Tuesday, August 28, 2012

The Summer of Strange, Part One: The Omen

This entire summer has been really strange and eerie for me.  I am successfully making progress towards my life goal  (to be 95% reclusive) and barely left the house this summer.  Yet it seems like every time I do, something strange, weird, unsettling, scary or oddly coincidental occurs.

The first odd thing that happened early this summer was when I was walking my dogs in some fields we sometimes go to.  They're big hayfields, totally open, bordered by woods.  

On this particular day, there was not a cloud in the sky.  We're just walking along when a huge shadow flashes across the ground in front of me.  It was so large, the first thing I thought was "Thunderbird!" and looked up hopefully.  Not a thunderbird, but a large bird indeed, hovering close above.

In these fields, I often see large birds doing their thing just hanging out catching air, but very far in the distance, and at very high altitudes.   This particular bird was circling very low, so low I could study the color and texture of his beak and observe the lighter colored feathers on the ends of his large wings.

I didn't know what kind of bird it was, I'm not into birdwatching, although I think birds are awesome and whenever I see a parrot at a zoo I hang around for a long time talking to it like a crazy person and impeding other's enjoyment of it.

I thought being close to this big bird was simply a neat thing to happen. He circled round and round right above my head.  Cool.  I figured he had found a good updraft in that very spot.  I moved on.

After a couple minutes I noticed the bird was not hanging out where I'd left him.  He was near me again. , Then he (or she) was overhead once more.  Still very low.

For the next 30 minutes, this huge bird followed us wherever we went.  Later, a friend joined him.

It was cool at first to see this large bird up close, but after 30 minutes of being followed by it? It stopped being cute.  It was getting creepy.  Why the hell were these birds circling over me for this long?  Did they know something I didn't?  Did I smell? Could they sense I was about to drop dead from a heart attack?

On the way back, they finally abandoned me.  Phew.  My dogs and I were walking on a large, wide, level tractor path that hugs the edge of the woods.

Suddenly, there was a LOUD crashing, cracking sound just to my left, in the trees.  OMFG.  I froze. The dogs froze.  This was no ordinary woodland creature, or human. The only thing big enough to make such a sound was a bear.  The sounds were only a few feet away from me and I thought for sure a bear was about to burst out of the woods and I hoped my dogs would do something about it if it attacked me.

Then, something made me look up.  I don't know what.  I usually tend to stare directly at my feet when I go anywhere.  I'm probably going to be a hunchback when I'm an old lady, my posture is that bad.  But for some reason I looked up and noticed movement in the treetops.  I thought the birds were back, and for a moment I was sure those birds had foreseen my death-by-bear.   I could see the headlines   ("Extremely rare bear mauling in New England", "Wussy dogs abandon female owner during bear attack")

Finally I realized what was actually happening.  A tree was falling.  Towards me.  It had cracked at the base and entire tree was coming down neatly in classic lumberjack style. I jumped back and yelled "come here come here come here!!!!" to my dogs who were just standing under their impending doom.  The tree crashed down, perfectly perpendicularly across the path, right in front of one of my dog's faces.

The poor dog stood there with a look of utter astonishment on his face for a few seconds and then started barking madly.  The other dogs joined in.  If they could have spoken English I'm pretty sure they would have said "OH MY GOD! HOLY FUCKING SHIT DID YOU JUST SEE THAT??!!"




( I took a picture of the tree.  If I ever figure out how to extract it from my antique flip phone, I'll post it.)

I found out later from a bird guy that those big black birds are vultures:



I've been back to the fields many times since, and I still see them, but they are far, far away, very high up in the sky.

It's pretty strange to have a tree try to kill you, but I can chalk that up to normal chance.  I can't explain why the vultures were following me for the previous half hour.




Sunday, August 12, 2012

Stupid is as stupid does

Have you ever amazed yourself with your own staggering level of stupidity?

I have terrible social skills, so the following scenario often happens to me.

I'm in a social situation.  Things seem to be going really well.  Everyone is laughing and having a good time.  I'm going with the flow.  Then at some point, some very small warning light goes off in my head.

Something may be amiss, it says.  Analyzing.  Analyzing.

Much later, perhaps hours, days, or even years later, my brain has had enough time to process the data, and finally returns a result, which reads something like

Dear Self:  You are an inconsiderate moron!!!

And when the light dawns upon the situation, I realize with horror that I said something really, really stupid, or offensive, or inappropriate, or just plain dumb.  Suddenly I understand details of the context and relationships of the people present and the manner of my delivery and I get it.  I suddenly get that I came off like a horrible person.  I am dumbfounded that I couldn't recognize it before I made the faux pas, or immediately after.

Honest to God, I just figured out the other day why someone didn't like me... 16 years ago.  I realized I was a total bitch to her and didn't even realize I had come off that way.   Until just now.

Oftentimes my flubs are just borderline enough that people don't point them out.  They're not like 'whoa! dude!"  Or perhaps they realize that I'm a bit 'special' and recognize I meant no harm by it.  Or maybe they're just way more fucking polite than I am.

I don't mean to offend.  Yet I do.  I inadvertently offend people all the time.

I am painfully self-conscious, which means I am also hopelessly self-centered. I often fail to consider other people's feelings, intentions, needs, etc. because I am so focused on trying to act correctly.



Monday, August 6, 2012

Bad Amazon. Bad.

For the very first time ever, Amazon.com has let me down.

Last week I sat down and painstakingly researched all of my textbooks for the upcoming semester, to figure out what was cheapest:

1. Buy from school bookstore, to sell later on Amazon marketplace
2. Rent from school bookstore
3.  Buy from Amazon.com
4. Buy from an amazon seller who will charge shipping

So I did the maths (I like the word "maths", plural. I don't know if it's correct to use in that context but I'm doing it anyway).  I did the maths and it was mixed, some of each option.  So I made my selections, and clicked "Checkout."

It's been nearly a week, selected the slower but free "super saver shipping", and I figured my order was plodding along somewhere, until I got this email today:

Due to a lack of availability, we will not be able to obtain the following item(s) from your order:

  Bernard F. Evans "Lazarus at the Table: Catholic and Social Justice"
  Albert C. Baugh, Thomas Cable "A History of the English Language, Fifth Edition"
  Robert MacNeil, William Cran "Do You Speak American?"
  Decimus Junis Juvenalis, Rolfe Humphries "The Satires of Juvenal"

We've canceled the item(s) and apologize for the inconvenience. If you see a charge for the canceled item, we will refund you within 1-2 business days.
    
If you are still interested in purchasing this item, it may be available from other sellers.  
If you took advantage of a promotional offer when placing this order, this cancellation may affect your order's eligibility for that offer. If this is the case, please contact customer service


----------------------

Note that all of these books listed above were to be shipped BY AMAZON.

Not all of them may have been owned by Amazon.

Amazon has a lot of different crazy ways to offer products.  I learned this after having signed up to sell some used books through their "marketplace".  There are basically three modes of retail:

1. Amazon purchases the product at wholesale, warehouses it, and ships it. This was the original retail model.

2.  An independent seller (like me) can sign up to have their book listed as a new or used option on a product's page.  When it sells, I ship it directly to the customer, and Amazon deducts a hefty percentage of fees and stuff from the sale before passing along some $ to me.   When customers consider buying a book from me, they are made aware that shipping costs $4 and the item would not qualify for Super Saver Shipping for orders over $25.

3.  An independent seller can sign up to have their book listed through Amazon, and ALSO ships that book TO amazon to be stored in the warehouse.  When the item sells, Amazon plucks it out of their warehouse and ships it, and charges the seller fees.  On top of the normal fees, the seller also pays a monthly "warehousing" fee.  This is what happens when you see a book or product that says "Sold by So-and-So, fulfilled by Amazon."   These items, warehoused by Amazon, also qualify for the free Super Saver Shipping.

These four books I ordered were all going to be fulfilled by Amazon.   I ordered more books than listed here, by the way.

1.  When I ordered, the books were listed as in stock, and to be shipped by Amazon.
2.  Nearly a week has passed, and now Amazon has realized they don't actually have the books in their warehouse?
3.  Notice they say" If you took advantage of a promotional offer when placing this order, this cancellation may affect your order's eligibility for that offer."  Excuse me?  This was your mistake.  Not only do I now have to go about compiling a new order, and will not get my books by the date expected, but you're telling me I could be punished monetarily by YOUR failure to complete my order?  Does this mean I won't get free shipping on the rest of my order?  THAT is not good customer service! 

I fail to understand how this happened.   I could see there being a mistake with one book.  Inventory is a difficult animal to keep under control.   But on FOUR books from the same order?  

I could see a larger system glitch happening, that might not have kept inventory availability real-time, resulting in a situation where orders exceeded availability.  After all, these are all textbooks, so it's very possible that a lot of other eager students hoping to save money have also ordered early in August as soon as they got their hands on their syllabi. 

But, DAMN, Amazon. 

I had just finished writing some product reviews on Amazon mere moments before reading the email.  Just cause I like to be helpful.  Product reviews are so incredibly helpful before buying something that I hesitate to buy new things in brick-and-mortar stores anymore, without first reading Amazon reviews.   I'm grateful that people take the time to write reviews, good and bad, so I try to do the same. 

Bad Amazon.  Bad!  If they had said "we had a computer error, you need to place your order again, we are sorry, here's a coupon or a gift certificate", I would be less miffed.  

You know, I haven't had a very good track record with purchases this year.  Everything I've bought has broken, or just plain sucked, or I felt like I got really bad service.   

I'm not even a cranky customer.   If I were like one of the people featured on notalwaysright.com, I would be totally unglued by now.  






Being pretty is not in my job description

I've become increasingly sensitive to the fact that women are always judged on their appearance.  Always.  No matter what their vocation, no matter how irrelevant their looks are to their job, certain people will bring up their appearance.  This is not often done to men.  This is a double standard that is so common in our society, so insidious that it often goes unnoticed.

There are certain jobs where women are almost universally expected to be attractive, such as model, actress or pop star.  For example, Lady Gaga can't seem to decide whether or not looks are important.  She tells her fans to be themselves and love themselves and begs them not to make the mistakes she did (such as doing drugs), but sometimes seems to forget these directives entirely, tweeting comments like "pop stars don't eat".  According to her tour rider, she eats healthy, and she works out every day, and admitted to Howard Stern that she feels pressure to look a certain way although she doesn't think everyone needs to do that.  She defended Adele amidst comments about the singer's weight.

Speaking of Adele, she is unapologetic about her curves.  She says she "makes music for ears, not eyes."  Her weight has nothing to do with how well she writes or sings, and it certainly hasn't stopped her from creating one of the most successful albums of all time.

I admit I've been petty and judgmental.  When Britney Spears showed up at the 2007 Video Music Awards for her  "comeback performance", it was a trainwreck in more ways than one (awful lipsyncing, comatose expression), she was criticized for looking a little less fit than we're used to seeing her, and I didn't disagree.  Even though she had a body that most moms would kill for, I did think that a "performer" of her type is expected to be VERY fit.  After all, her looks and dancing are a large part of her fame.  She doesn't write her own songs. She doesn't sing live.  What else is there to go on?  Her stylist had a corset for her to wear, but Britney refused.  Obviously she thought that her body was still jaw-dropping.  Many disagreed, myself included.

So I am not too mad about a high expectation of entertainment celebrities.  They have the money and resources for personal trainers, personal chefs, expert hair and makeup, skin treatments, etc etc etc.  I'm not shedding any tears for them. Their looks are part of the reason they're famous.  No, not everyone who is an actress or entertainer is gorgeous, of course.   But the ones who focus on sex appeal? Yeah, if that's what you're trying to sell, then you better be on top of your game.

But what DOES gall me is when women are criticized for their appearance when their looks have nothing to do with their job.  For example:

Hillary Clinton.  Our goddamn secretary of state.  A very smart woman.  Highly educated (Wellesley, Yale Law School) and experienced in politics and world affairs.  And she's 64 years old.  And criticized about her looks.  She responded by saying the headlines are "really saying to all women, don't you dare step into the public sphere, we will savage you for what you look like."


Olympic athletes called fat.  OK, the weightlifter gals are on the bigger side.  It seems to be an advantage.  They are obviously fit.  Another Olympic athlete with a washboard stomach is called "fat" and "looks like a bloke." 

Olympic gold medalist criticized for her natural black hair .  Gabby Douglas won the women's all-around gymnastics gold medal, the most coveted prize in the sport.  Apparently, that's not enough for some people.  I guess they think it is more important for her to take time out of her insane training schedule to get her hair straightened.  Her response was, "I just made history, and people are focused on my hair?"

Crafting an intelligent argument for contraception apparently means you're a slut and/or prostitute
OK this one has more to do with general sexism than focus on appearance, but it still got me really mad.  Rush Limbaugh called a college student a prostitute after she pointed out that her college covers contraception for faculty and staff, but not for students.  He says she is having so much sex that she's going broke paying for contraception and wants the taxpayer or college to foot the bill, and that equates to being paid to have sex, which equates to prostitution.  I know a lot of people think Rush Limbaugh is insane, but a lot of people don't.  


Man, this kind of stuff really pisses me off. 


Women don't owe it to anyone to be pretty.  The focus on appearance is, in my opinion, just an ugly symptom of a much deeper and more vicious hatred towards women.  


I recall, years ago, watching a video produced by the Media Education Foundation, in which it was theorized that scrutiny of women's appearances have increased proportionally to the increase in women's rights and power, particularly in the workplace.  In the last few decades, since the 1960's, women have gained power in their own homes, in the workplace, and in society in general.  The idea is that men feel emasculated, threatened, and powerless, and they're angry about it.  They can't sexually harass women, they can't order their wives around, they may have female bosses. They feel they have no legal superiority, so they resort to physical superiority.  A tiny, skinny, weak woman is preferable.  So as women's rights have grown, the ideal body has shrunken.  


The importance placed on looks and weight is just another weapon that men use to try to subjugate women in this era where females have legal rights. It keeps women from feeling empowered. Sexist men judge all females by their appearance, no matter what their vocation: athlete, politician, activist. Their looks are irrelevant to their job and yet...certain men believe all woman owe it to them to fit into a narrow, culturally distorted definition of beauty, and if they don't, they're deemed worthless. It is a childish put-down used by people who feel threatened by powerful or smart women.


I fear that our society is sliding backwards as far as women's rights.  After watching the news, I sometimes wonder if I've been teleported to a Taliban regime when I wasn't looking.  There is a constant war on contraceptive availability.  


I think porn has a lot to do with it.  Porn seems to be generally accepted as normal.  Google searches reveal tons of women expressing sadness or anger over their partner's porn use, and the vast majority of advice is "all guys do it, don't worry so much about it."  Porn has always existed in some form, since people first started painting pictures and developing photography, but never has porn been so easily accessible as it today.  It can be obtained instantly, for free, in total privacy.  Very young boys are watching porn on their computers or phones.  Is it just a coincidence that girls are worrying about their sex appeal at a younger age than ever before?   On TV and in film, female objectification is everywhere, as is the marriage of sex and violence.  Young boys are being trained to objectify females as purely sexual objects from a very young age.  


I personally think the internet has even more blame to shoulder than just providing porn.  The anonymity that the internet provides encourages people to say whatever the hell they want.  I think that the tendency to be inconsiderate, mean and rude is crossing over into the real world.  I have dealt with the public in various jobs over the last 15 years, so I've had a front row seat with which to observe the average rudeness of the general public.  I can say without a doubt that it is definitely getting worse.  People are rude, self-centered, shallow, mean, aggressive, inconsiderate of other's feelings, and incredibly self-entitled.  Browse notalwaysright.com to get an idea of what I mean.

I admit, my sexist hackles are up due to an incident that occurred recently. A couple weeks ago, I took my dogs for a walk on a nice bike trail.  It's in a nice town. A guy on a bike was going the opposite way, and as he passed me, he cocked his head towards me and said clearly, "Fuck you, you fucking cunt."

I whirled around and said "WHAT?"

He kept pedaling.  We were the only people in sight.  He was only a few feet past me at that point.  I was positive he wasn't on a bluetooth or anything like that.  He heard me, he just ignored me.

So I yelled "You dick!"  He kept pedaling... a little slower.  I was so ANGRY.  What a coward!  He only said such a thing because we were alone and he was on a bike, able to make a quick escape.  I am emboldened with my two large dogs, so I yelled, very loudly,

"Why don't you come back here, LIKE A MAN?!"

He slowed, and started pulling over.  He didn't look back.  Part of me DID want him to come back, so I could scare him with my dogs (who are trained to bark on command.)  Part of me also realized it might not be such a good idea to taunt this pig who obviously has some serious problem with women in general.  So I yelled out a final "ASSHOLE!" and kept on walking. He went on his way after he saw me give up.

What would make someone say something like that?  I understand it was probably an insult of opportunity, given the fact no one was around, I wasn't walking with a dude, and he could make a quick getaway.  I can only imagine that this guy has a serious hatred of women to be compelled to say something like that to a total stranger.  He did it to make me feel uncomfortable.  What kind of a coward needs to boost his ego by verbally assaulting a strange woman?

This is how I feel when I hear men deride women on their appearance for no reason.  They've got a weapon that goes straight to our Achilles heel.   Because a lot of women ARE sensitive about their looks.  We're socialized to care, we're brainwashed into believing this bullshit.  Women need to stop pandering to the idea that you've got to be hot, you've got to be thin, you've got to have big boobs, you've got to wear makeup, you've got to do everything you can to look your best.  Women are objectified, held up to an impossible standard, and then attacked if you don't meet that standard.  Hell, even if you do meet that standard, then you're perceived to be a stupid slut.

This shit goes deep.  I used to wonder, like a lot of people, why women don't leave abusive relationships.  Then I realized that *I* was in an abusive relationship.  Not physically, but mentally. I was in a long term relationship with someone who I finally realized was emotionally abusing me.  He was an expert manipulator. He made me feel so bad about myself that I actually believed that I deserved it, and that I could never do any better than him.  It was a very sick, dysfunctional relationship that I suffered in for way too long.  A decade later, I'm still trying to get over some of the issues that scarred me.  I just didn't know that it was abnormal, and that I deserved better.  Feeling extremely insecure about my body and appearance contributed greatly to the abysmal self esteem that allowed me to be controlled.

You know when you get a new car, you suddenly notice the same make and model everywhere?  That's how I feel about the insidious and pervasive focus on women's appearance.  Now that it's been brought to my attention, I see it everywhere.

It's not shallow.  It's sexist. It is veiled discrimination.  It's sad. It's sick. We need to pay attention to this double standard and discredit it whenever we see it.  There is an alarming number of people who would prefer we go back to the good ole days where women stayed in the kitchen and didn't ask a lot of questions.  I would like to remind them that societies that disenfranchise women are not as successful as those in which women are educated and empowered.

It doesn't do anyone any good for women to be obsessed with their appearance to satisfy the expectations of others.   I'd rather get busy being a productive member of society, thanks.




Tuesday, January 24, 2012

A timely discovery

I could not have asked for a more timely discovery than happening upon the website 'Everything is a Remix.' It's a video series, of which there are currently three, but there's a fourth on the way. It explains the questions I asked in my recent post (Good Artists Borrow, Great Artists Steal), about 1,000 better than I could.

It examines how creativity does not occur in a vacuum, but how all creative works and inventions copy, borrow, outright steal, or just combine previous ideas.

I was continually amazed and impressed by the series, but one of the bits that stood out to me was this:

"Hunter S. Thompson got started by re-typing "The Great Gatsby" just to get the feel of writing a great novel."

Wow!

Anyways, you gotta watch these, they're absolutely fascinating.





Monday, January 23, 2012

I would not be a fit mother. AKA: The Butter Incident

I have spent a lifetime wondering WHY women actually CHOOSE to let a parasitic being grow in their belly for nine months, expel itself via a life-threatening, bloody and violent ordeal, spend years in constant slavery to its every basic need, including regularly wiping liquified feces from its rear, only to have the thing get more mouthy as it gets taller, and eventually repay your incredible sacrifice by resenting you and blaming you for all of its personal problems before it leaves you.

The only two times I can see this experience as being somewhat rewarding are 1.) when they're between about 3-5 and they're being cute, and 2.) The photo op if/when they graduate college.

Despite my lifelong confusion about other's desire to procreate, as I get older (and the fertility window gets smaller) I occasionally.... rarely... see some cute kid and feel a teeny, tiny little microscopic pang of.... something. Not sure what. Indigestion? Fear? Loathing? Desire? Jealousy? A little pre-programmed line of code in my monkey DNA that says "go home right now and have unprotected sex"?

Since I have yet to experience a mini-human exploding out of my nether regions, I cannot fully comprehend motherhood. Once in a while, it seems like a good idea in a dreamy, far-off, romanticized kind of way.

Then, my dogs eats an entire stick of butter and I am reminded that I am not a fit parent to animals, never mind potential human beings.

I love my dogs. I love most animals in general. I believe that if you CHOOSE to become a pet parent, then you owe the animal(s) the best care you can possibly provide. It annoys me when I hear people complaining about having to take their dog to the vet and that it cost them a whole HUNDRED dollars or whatever. What did you think would happen if you got a pet? Sometimes a pet will get sick or hurt, or need daily medication, or some kind of special accommodation. Dogs in particular need training, daily exercise, they need to go outside several times a day, they need attention and decent food and toys to keep them occupied. If you aren't willing to provide all those things, then you shouldn't get a pet of your own.

I really do try to be a good pet parent. I do. But sometimes I'm negligent, and do stupid things like leave a whole stick of butter out in a place they can reach.

I'm not sure WHICH dog ate the butter, or if it was a joint effort. I'm hoping that they won't get diarrhea or start puking, but that might be wishful thinking. I will consider myself lucky if I don't wake up in the middle of the night to find shit everywhere. If it misses all carpet and fabrics entirely, I will jump with joy. (Unlikely, as both cats and dogs seem to strongly prefer expelling bodily fluids on soft surfaces.)

Worst case is that the dog(s) could get very sick from the butter... pancreatis. I don't think this will happen as they are both fairly large dogs, about 60 lbs, but you never know.

At least I'm lucky that it was an organic material, not something like equine de-wormer. I'm sick of giving the Animal Poison Control Hotline $60 per call.

Tomorrow I am returning to college after a six-year hiatus and I am not going to be happy if my beasts keep me up all my night with their butter shits.

I worry so much about my "kids" and they're "just dogs". I don't see how I could possibly handle being a parent of another human being.





Thursday, January 19, 2012

Good artists borrow, great artists steal

"Good artists borrow, great artists steal." - (No definitive attribution; some refence T.S. Eliot, or Picasso.)

"There is nothing new under the sun" ( phrase adapted from the Book of Ecclesiastes 1:9)

-----------------------------------------------

These phrases are ubiquitous, and seem irrefutable and wise.

What is an artist to do?

And by artist, I mean anyone who strives to create. Whether it be written words or the visual arts. It doesn't have to be high literature or fine art. Someone who wants to start a personal finance blog is in as much of a creative pickle as someone who wants to illustrate a children's book. One has to create something.

I think creating is the easy part. Creating something, anything, can flow easily for many with a little practice. Brainstorming is creative. Freewriting is creative. Sketching is creative. Creativity can be coaxed along with a little encouragement, whether it's in the form of praise, or prompts, or even "mind-expanding" stimulants like alcohol or drugs.

Craft is more difficult (the skill set that makes it good, or passable - whether it be writing skills, drawing skills, acting skills, etc.). But craft also improves with practice. Craft can be taught.

The most difficult aspect of creating is originality. One can practice vomiting out some creative content, and one can also work to hone the craft of one's expulsion. But is it all just regurgitation?

If all artists borrow or steal, if there is nothing new under the sun, then are we really "creating"? Or are we just recycling?

"No man is an island." - John Donne

The irrefutable truth is that no one can fully escape the influence of society upon one's "art", whatever the art form may be. We have all had a certain upbringing, we have had a certain kind of schooling and education, we have certain social mores installed in our brains. We are influenced by media, by what we read, by how others behave around us. We come to the table with a certain set of pre-installed beliefs about what our creations "should" be like. We would all like to think that we are free beings without own wonderfully independent and creative thoughts, but in reality, we are thinking in a cage. We can only create with the limited palette we bring to the canvas.

No one like that idea. We want to think we are independent thinkers. And we like to point to other independent thinkers as examples of how genius can override the status quo. But there are severe limitations to how far one can push the envelope. For example, Jackson Pollack would NOT have been recognized as an "artist" if he had existed in the 16th century alongside Michelangelo and Da Vinci. The idea that paint splatters constituted art just WOULDN'T fly then.

The other point I'm trying to make is that, had Jackson Pollack been alive during that time, he wouldn't have even had the IDEA to present paint splatters as art.

"If I have seen further it is only by standing on the shoulders of giants. " -Isaac Newton

Modern art was a progression. It began when a few daring artists actually left noticeable brushstrokes. Artists became more and more daring; Picasso, Pollack. Artists who drew a single line on a canvas. Artists who copied ads and called it pop art. (I do love Warhol, by the way.) When the minimalist extremes of visual art were exhausted, artists began to extend beyond the canvas; artists like Marina Abramovic who used herself in an installation, where she invited spectators to use items on a table to manipulate her body. One of those items included a gun.

I would speculate that a performance artist like Abramovic would not have been "accepted" or displayed even back in the earlier part of the 20th century, when it seemed that the boundries of "what is art" were beginning to be constantly explored. It was too early, and the boundries of static visual art were not yet exhausted. So it would seem to me that artists who wish to be truly original can only push so far, and must be careful to go only so far as just beyond the already accepted perimeter. If they succeed in going just so far, they will be heralded as original, as genius. If they fall short of the boundry, too far within the safety zone of "it's already been done", then they're a hack; if they go too far outside the accepted perimeter, they will be regarded as a freak, as a weirdo, as a bad artist, perhaps disgusting or vulgar. They may also be regarded as a hack for trying to pass off their "weird" work as "art."

It seems to me that artists in the previous centuries did not have to worry about such things. They only had to worry about being good at their craft. They only had to worry about creating things that were beautiful. They did not have to also worry about being original.

Does an artist have to be original to be successful? Yes and no.

There are many writers and artists and other creative people who aren't making anything ground-breakingly different, yet are successful. They fall into a genre. They produce an expected kind of content. It follows a formula or a pattern or contains enough of the right kind of material to appeal to the right kind of audience. And no matter the genre, there is always a demand for more new content. It is just different enough to be considered an original, stand-alone work, even though it doesn't introduce any new concepts, newly coined phrases, new kinds of visual ideas.

It's like when famous clothing designers decide that this fall's line is going to be 70's inspired. And what's interesting is that the designers seem to be working arm-in-arm. They all come out with things of roughly the same kind of theme at the same time.

So, for people who are trying to make a go at being creative; how important is it REALLY that we be "original?" For those of us who just want to follow our passion and make stuff while also making a living off it, for those of us who don't delude ourselves into thinking we're going to be Pulitzer Prize winners or Oscar winners.... should we even really be that concerned about originality?

Should we just go ahead and creatively regurgitate, and only worry about originality in as far as we don't tread on other's copyright?

I am constantly amazed at the amount of "borrowing" or perhaps outright stealing that goes on in fiction. I don't purport myself to be the most widely read person and yet I often identify authors who seem to steal other modern writer's ideas. I am also surprised how entire genres of music seem to pop up overnight who seem to be outright copies of other bands.

No one else seems all that concerned about how their art imitates others. So maybe I shouldn't be either?

Anytime I create anything, when I review it I realize immediately who/what influenced it. I think "this is too much like X writer" or "this drawing is a rip-off of X artist". If I didn't consciously recognize who my influences who, would I be less guilty? If I was more arrogant, would it matter? For the reasons I've already argued, is it even really possible to create something entirely new? I've already acknowledged that creativity cant' happen in a vacuum, so should I just regurgitate what comes naturally and accept it?

"You have to honor your vomit." - Lady Gaga