Carlos Williams
25th July: I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings by Maya Angelou
24th July: Literal by Ani DiFranco
23rd July: Bosnia Tune by Joseph Brodsky
Saturday 23 July 2011
Friday 22 July 2011
On travel as a way of life
Reading Alain De Botton's Art of Travel unearthed many treasures, among them an account of Xavier de Maistre's journey around his bedroom. Xavier's idea was that travel was an attitude to life that comes with being in a different place and he decided to apply this in the comfort of his bedroom. The idea is a good one; pragmatic in terms of time and money (although unlikely to catch on as a summer holiday option even in a recession) but i think it only applies to some people.
The idea is unlikely to catch on with those who wish to sunbathe by day and party by night, but then they aren't "travellers" per se, not to my mind anyway. The target demographic must be people who wish to travel but can't afford either the time or the money. De Maistre identifies bedroom travel as an alternative and De Botton goes on to have a very enjoyable walk around Hammersmith but I think travel is more of a way of life than that.
Travel is an intrigue, an interest and a capacity to walk through life noticing the little things wherever you are whether that's South Luangwa National Park in Zambia or a car park in Slough; the Cathedral of Sveti Sava in Belgrade or your parish church. Travel is, as the spoken word poet Sarah Kay beautifully puts it, walking through life with your arms out ready to catch whatever falls out of the sky. Sure, you go to different places for specific things and often we want a cultural shift; we want to try different philosophies, lives, foods, buildings and people but you do so to incorporate the parts that you like into the life you have at home.
The real souvenirs of travel are less the objects we bought in markets and more the memory of things we liked, attitudes or recipes; the stories we tell are just the feelings we had when we were there.
Of course travelling is easier when in new places, more things capture our imagination but for me the true traveller travels their home town or wherever they are just as they would travel Borneo - with their eyes open. I think we retain our child-like naivety, a perspective that tells us that we are so small and that there is so much to know and see.
People say that life is a journey - only some of us travel it.
If you enjoyed this you might like to head on over to my travel blog at travelatalexleclez.blogspot.com for more.
The idea is unlikely to catch on with those who wish to sunbathe by day and party by night, but then they aren't "travellers" per se, not to my mind anyway. The target demographic must be people who wish to travel but can't afford either the time or the money. De Maistre identifies bedroom travel as an alternative and De Botton goes on to have a very enjoyable walk around Hammersmith but I think travel is more of a way of life than that.
Travel is an intrigue, an interest and a capacity to walk through life noticing the little things wherever you are whether that's South Luangwa National Park in Zambia or a car park in Slough; the Cathedral of Sveti Sava in Belgrade or your parish church. Travel is, as the spoken word poet Sarah Kay beautifully puts it, walking through life with your arms out ready to catch whatever falls out of the sky. Sure, you go to different places for specific things and often we want a cultural shift; we want to try different philosophies, lives, foods, buildings and people but you do so to incorporate the parts that you like into the life you have at home.
The real souvenirs of travel are less the objects we bought in markets and more the memory of things we liked, attitudes or recipes; the stories we tell are just the feelings we had when we were there.
Of course travelling is easier when in new places, more things capture our imagination but for me the true traveller travels their home town or wherever they are just as they would travel Borneo - with their eyes open. I think we retain our child-like naivety, a perspective that tells us that we are so small and that there is so much to know and see.
People say that life is a journey - only some of us travel it.
If you enjoyed this you might like to head on over to my travel blog at travelatalexleclez.blogspot.com for more.
Thursday 21 July 2011
on eco-graffiti ii
I have already written here about eco-graffiti but so many interesting things have been found since then it merits a second post. It seems that etching into plants is not the only avenue open to those who wish to indulge in some public displays of artfection. I have found images in moss, printed into snow and, perhaps most cunningly, selective cleaning. It really is amazing what you can find when you know that there is something to look for.
The artist Hanksy's technique of printing into snow is innovative ( and can be found here: http://hanksy.co.uk/page4.html ) but is surely not practical in the UK. Maybe it is intended to signify fleeting moments of art but i personally feel that crude puns are not the best example of art. Edina Tokadi, on the other hand, offers a more sustainable and lasting image in Williamsburg, Brooklyn with images of animals presented in moss. Although it relies on good behaviour from the locals i feel the moss adds a tactile element to the art which, combined with the playful animal shapes, will surely appeal to children and adults alike. Graffiti, for me, is about reclaiming land, transgressing notions of property and ultimately creating more liveable areas for everybody and if you look here i think you will agree Tokadi achieves this: http://tinyurl.com/3cq5psm . On the same webpage the artist herself is quoted as saying that she likes to let her plants "live by themselves" stating that, "from the moment I put them on the street they start to have their own life". Roland Barthes would love this because as soon as the artist is finished with their work it becomes a part of society and open to what other people will do with it; i feel art that is interactive and collaborative is the finest type and sincerely hope the people of Williamsburg have not only maintained the pieces but changed and enhanced their beauty and identity.
Another interesting find on the inhabitat website was this article on reverse graffiti: http://tinyurl.com/29lwg6d . The movement seems to have been started by "Moose" and Alexandre Orion and they selectively clean dirty walls in public leaving an image. The interest from brands such as Smirnoff suggests that this is a phenomena that may continue into the future (after all the worst that could happen is that walls were properly cleaned afterwards as was the case in the Sao Paulo tunnels) and although technically it is illegal advertising when done for branding it is surely a fantastic eco-solution for artists who live in unclean cities.
If you have seen any interesting eco-graffiti i would love to see it and if you have been inspired to create your own masterpieces i have found a recipe for the moss mixture here: http://tinyurl.com/3q2q6tt . I am so glad that, as Kate Muir put it, the days of "preserving sharks in formaldehyde is over [and] the days of preserving sharks in the ocean are here."
The artist Hanksy's technique of printing into snow is innovative ( and can be found here: http://hanksy.co.uk/page4.html ) but is surely not practical in the UK. Maybe it is intended to signify fleeting moments of art but i personally feel that crude puns are not the best example of art. Edina Tokadi, on the other hand, offers a more sustainable and lasting image in Williamsburg, Brooklyn with images of animals presented in moss. Although it relies on good behaviour from the locals i feel the moss adds a tactile element to the art which, combined with the playful animal shapes, will surely appeal to children and adults alike. Graffiti, for me, is about reclaiming land, transgressing notions of property and ultimately creating more liveable areas for everybody and if you look here i think you will agree Tokadi achieves this: http://tinyurl.com/3cq5psm . On the same webpage the artist herself is quoted as saying that she likes to let her plants "live by themselves" stating that, "from the moment I put them on the street they start to have their own life". Roland Barthes would love this because as soon as the artist is finished with their work it becomes a part of society and open to what other people will do with it; i feel art that is interactive and collaborative is the finest type and sincerely hope the people of Williamsburg have not only maintained the pieces but changed and enhanced their beauty and identity.
Another interesting find on the inhabitat website was this article on reverse graffiti: http://tinyurl.com/29lwg6d . The movement seems to have been started by "Moose" and Alexandre Orion and they selectively clean dirty walls in public leaving an image. The interest from brands such as Smirnoff suggests that this is a phenomena that may continue into the future (after all the worst that could happen is that walls were properly cleaned afterwards as was the case in the Sao Paulo tunnels) and although technically it is illegal advertising when done for branding it is surely a fantastic eco-solution for artists who live in unclean cities.
If you have seen any interesting eco-graffiti i would love to see it and if you have been inspired to create your own masterpieces i have found a recipe for the moss mixture here: http://tinyurl.com/3q2q6tt . I am so glad that, as Kate Muir put it, the days of "preserving sharks in formaldehyde is over [and] the days of preserving sharks in the ocean are here."
Wednesday 20 July 2011
on eco-graffiti
Reflections on French nudity and dressing aside Nice showed me something i can't believe that i've never seen before: graffiti on plants. No spray paint here, it looked like the graffiti had simply been etched into the cacti. Is this a new eco-friendly form of graffiti? No wasted spray, no spray-can necessary, no cleaning possible; it might be the future of graffiti: artists are a very conscious group.
Now i have no idea how expensive being a graffiti artist is, in fact, all of my graffiti knowledge comes from a book i browsed whilst waiting for my hair to be cut and the odd amusing print of Banksy pictures. Some quick research revealed that a spray-paint can costs between £3 and £15, overalls cost £5 a time and a paint mask sets you back about £20. This struck me as relatively cheap for art but, and you'll be shocked at this, during my research for a sharp implement with which to etch, i came across five sticks outside my house and several stones all of which were free! This means that not only is plant-etching eco-friendly but it's cheaper too. (More sensible readers might note that you could easily come by a sharp object for a very small sum and it would likely be a one-time purchase unlike spray-cans.)
I know that in the UK we are relatively relaxed when it comes to graffiti (well at least when it is done by Banksy) and this seems true of many of the countries that embrace it as an art form. Eco-graffiti (as i shall from now be calling it) deals with what i imagine can be a big problem: over-congestion. It must be (i say with no real knowledge) a problem. There is only so much wall space. Plants, however, will repair these parts of themselves renewing the canvas for someone else. They might even give an interesting effect where old scar tissue gives a background to new pictures without confusing the image. Even if you aren't too bothered about the environment cacti offer a good canvas for you because the local authorities are not able to clean off your art but are also unlikely to actually remove the plants.
It seems that everyone is a winner with eco-graffiti and even though i have only seen it in Nice i think it just might take off.
Now i have no idea how expensive being a graffiti artist is, in fact, all of my graffiti knowledge comes from a book i browsed whilst waiting for my hair to be cut and the odd amusing print of Banksy pictures. Some quick research revealed that a spray-paint can costs between £3 and £15, overalls cost £5 a time and a paint mask sets you back about £20. This struck me as relatively cheap for art but, and you'll be shocked at this, during my research for a sharp implement with which to etch, i came across five sticks outside my house and several stones all of which were free! This means that not only is plant-etching eco-friendly but it's cheaper too. (More sensible readers might note that you could easily come by a sharp object for a very small sum and it would likely be a one-time purchase unlike spray-cans.)
I know that in the UK we are relatively relaxed when it comes to graffiti (well at least when it is done by Banksy) and this seems true of many of the countries that embrace it as an art form. Eco-graffiti (as i shall from now be calling it) deals with what i imagine can be a big problem: over-congestion. It must be (i say with no real knowledge) a problem. There is only so much wall space. Plants, however, will repair these parts of themselves renewing the canvas for someone else. They might even give an interesting effect where old scar tissue gives a background to new pictures without confusing the image. Even if you aren't too bothered about the environment cacti offer a good canvas for you because the local authorities are not able to clean off your art but are also unlikely to actually remove the plants.
It seems that everyone is a winner with eco-graffiti and even though i have only seen it in Nice i think it just might take off.
Monday 18 July 2011
on french beaches
If you are one of those special people who frequently read this blog you will have noticed that i've not been leaving many digital footprints for you to follow. For this i must apologise but i have been away, in Nice, and have brought back some reflections. With no blog to write on they were written in a vague diary format and i want to experiment with this form and its effect so this post might look a little strange.
Some Early Thoughts from Nice
French people dress more bravely.
The French are more liberal (this translates to better in my mind) when it comes to nudity and, sadly i feel they come hand in hand, sex. People are happy to sunbathe sans vêtements and just change on the beach. Why did i feel i needed to retreat to the toilets?! (Note to self: Maybe spend time in a nudist colony to overcome this ridiculous British embarrassment over something completely natural. Aim for the week: Feel comfortable enough to be nude in public for a few seconds, changing into swimming trunks might present the perfect opportunity. Let's take this with little steps.) Why shouldn't i be confident enough? Why should i care anyway?
French people through all ages are braver with what they will wear. As a result they are more stylish, have more flair and are more individual, they embrace their individuality. What a fantastically confident nation! Their confidence is inspiring.
After the beach on the second day
The French's bravery and the fact that they don't care about other people's attitudes towards them translates to nudity on the beach. But only for females. Why? I felt that i should start the male revolution at least when changing. I didn't. (Update on Operation Nudity: i think it would be easier when not with people i knew. I like to think that with just strangers here i could. Why is it that we are most shy in front of people we know? Maybe we care more. Maybe we don't want to change their perceptions of us.)
Is it only for practical reasons that women are in a state of undress on the beach that men fail to reach (relative to swimsuit "normalities")? Clothes are a human construction after all. No other animals wear them. (When did not being nude go beyond mere practicality, who said: "you know these things that we use to keep warm and use for comfort for certain parts of our bodies? Let's wear them all the time and in the future the idea of being naked in public will seem crazy, will become a crime!" Clothes are nice and all but i'm not sure that they are always necessary or should be the only option.)
Afternoon of the third day
The revolution has started. On my third swim of the day i decided to paddle out into the sea where nobody else was swimming and indulged in some skinny-dipping. It might take a while to catch on if i continue to do it where nobody can see me but i still feel that this can count as a success.
I continue to like how nobody cares that people are naked on the beach. It is a very refreshing maturity especially coming from a country where the most read newspaper prints a naked lady on the third page every day. Nudity here is treated as normal, people don't stare, it isn't seedy, people aren't perverted. I think the problem in the UK stems from the fact that we are so Victorian about sex and nudity. It then becomes taboo and taboo becomes fetish. There are certain parts of the body that we can usually see: the face; the arms; the legs etc (well, if it is sunny anyway - maybe our average temperature contributes in part to these views) and a general appreciation is built up, especially for faces, they are accepted parts of people's bodies. When something usually covered becomes uncovered people act like children, act as if this weren't part of the body but instead some exotic fruit that must be gaped at, in France they just accept that it is all a part of the body and act like adults.
It continues to be disappointing that men have not undressed in the same fashion that women do, why are they shy? I hope to convince myself that is the sheer impracticality of sandy bums that causes this, after all women are not bearing that area either. I do also like to think that if someone started the male revolution on the land (oh yes, i consider myself as the revolutionary of the sea) that i would follow at some point, it's like a standing ovation really: you wouldn't start one even if you thought it was right but you will happily join in later.
The third evening
It seems that the French maturity about the body does not translate into their children following suit. I find this very odd given their parents' views. Our parents don't undress on beaches. Our papers fetishise the female body. Theirs do and don't, respectively, so why did the two girls at the Matisse gallery almost collapse with waves of laughter at the sculpture of a naked man? This strikes me as very strange and i can only put it down to the fact that it was a man, or perhaps the fact that it was a man and they were female. It seems France still has progress to make (though that's good really isn't it? If they had finished there is always the danger of a revisionist school of thought).
Now i was definitely away for longer than three days but i don't want to be throwing too many topics out in one post so that is all for now on Nice. I am very aware, tremendously aware even, that this post has been very gendered, especially given some of my previous posts, but i'm sure you will understand that the distinction was there only due to its importance in the issues discussed.
If you enjoyed this you might like to head on over to my travel blog at travelatalexleclez.blogspot.com for more.
Some Early Thoughts from Nice
French people dress more bravely.
The French are more liberal (this translates to better in my mind) when it comes to nudity and, sadly i feel they come hand in hand, sex. People are happy to sunbathe sans vêtements and just change on the beach. Why did i feel i needed to retreat to the toilets?! (Note to self: Maybe spend time in a nudist colony to overcome this ridiculous British embarrassment over something completely natural. Aim for the week: Feel comfortable enough to be nude in public for a few seconds, changing into swimming trunks might present the perfect opportunity. Let's take this with little steps.) Why shouldn't i be confident enough? Why should i care anyway?
French people through all ages are braver with what they will wear. As a result they are more stylish, have more flair and are more individual, they embrace their individuality. What a fantastically confident nation! Their confidence is inspiring.
After the beach on the second day
The French's bravery and the fact that they don't care about other people's attitudes towards them translates to nudity on the beach. But only for females. Why? I felt that i should start the male revolution at least when changing. I didn't. (Update on Operation Nudity: i think it would be easier when not with people i knew. I like to think that with just strangers here i could. Why is it that we are most shy in front of people we know? Maybe we care more. Maybe we don't want to change their perceptions of us.)
Is it only for practical reasons that women are in a state of undress on the beach that men fail to reach (relative to swimsuit "normalities")? Clothes are a human construction after all. No other animals wear them. (When did not being nude go beyond mere practicality, who said: "you know these things that we use to keep warm and use for comfort for certain parts of our bodies? Let's wear them all the time and in the future the idea of being naked in public will seem crazy, will become a crime!" Clothes are nice and all but i'm not sure that they are always necessary or should be the only option.)
Afternoon of the third day
The revolution has started. On my third swim of the day i decided to paddle out into the sea where nobody else was swimming and indulged in some skinny-dipping. It might take a while to catch on if i continue to do it where nobody can see me but i still feel that this can count as a success.
I continue to like how nobody cares that people are naked on the beach. It is a very refreshing maturity especially coming from a country where the most read newspaper prints a naked lady on the third page every day. Nudity here is treated as normal, people don't stare, it isn't seedy, people aren't perverted. I think the problem in the UK stems from the fact that we are so Victorian about sex and nudity. It then becomes taboo and taboo becomes fetish. There are certain parts of the body that we can usually see: the face; the arms; the legs etc (well, if it is sunny anyway - maybe our average temperature contributes in part to these views) and a general appreciation is built up, especially for faces, they are accepted parts of people's bodies. When something usually covered becomes uncovered people act like children, act as if this weren't part of the body but instead some exotic fruit that must be gaped at, in France they just accept that it is all a part of the body and act like adults.
It continues to be disappointing that men have not undressed in the same fashion that women do, why are they shy? I hope to convince myself that is the sheer impracticality of sandy bums that causes this, after all women are not bearing that area either. I do also like to think that if someone started the male revolution on the land (oh yes, i consider myself as the revolutionary of the sea) that i would follow at some point, it's like a standing ovation really: you wouldn't start one even if you thought it was right but you will happily join in later.
The third evening
It seems that the French maturity about the body does not translate into their children following suit. I find this very odd given their parents' views. Our parents don't undress on beaches. Our papers fetishise the female body. Theirs do and don't, respectively, so why did the two girls at the Matisse gallery almost collapse with waves of laughter at the sculpture of a naked man? This strikes me as very strange and i can only put it down to the fact that it was a man, or perhaps the fact that it was a man and they were female. It seems France still has progress to make (though that's good really isn't it? If they had finished there is always the danger of a revisionist school of thought).
Now i was definitely away for longer than three days but i don't want to be throwing too many topics out in one post so that is all for now on Nice. I am very aware, tremendously aware even, that this post has been very gendered, especially given some of my previous posts, but i'm sure you will understand that the distinction was there only due to its importance in the issues discussed.
If you enjoyed this you might like to head on over to my travel blog at travelatalexleclez.blogspot.com for more.
Monday 4 July 2011
on being "yourself"
Yesterday i was talking about which team people choose to support and i am aware that that might have been limiting to people's pleasure as it is a specific interest. I guess it all comes down to how we want to define ourselves, as part of our community and country or as adhering to a particular ethos or philosophy. When you think about it, people don't choose authors, poets, musicians, artists and philosophers on where they come from, why would you do that with a sports team?
Everyone, at one time or another, has heard the phrase, "just be yourself", whether it be parental advice on your first day at school or friends trying to help calm your nerves for a date or a job interview. The thing i struggle with is that, yes, people can be themselves in general but i don't see it embraced quite as fully as i think it should be, people do it in mind perhaps but not so much in body.
In Arundhati Roy's 'The God of Small Things' there is a sentence which says that Velutha (a character) 's body was shaped by his carpentry. This, in itself, is not that interesting a sentence, however what the phrasing of it made me think of was the fact that he had been shaped by his hobby, physically. What struck me at that moment was that no-one should make a particular effort to appear a certain way. This would lead to us being able to judge books by their covers (when books are a metaphor or analogous for people, when it comes to books it's far more problematic - they don't get to chose their covers in the way that we do). Now i like to think of my body as a tool for doing things that i want to do, it enables me to move, sense things etc but it is mainly a carrier for my brain. This might be what leads me to this point of view but i don't think that people should do things specifically to attain a certain aesthetic quality; people who enjoy spending time outside would then be the only tanned people and that would be right because it was part of who they were. The body could become a descriptor for a person's personality. People who enjoyed exercise would be slimmer and/or more muscular but people shouldn't just go to the gym in order to manufacture that (unless of course they enjoy the actual going to the gym rather than the results) because that is untrue of who they really are.
I think this all comes from our flawed notion of "beauty". We should recognise traits that we share with people in their very appearance and that should be attractive rather that what society conceives and deigns we should all find attractive. I just find it strange that we try to be something we aren't, something apart from our essence, away from our true beauty as an individual.
This theory would also cover food and drink. People should eat what they want and whatever shape they come out, when combined with everything else they enjoy doing, would be their "truest" shape, their "truest" self. I put truest in quotation marks because i felt it was a little strong otherwise but i do really believe that we have an ultimate, absolute essence and every time we do something that we don't enjoy or choose something that wouldn't be our first choice we distance ourselves from that and I think that if we just followed what we wanted we would all be a lot happier as every action would have meaning and passion and desire behind it.
I am, of course, aware that this isn't always possible, that it would be an idealist world for it to be possible to only do what you want but i also know that we aren't true to ourselves as often as we might be, as often as we should be.
The difficulty with this is knowing where to draw the line. There is making an effort, simple hygiene and there is going to the gym. Just because you don't enjoy the gym - and so don't fit the credo of only doing things that you do enjoy which would lead to forming a body most like your personality - does that mean you shouldn't go? By extension i don't enjoy the act of putting on sun cream or find brushing my teeth particularly riveting so should i not do that? Clearly these are issues of hygiene and protecting yourself against dangers and people will argue that going to the gym could be conditioning against an attacker or giving you the option of getting places quicker and thus a protection as well. Drawing the line between being untrue to yourself and endangering yourself is problematic but i think in general gym-goers tend to push the vanity borders and so don't fall in line with this theory - unless of course they really do go for the above reasons. In any case, vanity would become redundant as people would be beautiful in their own way rather than trying to attain certain characteristics.
When it comes to exercise and food if we all remained true to what we wanted to do, what we enjoyed then it would be easier to identify people with similar interests and versions of beauty would change, we would come to recognise personality traits and find them attractive in others. Objectors might say that the problem with this might be that it lead to a very homogenised social group but i feel when you factor in how long people spend outside (leading to tanning) and other variables you would find certain things in other people attractive but not others, just like in relationships now.
This clearly does not factor in many activities that leave no noticeable mark on the body such as reading, going to galleries and museums, listening to music (or the active rather than passive versions of these activities - i feel it is slightly sad that my first three activities were all passive) etc. But they would still be marked by their food choices and the general guide of just following what you enjoy and want to do still holds as a good rule for life. I feel if you keep selecting options that you enjoy or find interesting then they will continue to lead to other things you will enjoy, we should be fully ourselves and not try to manufacture something else. Sure, this will screw over modelling and the clothing industry but we all need a challenge and as long as they have followed things they enjoy and been true to themselves i'm sure they will enjoy this too.
I feel this might need some serious revisiting so watch this space.
Everyone, at one time or another, has heard the phrase, "just be yourself", whether it be parental advice on your first day at school or friends trying to help calm your nerves for a date or a job interview. The thing i struggle with is that, yes, people can be themselves in general but i don't see it embraced quite as fully as i think it should be, people do it in mind perhaps but not so much in body.
In Arundhati Roy's 'The God of Small Things' there is a sentence which says that Velutha (a character) 's body was shaped by his carpentry. This, in itself, is not that interesting a sentence, however what the phrasing of it made me think of was the fact that he had been shaped by his hobby, physically. What struck me at that moment was that no-one should make a particular effort to appear a certain way. This would lead to us being able to judge books by their covers (when books are a metaphor or analogous for people, when it comes to books it's far more problematic - they don't get to chose their covers in the way that we do). Now i like to think of my body as a tool for doing things that i want to do, it enables me to move, sense things etc but it is mainly a carrier for my brain. This might be what leads me to this point of view but i don't think that people should do things specifically to attain a certain aesthetic quality; people who enjoy spending time outside would then be the only tanned people and that would be right because it was part of who they were. The body could become a descriptor for a person's personality. People who enjoyed exercise would be slimmer and/or more muscular but people shouldn't just go to the gym in order to manufacture that (unless of course they enjoy the actual going to the gym rather than the results) because that is untrue of who they really are.
I think this all comes from our flawed notion of "beauty". We should recognise traits that we share with people in their very appearance and that should be attractive rather that what society conceives and deigns we should all find attractive. I just find it strange that we try to be something we aren't, something apart from our essence, away from our true beauty as an individual.
This theory would also cover food and drink. People should eat what they want and whatever shape they come out, when combined with everything else they enjoy doing, would be their "truest" shape, their "truest" self. I put truest in quotation marks because i felt it was a little strong otherwise but i do really believe that we have an ultimate, absolute essence and every time we do something that we don't enjoy or choose something that wouldn't be our first choice we distance ourselves from that and I think that if we just followed what we wanted we would all be a lot happier as every action would have meaning and passion and desire behind it.
I am, of course, aware that this isn't always possible, that it would be an idealist world for it to be possible to only do what you want but i also know that we aren't true to ourselves as often as we might be, as often as we should be.
The difficulty with this is knowing where to draw the line. There is making an effort, simple hygiene and there is going to the gym. Just because you don't enjoy the gym - and so don't fit the credo of only doing things that you do enjoy which would lead to forming a body most like your personality - does that mean you shouldn't go? By extension i don't enjoy the act of putting on sun cream or find brushing my teeth particularly riveting so should i not do that? Clearly these are issues of hygiene and protecting yourself against dangers and people will argue that going to the gym could be conditioning against an attacker or giving you the option of getting places quicker and thus a protection as well. Drawing the line between being untrue to yourself and endangering yourself is problematic but i think in general gym-goers tend to push the vanity borders and so don't fall in line with this theory - unless of course they really do go for the above reasons. In any case, vanity would become redundant as people would be beautiful in their own way rather than trying to attain certain characteristics.
When it comes to exercise and food if we all remained true to what we wanted to do, what we enjoyed then it would be easier to identify people with similar interests and versions of beauty would change, we would come to recognise personality traits and find them attractive in others. Objectors might say that the problem with this might be that it lead to a very homogenised social group but i feel when you factor in how long people spend outside (leading to tanning) and other variables you would find certain things in other people attractive but not others, just like in relationships now.
This clearly does not factor in many activities that leave no noticeable mark on the body such as reading, going to galleries and museums, listening to music (or the active rather than passive versions of these activities - i feel it is slightly sad that my first three activities were all passive) etc. But they would still be marked by their food choices and the general guide of just following what you enjoy and want to do still holds as a good rule for life. I feel if you keep selecting options that you enjoy or find interesting then they will continue to lead to other things you will enjoy, we should be fully ourselves and not try to manufacture something else. Sure, this will screw over modelling and the clothing industry but we all need a challenge and as long as they have followed things they enjoy and been true to themselves i'm sure they will enjoy this too.
I feel this might need some serious revisiting so watch this space.
Sunday 3 July 2011
how are the leaves up there?
Today was the men's final at Wimbledon. Andy Murray was not playing. The papers, my friends, my family and the nation as a whole seemed to think that this was sad. Well, it is sad because it was something important to him but it is no more sad than if he had knocked out Rafael Nadal, his semi-final opponent.
Supporting the sports team near you or your own country has always been a bit of an odd idea to me. I know these people no better than i know the people playing in Wolverhampton or Ipswich or those lovely looking gentlemen from Uruguay. When people are younger, excluding those who follow their parents' choice, they are generally attracted to teams who do well or teams who play in shirts that are their favourite colour (no wonder red and blue teams abound in the Premiership - they even reap the rewards of table-football, the cheek!). This seems like a far more reasonable decision than choosing your local club. That is unless you plan on going to see them play, but even then i think i would find it difficult to feel passionately about anything just because it was convenient. That sort of attitude would lead to lots of tree-climbing for me, "Fancy going to the pub tonight?" "Why would we do that when we have all these trees to climb just outside?" the conversation would go, and if we follow this ad absurdium, and why wouldn't we, to eating the leaves as it was just impractical to climb all the way down the tree, traipse across the road, open the front door and make a sandwich. Returning to the real world, why wouldn't you choose a team who's style of play you particularly enjoyed or who played in that certain shade of turquoise that you treasure above all other colours? When you see fans at matches one of the words that springs to mind to describe them - along with heavily inebriated and raucously loud - is passionate, and if i'm going to get passionate about something it's going to be something i enjoy not something that the only thing i have in common with it is where i happen to have been born and reside.
A film i would strongly recommend is a German film called, Die Welle. There is a scene in the film where they are discussing nationalism and a girl says, "all those people waving flags, it's disgusting" which is instantly countered by a boy claiming, "if we don't, who will?" Now i am very much of the opinion posited by graffiti artist Banksy that, "people who enjoy waving flags don't deserve to have one". The same jokes come out year on year that there is a new system designed by the NHS for gauging how crazy people are: people with no flags on their car are sane; people with one are a little odd; people with two are just about approachable; three flags means handle with care; and four flags suggests you should keep your distance if you can. This anti-flag position does not seem to go hand-in-hand with anti-nationalism though. People who wield flags in favour of their team just baffle me, patriotism i can sort of understand but flags are only really at home on ships or castles.
But the boy has a point, doesn't he? These lovely (questionable adjective but let's be friendly) people have dedicated their lives to sport and if that is something we enjoy watching then they should surely receive our support. Well, yes, someone should but i still have no greater link with these people than that we come from the same country, not something which i had a large choice about in the first place.
By all means feel free to support your local club and cheer for your country; i think i'll stick to supporting those who i feel a link with, wherever they are from. I guess i just prefer to like types of people who embody amiable characteristics than blindly following whoever it is that turns out under a certain flag.
Saturday 2 July 2011
hello readers from all round the world (except Australia but in particular Ukraine)
So i have noticed that, UK aside, the countries that view my blog the most are Ukraine and then, with half as many views, Russia. Hello there, cheers for reading. At first i thought maybe a few people had stumbled on it by chance and enjoyed it and kept reading new posts, then i considered that maybe i just strike a chord with Eastern Europe, after all, i loved it when i was there, maybe rakija and bureks indelibly marked me for Eastern European entertainment.
What was especially strange was that no Australians - an anglophonic people - had viewed the blog (if you are Australian and are retrospectively reading this blog: hello, i'm Alex, i hope you find something here that you can enjoy. Don't believe me that there are enjoyable things? Just ask Ukraine!). Maybe the weather in Oz is just too nice to waste scouring the internet. Maybe that wizard fella won't let you use the internet and forces you into barbecues, surfing, beach-parties and drinking tinnies around a campfire at sunset. Maybe in one sentence i managed to offend most Australians with my own national stereotype and, possibly worse, have you confused with a fictional alternative to Kansas.
But maybe it is down to timing. Maybe i just post at a certain time of day that means people in Eastern Europe are the ones idly (or not idly - other levels of the passivity/activity spectrum are available) trawling the internet for odd thoughts on baths and grass or some confused poetry, rather than anglophone America or Australia who are busy working or sleeping respectively.
Well whoever is reading this, wherever you're from, i just hope you enjoy it. Maybe you could even let me know if you are Ukrainian and feel i have unwittingly tapped into your national psyche or Australian and just don't have time to read anything further than this post because there is a crazed, but slightly magical, despot inside your emerald city pursuing you and your dangerous blog-reading ways.
What was especially strange was that no Australians - an anglophonic people - had viewed the blog (if you are Australian and are retrospectively reading this blog: hello, i'm Alex, i hope you find something here that you can enjoy. Don't believe me that there are enjoyable things? Just ask Ukraine!). Maybe the weather in Oz is just too nice to waste scouring the internet. Maybe that wizard fella won't let you use the internet and forces you into barbecues, surfing, beach-parties and drinking tinnies around a campfire at sunset. Maybe in one sentence i managed to offend most Australians with my own national stereotype and, possibly worse, have you confused with a fictional alternative to Kansas.
But maybe it is down to timing. Maybe i just post at a certain time of day that means people in Eastern Europe are the ones idly (or not idly - other levels of the passivity/activity spectrum are available) trawling the internet for odd thoughts on baths and grass or some confused poetry, rather than anglophone America or Australia who are busy working or sleeping respectively.
Well whoever is reading this, wherever you're from, i just hope you enjoy it. Maybe you could even let me know if you are Ukrainian and feel i have unwittingly tapped into your national psyche or Australian and just don't have time to read anything further than this post because there is a crazed, but slightly magical, despot inside your emerald city pursuing you and your dangerous blog-reading ways.
In a bath, darkly
when submerged you hear only your heart in your ears as if it has moved there, you don't feel any point of contact, the beauty of disconnected floating, an achievable flight, the nose poised above the water, your chest can't swell as the pressure of the water constricts like a belt, you must breathe in shallowly to avoid floating up too far. Then carefully, turning the plug's valve with your foot the water drains away slowly. You feel like a skin of water is pulling you down like clingfilm, your face breaks the surface as if it were your original crowning moment seeing the world for the very first time and a wave of pleasure of tenderness of sensitivity crashes through your body like waking at once from a dream you try not to laugh out in joy in ecstasy, you are so delicate at this moment in this moment, a single exhalation will ruin the feeling of asphyxiation, the sweet asphyxiation, your eyes which had only been able to sense the candle-light when submerged are now given the opportunity to open but you concentrate all your sensory action on touch on feel on pleasure through this masochism. Shallow breaths are necessary to prolong your drowning as you are weighed down paradoxically by the lack of water that seems to go on forever, you are pinned to the bottom of the bath, you cannot move, do not want to for the weight of the universe is not only pressing down on your chest but pulling you as well, as satan fell to pandemonium you are being pulled by some insatiable force and again you are floating, in stasis, but not drifting this time you are stuck, lost in transit. The water below you leaves and your breath cannot keep you off the surface of the bath now and you thud back into the world, your eyes can again open to these familiar surroundings and you are free to breathe again, the water around your shoulders slowly trickles past you until you undam it and let it flow freely to the plug.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)