Author: Gabby Park

We see the beauty in happy things– but there is beauty in sadness, too.  A photo essay by Yves Marchand and Romaine Meffre captures the haunting beauty in Detroit’s demise, as featured in this Time article.

This is Detroit Central Station.  I’ve often stared at it as I passed by it in train rides and car trips, wanting to photograph it.  There was something so inexplicably attractive about this building– the essence of a grandeur that no longer exists, the ever-standing reminder of a lost era.

We see the beautiful in happiness, which is why we tend to ignore the beauty that exists in sadness, as well.  An aching, haunting, mesmerizing kind of beauty that captures our hearts and makes them long– for what, we don’t know.  But the more we seek the sunny side of things, the more we eschew the darker aspects of life.  The more we shun sadness, the less we notice of it.  We care not for crumbling buildings and broken windows– we want high towering buildings of shiny stainless steel and bold reflective windows; we do not gaze upon rusting metals of old desk chairs and falling fluorescent lights– we always cry out for more comfortable cushioned chairs, gleaming white boards stretching across walls; we would not attend a tour of a Spanish Gothic theater, caving in on itself, built at the height of the twenties– we would rather watch football games from the newly built skyboxes of plastic and metal, placing ourselves well above the rest of the world.

We do not care for sadness.  We do not care for eras lost.  We do not care for the impoverished, the helpless, the struggling.  We turn our heads from obviously crumbling, unsustainable infrastructures, children without proper education, cities without safety and stability.  And as we do this– as we try so hard to ignore all that is wrong with the world– all that we see to be ugly, all that we think can never be beautiful– we ignore those who desperately need attention and help.  We do not care for them.  Because we would prefer to view the beautiful things in life.

But here it is: there is beauty in sadness.  So look deeply, think carefully, and act– because if this is what Detroit is like in its “ugliness”, then imagine how it once was and could be again, in all of its beautiful splendor.

—–

Gabby Park is a pastime photographer who loves to look at the art of others.

Whoa… so this is not a painting.  It is a photograph of a model covered in body paint, posing against a painted set to make herself seem like she is part of a painting.  Isn’t this crazy?  I wonder if this type of thing was possible in the past.  The concept of trompe-l’oeil has existed for quite awhile, but have people previously thought to cover themselves in body paint in the goal of mimicking perfectly a painting?  Do mimes kind of count?

It makes me wonder, though– how much of what we see can actually be the truth?  How much of it is actually the truth and how much of it is the truth covered by layers of paint so that it is barely discernible?  Art, in a lot of ways, has that tendency– to portray truth in ways that make it seem so false and so empty.  From the prostitutes depicted in Picasso’s Mademoiselle d’Avignon to the photographs seen in National Geographic– this is all art depicting the “truth”, yet in such contrived ways that the truth becomes distorted, decontextualized, until we ourselves must struggle with grasping this notion of truth that the artist wants to convey.

Photography may seem like a strange example due to its explicit nature– it is what it is, no?  Photography, right after its inception, became a means of documentation; thus, of course it is truthful.  Yet, there are so many ways a photograph can be manipulated, especially in this day with all this technology, to reflect things that are not actually there, to eliminate elements that are unwanted.  And if this is true– if all the messages and information we deem to be “true” becomes so unrecognizable under all the layers of paint and manipulation, what do we do to make it more noticeable?  How do we train our eyes to catch all the falsities, to scrape away the various colors and forms to display it for what it truly is?  How do we get at the truth lying beneath all of the words and the art?

*shrugs*  Maybe we just have to be more meticulous, more searching.  We can’t just glance at a photograph, a painting, or an article and take it as it is.  It’s like with this photograph.  It looks like a shot of a painting.  But in fact it’s a photograph of an event that occurred in which a real person painted and placed herself into a set in order to give the illusion that the entire performance is a painting.  And because this photograph becomes decontextualized in the mere essence of it being a photograph, we the viewer see it to be a painting.  It’s only when we look more closely, when we read the caption that we realize it for what it is.  And it’s only then that we see the truth.

—–

Gabby Park is a triple concentrator in Communications, French, and History of Art.

There’s something I’ve always wondered for the longest time– where and how did the phenomenon of kissing originate?  This isn’t a new question– well, it is, actually.  Apparently, Philematology is a recently developed sector of research concerning kissing.  There seems to have been a hubbub last year when philematologists came out with new research. Many of them all agree that it most likely started when mothers chewed food to feed their young and that for each gender, kissing connotes different things.  It’s something that about 90% of world populations do, with only a very slim percentage of cultures who do not kiss.  Isn’t it crazy?

I finally had the chance to look up the origins of this long-term question last night when I came upon this:

I came upon it when I was reading this site that posts random blogs and I thought it was very, very cool.  In the brief explanation of the piece, it states that the the artwork is supposed to be a Chinese beverage of mixed tea and coffee, also representing the idea of love and marriage.  The Science of Kissing Gallery is a blog site that encourages people to post their own creative interpretations of kissing, whether it’s through visual arts, poetry, etc– and it doesn’t necessarily have to be one’s own work, but that of others, too (which explains famous artwork like Klimt’s The Kiss).

If you think about it, the Internet is such a good resource and avenue to finding out more about people– not just the plain technical information– like philematology or the history of kissing– but also the more personal, individual aspects of large populations.  It’s a place where people are able to post their own artwork, disseminate those of others, and in general, share their own ideas and opinions of such worldwide, overarching phenomena.  And then we’re able to see just how unique we each are, yet the same, because we all partake in this community of cultures.  And we’re able to see that even though these cultures may not always get along, that even though wars still happen and people still fight, there are still so many commonalities that tie us together.

Like kissing.

So think about that the next time you pucker up to kiss your significant others, your friends, your parents, your pets.  You’re doing something that nearly everyone in the world does, too (other than the basic necessities of eating and pooping).

—–

Gabby Park is a romantist who often ponders random questions, such as, “Where/how did kissing originate?”

I wanted to write this post after watching the halftime show of the Super Bowl because I was sure it would be worth commenting on.  And sure enough, it was.  With a great performance by the timeless The Who, this year’s Super Bowl halftime show was a performance worth watching, not just for its musical aspects, but its technical visuals as well.

It’s not often that one would think of football and relate it to art– but that’s exactly what came to mind.  Art is abound in this 100 yard field covered with bulky, athletic men.  From the colors of the uniforms to the layout of the playing field, from the architecture of the stadium to the rippling colors of fans’ football jerseys, flags, hats, and other paraphernalia, football (and other sports) is just another diverse playing field of art.

This year’s Super Bowl is no exception.  What astounded first and foremost about this year’s halftime show– as it did for many others, I’m sure– were the lighting effects.  The stage caught my eye early on, as I carefully observed the transition taking place behind the sportscasters offering their mid-game commentary.  I could already see that there were many white lights and lines.  And when the camera cut away to center field and I saw those rows and concentric circles of many bright white lights, I knew instantly we were in for a great performance.  The way those lights flashed and pulsed with the music, how they ran over and into each other, created these great shapes, gave bursts of light and dissipated in time with the singing, as they flashed in accordance with each stroke of the bass, I was captivated.

I do enjoy watching football for its athletic aspects, but this was one of the first times that I’ve seen it for its truly artistic aspects as well.  Super Bowl XLIV was brimming with art– incorporating not only the art of colors and movement, but also music and visuals and nature and science and technology.  Showing yet again, that art is not merely confined to its separate, specified industries but that it surrounds us daily and astounds us in the most surprising events.

—–

Gabby Park enjoys watching football and especially critiquing the commercials aired on Super Bowl Sunday.

(cont. from last week’s post)

The media is a double-edged sword.  On the one hand created by the people for the people, particularly in this nation’s political revolution, it is also an outlet for the dissemination of tyrants and profit-seekers.  Yet, isn’t what the media gives us what it thinks we want?  As much as it was conceived to be a public service, what is a public service but something the public wants for itself?  Yet, by doing us this service of feeding us the latest news on Tiger and the whereabouts of Paris Hilton’s lost chihuahua, is the media actually providing a disservice?

But maybe that’s unfair.  After all, we can’t say that we all want to hear about celebrity news or the watered down versions of the war in Afghanistan.  We can’t say that none of us are interested in international affairs and that’s the reason for which foreign news coverage has decreased by almost half in the past decade.  I am certain there are many out there who desire to know about all of the things this world has to offer; equally certain that there are many who do not.  Then, who is to blame?  Is there any one specific person or entity?

Journalists have a hard job.  That job is to report, “objectively”, on every situation at hand.  What does it mean to be “objective”?  That we provide all different viewpoints?  That we quote any relevant parties?  Is there such a thing as objectivity?  Some reporters believe that, no, there is no such thing: once a journalist decide to report on something and not on another thing, then in that moment, that journalist has stopped being objective.  After all, what makes one story more worthy of being reported than another?  Why is one quotation inserted while another is ignored?  How come Person A gets to be interviewed yet not Person B?

And after considering this argument, I would have to say that they are right: there is no objectivity.  In fact, the journalistic ideal of objectivity may even be harmful to journalism itself; journalists strive to maintain the appearance of being objective that they subsequently attempt to incorporate as many point as possible, people as necessary, quotations to be credible, etc, that the true story is lost underneath all of the weight of “objectivity”.  As readers, what are we really being told– that Haiti needs the money or that the US doesn’t believe Haiti deserves the money?  What is with this portrayal of Haiti as an entirely corrupt, immature nation that needs outside guidance for providing stability to its people?  Especially when the real problem has been rooted in centuries of neglect and sometimes even hindrance by the outside world?  And is this story objective?  The way it begins is not like a journalistic, “objective” report but rather a fictional, dramatic novel.  What is this saying about journalism?  What is this saying about objectivity?  Is this written in a way that shows distance and removed reporting?

Journalism doesn’t have to attain the ideal of objectivity– in fact, what is an ideal but that which cannot be attained, only striven for?  Maybe they should just be honest.  Corporate, governmental, external influences/power notwithstanding, the sole responsibility of a journalist is not to be objective, but truthful– in any and every way that may hurt.  The responsibility, first and foremost, of a journalist, is to deliver accurate news and give power to the unheard and oft-ignored, not to serve the powermasters of profit.  I must acknowledge that the “truth” to everyone may be biased– however, we are already in a biased news environment– pundits from the left and right, Fox News, CNN– what are these but biased, partisan news figures and outlets?  And the matter of truthful reporting is hard, particularly in situations where little information is available to anyone and reporters must dig somewhere for the facts, from which they then have to build a concrete idea or story to inform the people.  Being a journalist is HARD.  Yet that is the responsibility that comes with it– full of freedoms and blessings, burdens and hardships.  Being a journalist is like being a soldier or a doctor– they take one for the people.  When those who are to protect the meek become pawns of the strong, where are their priorities going and whom are the serving?

Not all journalists have to be like Mika Brzezinski and throw away their news scripts.  And not all of us should discredit the importance of those who report on celebrity news– they shape our culture and define the trends of our times.  It must only be recognized that “proper” reporting is a hard one– not only because telling the truth is hard, but also because knowing what the people want is sometimes even harder still, because that is what drives a lot of the content we see today.

—–

Gabby Park is a triple concentrator in Communications, French, and History of Art who likes to play with snow.

As far back as we have records, heroes have existed.  It’s not just all about Superman, but about Hercules, Aeschylus, Odysseus.  It’s about Joseph and Jesus and Abraham and Mohammed.  About Babe Ruth, Jackie Robinson, Neil Armstrong, Martin Luther King, Jr.  In the 21st century, it’s about Arnold Shwarzenegger, Barack Obama, soldiers in the Middle East, Tiger Woods.  Etc etc etc.  Heroes are everywhere.  With them comes this great image about them that is cast far and wide, projecting a perspective of awe and admiration, fear and respect, intimacy and personality.

Back up… Tiger Woods?  He who has had countless mistresses and who apparently has a sham of a marriage that was alleged to have been a mere media ploy?  Hmm…

I’m not one who is interested in celebrity news.  Like anyone else, I will admit that yeah, maybe it can be kind of interesting, but typically I don’t even glance at Perez or read the People magazine cover in the grocery line.  I’m just not that into it.  But taking a class on journalism has made me become aware of something: the media is a powerful, powerful tool.  And Tiger Woods is someone who knows just how to use it.

The thing with Tiger is that everyone is up in arms about him right now.  But why?  Because he was Tiger, the untouchable, the unbreakable, undefeatable.  Oh la la, and lookie here, now he’s the baddd mannn Mommy always warned us about.  Mmm… maybe.  People are always drawn to drama, especially celebrity drama, so the hubbub about  the straying hubby isn’t all that surprising.  What is surprising, however, is how long this scandal has been kept wrapped up.  According to my instructor, a journalist herself, the news of Tiger’s busy hands has mostly likely been long known.  He has so many journalists on his tail everyday, there were countless rumors about certain bars and rooms he frequented for questionable purposes.  But no one ever reported it.  Why?  Because Tiger had essentially built up an empire controlling the sports media– if anyone ever wanted to be in Tiger’s circle, they would never write anything bad about him.  Once an enemy, always on the blacklist for life.  And because Tiger was such a big name and thus drew in tons of revenue, no high-aspiring sports journalist would ever report anything negative about the heroic Tiger Woods.  He had developed a myth about him that created around him an untouchable aura.  His PR team was gooood.

Achilles didn’t have a PR Team, neither did Jesus.  Jackie Robinson rose to fame on his own and Martin Luther King was a preacher.  Yet, these people all became heroes and mythical figures (in the sense of their power, not that they never existed) and still retain some power in the media today.  Achilles is in countless translations and editions of The Iliad, Jesus has the Bible, Babe and Jackie still lived in a time where media was used to broadcast sports and thus spread their names to the national listeners of baseball.  Martin Luther King, Jr.’s sermons and speeches were reported in newspapers and televised.  Perhaps they didn’t all have a PR team that possessed the same kind of imperial hold over media, but the fact is that they live today because of and through the media.  This is how powerful the concept of media, especially mass media, is.  Isn’t it crazy to think about the fact that people who work in and with the media have such a tremendous power over its audience?  How every choice they make determines the scope of the knowledge received and understood by the public?  It’s a double-edged sword, the media…

(To be continued next week…)

—–

Gabby Park is a thinker who is fascinated by the concept of communication in society and who aspires to one day be someone who actively pursues the acquisition of hidden knowledge.