[Edit: Since they're all thoughts, I figured I could combine them on one blog. Obviously, they don't all really connect with each other. Or at least, not enough to create a "real" entry.]

[10/6/07]
The problem with dreamers is they usually can't stop dreaming long enough to act on the brilliant imaginations in their mind. They plan and imagine great things for the future, but the roller coast ride comes to a deadening halt when reality sets in.
As an "ex-perfectionist/overachiever," I know what it means to aim big and live by high standards. Failure is not an option, which is why you don't even consider what would happen "if I don't make it." I don't know what happened - maybe it was the move to a cliche private school in Southeast Asia where the majority of the students seem to perfectly fit the Asian stereotype mold - but I grew out of my perfectionist ways. More so, I began to mock them. Mock what I used to be (or tried to be, anyways). Perhaps, it was my loss of inspiration and passion, but I didn't see the point anymore. Nevertheless, I know you have to be determined and ambitious and set yourself seemingly impossible goals.

The other part of me is the dreamer. In that aspect, I often get caught up in my make-believe world and forget that hard work isn't given free with the overachiever package. In this case, the goals set are more elusive and a bit exaggerated.

They go together quite well, actually. You have to be a dreamer to think big and a sort of overachiever to make those dreams reality. The most important part you have to remember is to keep the balance though. If you dream too big for yourself, you're usually blinded by the prospect of that dream to think rationally enough to realize that you're hurting yourself more if you go through with it.
Unfortunately, the greater the dream, the harder the fall. The worst part is the disappointment. Somewhere, in the bowels of your consciousness you knew that you probably would not have succeeded anyway, but those thoughts are drowned out by the shouts of chaos of your imagination. So, in response to those shouts you decide to go for it. And where in any other situation that would be considered a positive attitude it is not so for this.


[10/3/07]
I already had my opinions on such topics like abortion, homosexuality, euthanasia, cloning, and stem cell research before I had truly become a Christian. In fact, they were quite liberal.

Now, that I know exactly where I am spiritually and my position in God is more clearly defined to me I have accepted what the Bible teaches and what the church preaches on such topics like those. Honestly, both sides have their points. There must be a reason people hold on so dearly to their beliefs when dealing with these issues.

Does that mean that I'm simply accepting teachings that I might not necessarily believe in so I can 'be a Christian'? Doesn't that mean I'm lying to myself? Or am I now turning the blind eye to topics that might arouse personal opinions contradictory to the church so I won't compromise my position as a Christian?

Not a comforting notion but maybe my sense of morality was distorted to begin with...

Labels: Christianity, controversy, dreams, failure, liberalism, morality, overachievers

Can the arts be graded?

If art is a medium in which creativity and expression pours out of how can it have a standard at which it is judged? Isn't each individual's creativity and expression subject to that individual's standards?

For one, I've often wondered why figure skating is considered a sport first (granted, it's one of my favorites).
The marks scheme is split into two: technical elements and artistry. The technical marks are pretty straightforward, you either nail it or you don't (landing two-footed or not making the complete revolutions count as not making it, obviously) but the marking of a skater's artistry is very subjective. Certainly, it's not possible to judge them fairly on that. The act of administering these points in the first place implies that one skater's artistry is "better" than another's. On what basis is this skater's better than the next? Her facial expressions are more exaggerated and so that means her artistry is far superior? When in fact the interpretations of both skaters are different, they are now being ranked in a discreditable manner - always being biased to one of them a little more than the other.
What was worse was when the old ISU points mark system was still in use. It was then possible for a gifted skater to get a "perfect" score: 6.0 for technical elements and 6.0 for artistry. 'Perfect artistry'... seems a bit funny don't you think?

Most of the time, if not all of the time, art is very relative; its boundaries of what is right and wrong don't ever seem to be clearly defined. What one person finds vulgar and distasteful another could find audacious and innovative. Thus the reason for the number of controversies in art as well.

This problem is now, for me, more evident in the art classes at school. Apparently, it's possible for a student to be marked down because their work does not match the definition of art as is accepted by the teacher or textbook. Or for a teacher to decimate an artwork because she "doesn't like the effect" of what the student was doing. A bit harsh when compensating the fact that maybe that student used all four periods the class was given to work on the assignment creating something she truly believed was "acceptable".

Definition from Dictionary.com
art1 /ɑrt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ahrt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun

1.	the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.

I remember in 8th grade our art class also debated and discussed about the definition of art, so I guess one could go off on another tangent arguing what is and is not art.
For another blog perhaps...

And maybe none of this makes sense. Just thoughts from an exhausted and frustrated person who believes music exams are a waste of time and money (what do you use them for anyway? college applications? résumés? personal gratification?).

Labels: art, controversy, grading, subjectiveness