Today we were discussing the need to learn the paradigm before you break it. This was in a discussion of Lynn Meskell's book Object Worlds in Ancient Egypt. She drew from a wide variety of theorists, not just archaeologists, but also philosophers, historians, anthropologists, political scientists, etc., and instead of producing a single, huge, book-wide theory, she produced several different theories, each applicable to a single case study, but each suitable for extrapolation to other situations. And she argued that, in refusing to center the book around a single big theoretical claim, she was rejecting the dominant (masculine, or as she puts it, big dick) paradigm. This led to a discussion of how one goes about subverting paradigms, and Someone pointed out that even here, where people go to do graduate work with the leaders in their respective social science fields, it is still expected that they will produce structured, single claim dissertations. Someone else claimed that this is because you have to learn the accepted structures before you can break them--if you try before then, it just looks like you don't know what you're doing. I think this is a pretty strong argument, actually. If you don't know (or haven't demonstrated that you know) how to do something, anything you do that is outside the normal format will be understood as a mistake and not a choice. If I were to start making pots, my initial pots would be lopsided not because I was attempting to make modern art pottery, but because I lack the skill to make them even. So, before you can legitimately and coherently make a new style of anything, you need to have a complete understanding of the old style, rules and guidelines, so that your style is more than just a series of mistakes.
This was followed by a discussion of indigenous peoples, and how they are constrained materially. Because much of the funding for indigenous groups (and this is world-wide, not just the US) is contingent on their remaining the same culturally, if their material culture changes too much, becomes too 'modern' or 'civilized', they won't be recognizably indigenous any more and thus won't get funded. Likewise, if their crafts and souvenirs begin to look too modern (say, a carving of a man on a bike instead of a fertility god) the tourists won't buy them, because obviously 'real natives' would never make them (because traditional natives didn't have bikes). Someone said that perhaps people enjoy making things in the traditional way and would do that anyway, and therefore may not feel constricted by having to do so. But I think that if making things in one way is not a choice you make, but a requirement, you may not be happy about it, even if you would have chosen to use that way given a choice. It is the lack of choice that is the issue, not what you would have chosen if you had one.
And it struck me--the only successful primitive artists are those who have demonstrated such outstanding mastery over their medium in its traditional form that their skill cannot be denied. At that point, they are able to begin to use new motifs or shapes, to be truly innovative. The Puebloan potters are a good example of this, because until they become truly great, people will pay much more for pieces that are traditional in form and motif. But once they have made a name as truly exceptional potters, complete masters of their craft, then they can make anything, experiment with shape and with design, be as innovative as they like--because they have shown beyond any doubt that they understand the rules, and therefore they are able to break them. But because most primitive art is still more valuable when unsigned than when signed, there are very few areas where this metamorphosis can take place.
I love epiphanies like this!
Wednesday, May 31, 2006
paradigmatic!
Tuesday, May 30, 2006
a day of blah
I'm trying to post often--it's good to get writing, but some posts are going to be sucky I’m sure, the life of a grad student is often not exciting! Things that happened today:
- Had physical therapy for my shoulder. I'm still not sure how I managed to hurt the thing, but my left shoulder had been getting more and more painful for about a month, so I went in and they sent me to do funny exercises, have a single shoulder massage, and get jelly and ulstrasound on it. Not as exciting as it sounds, although today I could actually hear the ulstrasound buzzing. I know it's sound waves, as was rather condescendingly pointed out to me when I commented, but I thought the whole point is that they're sound waves you can't hear, which is why they actually have a physical effect?
- Went to class. It's uncomfortable, because I like the professor, but this class is a waste of my time. I appreciate academics being emotionally involved in their subjects as much as the next person (probably more, depending on whom I'm standing next to!), but he's just so... intense about it. The class is supposed to be on southwestern archaeology, but all he ever wants to talk about is how badly Native Americans have been treated by Anglos, and what that means for current populations (in the southwest mostly, so at least he's sticking to the correct region). And this is all true, I have no doubt about it, he has very good facts to hand. But it's NOT THE SUBJECT OF THE CLASS!! If I were taking a class on contemporary Native Americans in the southwest, I would be perfectly fine with this stuff, but I didn't sign on for that, so don't give it to me. I object to having to write my paper thinking not only of what I think, but also of what he is likely to feel about what I think, and tailoring the topic so as to be sure not to upset him. and the worst part is, I think he would be upset if I told him I feel this way, and all the little freshmen in the class don't seem to mind at all, so I’m keeping mum. rar!
- Picked up the pot I painted from the studio. It turned out surprisingly well, actually. I may have a future in this--ten years down the road, all my income will come from selling my paint-your-own-ceramics items for vastly inflated prices! I will rule the world of pottery! ok, this is unlikely, but once I learn how to make the actual pot, Ii need never go container-less in the event of an apocalypse. It's funny that I always assume I would be one of the ones who survive the thing, left to fend for myself in unfamiliar and problematic surroundings. I'd say it was the eternal optimism of youth, only I'm no longer all that young, so it must be the overweening hubris of...I've got nothing here, actually. Grad students?
4. Rehearsed with my scene partner. I think it will go pretty well, hopefully Shanlon wouldn't want to kill us if he saw it (unlike the first scene, which was appalling. never seen anyone projected backward into the air from a buss on the lips that way before, hope never to do so again! And he was the one who kissed me!)
5. I sound so negative, don't I? Perhaps it’s the downswing of all the good things that happened last week, which I didn’t actually write about because I hadn’t yet resolved to write more. Hah! I taunt you! No, actually, I’m sure I will write about them eventually, but this is getting a little long.
Sunday, May 28, 2006
i must admit something--i like reading blogs (and online diaries, which i am conflating here). i think i've mentioned this before, but i'm just fascinated by the notion of individuality (a poor word choice, but go with me here!). the first time i really recall thinking about it, i must have been about three, sitting in the hallway upstairs around mothers day. i was thinking about how i loved my mother so much that i wished i could just melt into her. and then i thought, 'no, wait. then i wouldn't be me any more, so i wouldn't be loving her, i'd just be nothing at all. i'd better just love her from here, and make her a nice card or something.' (i know, heavy thoughts for a pre-kindergartner, but i seem to have a lot more memories of that period of my life than most people--i go back to two and a half, before my brother was born, and the memories are so stupid i know they're not of the story-told-so-often-you-think-you-actually-remember-it-but-
you-don't genre. no one tells stories about carpeting patterns or places where you were playing with a specific toy when someone came to visit. but i digress!)
ever since that moment of realization,i've been fascinated by the life going on in other peoples' heads. no matter how well i may do it, every time i ascribe an attitude or a desire or a motivation to someone else, i am just making it up. they may well NOT feel the way i would, but instead act according to their own understanding of the situation, which simply happens to be contiguous with the way i would act if i felt the way i ascribe to them. every person is a walking, talking black box, output visible but mechanism unreachable. and i feel like blogs are a little glimpse into that otherwise un-glimpse-able place, the inside of someone else's head. when people write (when i write) online, it gives them a place to explain the thought process behind any given action. they may not always explain the action fully, leaving you with the opposite of that black box, or they may give you enough of both for understanding, but what you're getting is the way they felt in the moment of posting. and the longer someone keeps up a blog, the better the understanding of their thought processes they give you, so that you can begin to see who they are and why they do what they do. this is one of the reasons why, when i find a blog i think is particularly well-written or enjoyable, i will go through and read it all, from start to last update, getting to know the author as a person who was interesting and entertaining in the scope of their own life--or so i thought.
i was reading an entry recently where the author, after an extremely difficult year both personally and professionally, was applying for a new job, a job that she knew was absolutely perfect for her: something she would not only love to do, but also something she was extremely well qualified for and would do very well, in a place she and her husband wanted badly to move to. and in the interval between that post, and the next one, where she hadn't gotten the job, i knew she was going to get it. there was no doubt in my mind that in any proper narrative structure, our heroine would get the job she wanted and deserved so badly. and that is the problem. because of the fact that in most cases i have never met and will never meet the authors, and the fact that they are written with style (the ones i read are, at least!), blogs read like serialized novels. i expect them to have plotlines that make sense, themes that arise and are dealt with, climaxes and realizations, and points: i want to know how the story ends. and this extends to the writers themselves, who are no less looking for meaning in their own lives than the readers. they are simply looking for the meaning behind the events that happen to them instead of the meaning of their own actions (usually), and they end up making their lives into a narrative to find that meaning. this is, i think, why so many bloggers have been getting book contracts recently- because if you can figure out a way to give yourself an ending, or at least a pausing point, you can make your life appear, and possibly feel, both meaning- and pllot-ful.
you-don't genre. no one tells stories about carpeting patterns or places where you were playing with a specific toy when someone came to visit. but i digress!)
ever since that moment of realization,i've been fascinated by the life going on in other peoples' heads. no matter how well i may do it, every time i ascribe an attitude or a desire or a motivation to someone else, i am just making it up. they may well NOT feel the way i would, but instead act according to their own understanding of the situation, which simply happens to be contiguous with the way i would act if i felt the way i ascribe to them. every person is a walking, talking black box, output visible but mechanism unreachable. and i feel like blogs are a little glimpse into that otherwise un-glimpse-able place, the inside of someone else's head. when people write (when i write) online, it gives them a place to explain the thought process behind any given action. they may not always explain the action fully, leaving you with the opposite of that black box, or they may give you enough of both for understanding, but what you're getting is the way they felt in the moment of posting. and the longer someone keeps up a blog, the better the understanding of their thought processes they give you, so that you can begin to see who they are and why they do what they do. this is one of the reasons why, when i find a blog i think is particularly well-written or enjoyable, i will go through and read it all, from start to last update, getting to know the author as a person who was interesting and entertaining in the scope of their own life--or so i thought.
i was reading an entry recently where the author, after an extremely difficult year both personally and professionally, was applying for a new job, a job that she knew was absolutely perfect for her: something she would not only love to do, but also something she was extremely well qualified for and would do very well, in a place she and her husband wanted badly to move to. and in the interval between that post, and the next one, where she hadn't gotten the job, i knew she was going to get it. there was no doubt in my mind that in any proper narrative structure, our heroine would get the job she wanted and deserved so badly. and that is the problem. because of the fact that in most cases i have never met and will never meet the authors, and the fact that they are written with style (the ones i read are, at least!), blogs read like serialized novels. i expect them to have plotlines that make sense, themes that arise and are dealt with, climaxes and realizations, and points: i want to know how the story ends. and this extends to the writers themselves, who are no less looking for meaning in their own lives than the readers. they are simply looking for the meaning behind the events that happen to them instead of the meaning of their own actions (usually), and they end up making their lives into a narrative to find that meaning. this is, i think, why so many bloggers have been getting book contracts recently- because if you can figure out a way to give yourself an ending, or at least a pausing point, you can make your life appear, and possibly feel, both meaning- and pllot-ful.
Saturday, May 20, 2006
relationships
Back again, posting into the void. This is kind of liberating, it's nice to know no one I actually know is likely to read this.
So, the Boy and I have been dating for nine months. And of course, he lives far away on another continent, so in that nine months, we've spent a total of six weeks together. I--I don't know. I feel like we've really got something special here. We work so well together, we fit. But I don't know how we can deal with taking the next step. Normally, the next step is going from dating to married. But we've never been in the same country for more than two weeks at a time, I just can't see it being a good idea to get married. Unless you spend time together, time where neither of you is visiting, time where both of you are living your own lives, following your own routines, and learning to make accomodations with each other, you can't tell if you drive each other crazy. What if I can't stand the way he, I don't know, never cleans the kitchen, or he hates the way I forget to pick up things like mail that I drop next to the door when I came in? Or on an even more basic level, what if, once we get past being on our best behavior with each other, we don't like each other that much? I think we will, I think we match really well, I think we get along really well and will continue regardless of our stupid little annoying habits, but I don't know, I can't tell. So, we need to live together first.
But that itself isn't a simple thing. I can't move for at least a year--I need to be on campus, I need to take classes and meet with my chair and discuss my work and generally prepare to write a dissertation. And he can't move here, not really. If he did, he would lose time in his career, because it's not the same here as it is there, and I can't ask him to do that. Even the year after next, when I can reasonably manage to spend significant chunks of time elsewhere, it's not simple to move there. I can't just say, 'I want to live with my boyfriend, see if we should get married' and get a visa, they don't give visas for things like that. I guess I could just go on a normal tourist visa, it does last six months, and then see what happens.
Does that make sense? Am I crazy to think this? Am I being too rational, too overthinky, should we just go full on and get married? We've kind of talked around this stuff, but we haven't had the full on conversation, I think because both of us are thinking the same sort of thing, and it's difficult to make a decision when there is more than a year before anything can actually change.
So, the Boy and I have been dating for nine months. And of course, he lives far away on another continent, so in that nine months, we've spent a total of six weeks together. I--I don't know. I feel like we've really got something special here. We work so well together, we fit. But I don't know how we can deal with taking the next step. Normally, the next step is going from dating to married. But we've never been in the same country for more than two weeks at a time, I just can't see it being a good idea to get married. Unless you spend time together, time where neither of you is visiting, time where both of you are living your own lives, following your own routines, and learning to make accomodations with each other, you can't tell if you drive each other crazy. What if I can't stand the way he, I don't know, never cleans the kitchen, or he hates the way I forget to pick up things like mail that I drop next to the door when I came in? Or on an even more basic level, what if, once we get past being on our best behavior with each other, we don't like each other that much? I think we will, I think we match really well, I think we get along really well and will continue regardless of our stupid little annoying habits, but I don't know, I can't tell. So, we need to live together first.
But that itself isn't a simple thing. I can't move for at least a year--I need to be on campus, I need to take classes and meet with my chair and discuss my work and generally prepare to write a dissertation. And he can't move here, not really. If he did, he would lose time in his career, because it's not the same here as it is there, and I can't ask him to do that. Even the year after next, when I can reasonably manage to spend significant chunks of time elsewhere, it's not simple to move there. I can't just say, 'I want to live with my boyfriend, see if we should get married' and get a visa, they don't give visas for things like that. I guess I could just go on a normal tourist visa, it does last six months, and then see what happens.
Does that make sense? Am I crazy to think this? Am I being too rational, too overthinky, should we just go full on and get married? We've kind of talked around this stuff, but we haven't had the full on conversation, I think because both of us are thinking the same sort of thing, and it's difficult to make a decision when there is more than a year before anything can actually change.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
