TEDxSalons: Conversations Worth Having

This week TEDxUofM, the student organization that organizes the annual TEDx Conference at Michigan, is continuing a new initiative called TEDxSalons. A Salon is a small gathering where attendees can eat, discuss, brainstorm, and connect in a more intimate atmosphere than a standard TEDx event; think of it as a loosely facilitated discussion. The Salon will be a chance for new people to meet each other and share ideas in a relaxed, engaging atmosphere. The goal of these events is to create a conversation that isn’t widely being had on this campus, and to get people thinking about these various topics. Don’t think of it as a class discussion; it is informal and enlightening! The event this week is called “On The Streets of Ann Arbor: A Conversation on Homelessness.”

This theme focuses on the status of homelessness within our community. The discussion will hope to speak about homelessness in a sensitive and respectful manner within a group of individuals learning to understand more about the topic. Discussion will include the growing gap between wage earnings and the cost of living which leaves hundreds of families and individuals (in our community) unable to make ends meet. Understanding homelessness is more than mere statistics. We witness the individual faces of homelessness on the streets, but the larger community struggles are often unseen. Untold stories of the men, women, and children without homes. How often do you stop, and how often do you take the time to hear the story?

TEDxSalons revolve around the idea that conversationing is an art; that talking to people, and sharing ideas is a form of artistic expression. The Salons are a unique space because they ask attendees to engage in a respectful, committed discussion, without the pressure and unnecessary limitations of a class or grade. People attend because they are interested in learning simply for learning’s sake. By focusing on relevant issues that are going relatively unnoticed, TEDx is asking attendees to channel this energy for interaction and learning into important and challenging topics. Above all, the Salons series is a hope that, at one point, the University of Michigan becomes a campus that embodies the TED mantra “Ideas Worth Spreading” every day of the year.

Event Details:

“On The Streets of Ann Arbor” A Conversation on Homelessness

Wednesday, February 27 at 7:30pm (Conversation starts at 8pm)

East Conference Room, Rackham, 4th floor

Refreshments will be served.

Leonid Afremov: A New Kind of Artist

Okay.

Really quickly – what do you feel when you first see the following painting?

Joy. Bliss. Vibrancy. Color. Beauty. Happiness. (Yes, ‘color’ and ‘beauty’ are feelings.)

A smile.

That oil painting, my lads and lassies, was created by Leonid Afremov, whose rise to fame struck me as interesting. A few weeks ago, I spoke of Sergio Albiac whose domain is digital art, where he fuses painting with computer programs that results in futuristic and hauntingly amazing pieces of work. Afremov isn’t a new kind of artist the way Albiac is; his medium is as traditional as they get: oil paintings. However, his recognition and success is due to the harbinger of change in our technology-oriented society. The Internet.

That’s right. Before eBay, Afremov was the very picture (ha ha get it? He’s an artist.) of the stereotypical struggling artist. However, with eBay and other online means of vending, Afremov shot to fame and monetary success. And, if I may say so myself, justly so. He’s spectacular and his works fill me with a special fondness for the classic, romanticized Europe. Yes, the resplendent, almost magical, places he depicts do not exist in the gritty reality we live in but they do somewhere in our soul, our dreams. And when I gaze upon his work, I become uplifted with nostalgia, though I have never gone anywhere even remotely resembling such a place. Or maybe I have.

Blue Lights
Blue Lights

When I first saw one of his paintings, I thought it was some radical French painter from the centuries ago, maybe because . Nope. This man has a deviantART account. That’s right, muthafuckas. The man whose paintings seem to have popped out of old-world Europe has his paintings available for sale on deviantART (at the time of writing this, all the paintings on his deviantART account are for sale, so… go get ’em!). I admire The Internet to the fullest extent. Amazing things and people and art like this have always existed but The Internet spreads awareness that they exist, at a faster pace and to a bigger audience than ever before. A man who may have died with no one knowing his name is now an inspiration.

The Beauty of Dance
The Beauty of Dance

As a ballet dancer, the painting above tugs at my heartstrings.

Here’s what Afremov says on his deviantART profile:

Every artwork is the result of long painting process; every canvas is born during the creative search; every painting is full of my inner world. Each of my paintings brings different moods, colors and emotions. I love to express the beauty, harmony and spirit of this world in my paintings. My heart is completely open to art. Thus, I enjoy creating inspired and beautiful paintings from the bottom of my soul. Each of my artworks reflects my feelings, sensitivity, passion, and the music from my soul. True art is alive and inspired by humanity. I believe that art helps us to be free from aggression and depression.

Preach.

.Calm Beauty
Calm Beauty
Leonid Afremov
Leonid Afremov

When you’ve read too much.

#Blasphemy

I am greeted almost daily with red. Royal angry velvet-smooth. Apple red . . . darker: rose red. Red rose. Read rows. Rows, streams, rivers and roads, pool in water that is sometimes urine. Sometimes feces. Today clear but tainted–wine red. Unholy, Bloody nose.

Intense. I swear I’m not. I simmer down low over 2 or 3, electric–no flame–coils morph like snakes but not at all. Or perhaps I boil. Either way. Stimulus with humans and vocal cords necessitate two reactions, a third unspoken–play dead. The chef’s nightmare: tepid water–Conversation.

Pumpkin carriage scares me into sleep. Wherever I fall I call home. Ma maison is always close, right below my feet, always almost within reach. When I arrive I’m already away. Gone to wander old classrooms, play old games, read old books, my childhood lays old beneath my eyelids to disappear as I see time dissipate into dreams. Midnight.

Midas touch without the gold. With air, some would say. Not even my touch–more of a button. Silver grey today. Tomorrow my eyes might not be my own. Makes living more palatable, more scrumptious. A whole meal in itself that fills the belly with exhales of machinery. Soda water.

Ripped thoughts, torn canvas, soiled trees. Worse than dirt my fingers smudge continually as I apply more lotion more pen more neon more soap. Lemon soap. Citrus cuts through words like . . . my eyes through sentences like chronology through linearity. Ha. Book cover.

Like a deck of cards with no heart. Just diamonds, die minz, dye mends my hands and brain and ears. Silver rubs off, cheap. Glass breaks. Queen and Kings pay for this for birth, or rather just Kings. Queens still kept silent as their 13th century counterparts did. Ate hundread yirs dew nuthing two hour stand-herds. Herds. Thats all we are. Connected through one shepherd. iPhone.

Alarm set for 30 minutes earlier than the day before or the day after, instead of music it drips brown, caramel syrup that fills the void in my morning ritual. It wafts into every space be it nostril or ceiling or itself and finally into the depths of my self. Coffee Addict.

Wafers from heaven, moist manna wet from yesterdays [not] rain and snow. Clings to my clothes like dust bunnies. Frolicking in meadow’s dew when the sun cried last or when the moon got too clammy. Tender Buttons.

Wake up with a failed conversation and  midnight soda water left over to spill onto my coffee addict of a book cover, or so the stains prove, to catch my blood from my nose as I type away on my iPhone, “tender buttons. stop. help. stop.”

—Mn. All I know how to do is read, so why not read life? The author is dead and god is dead, so I have to make the plot myself before I, too, am dead. Live the plot. Create plot out of random instances where life seems void of content. Create something out of nothing. Destroy the tabula rasa to live a life backwards through the book so when tomorrow comes you’re not just eating celery but you’re living celery as water as life as new as day as back cover to front cover sleep as as as . . . yes.—

Value of Art?

Today in one of my History of Art courses, the question of how and whether art should be valued came up. Half of the students in my class happen to be artists themselves, and I was absolutely shocked that for many of them, the notion of creating works for the purpose of selling is antithesis to their overall artistic value. To some of my classmates, they felt that they should not create something for the objective of it having marketability to the general public. Such would defeat the purpose of artistic creativity and freedom. On the other hand, some students stated that they felt if someone is creating a work of art, then they should be paid for the time and effort put forth.

We then started linking this notion to other aspects of life, relating it to how people often solicit services from friends or family for free – free medical advice from your friend the doctor, free legal advice from your friend the lawyer, free psychiatric advice from your psychologist friend. Are these actions then wrong, too? Where does the line for provision of services, in something that you’re an expert in, be drawn?

In my opinion, all works of art should be paid for. If I am going into a gallery to purchase a work of art, a work that someone put time and effort into, then the very least I can do if pay them for their service, their skill and their expertise. I would never go into a doctor and have an examination and not pay them for the work they are doing. In so many veins, art is an expression of creativity. However, for artists who have the making of art as their primary profession, it is essential that they are paid for their work and their time.

So, what do you think? Should art be paid for? Should works of art be created without any compensation? Is it not wrong for such to occur – for someone to put time and effort into a craft and then get nothing in return for the time and work. At the end of the day, we live in a world driven by a market economy, do we not?

Silicon Shuttles to a Synthetic State

On average, we spend <insert shockingly high but hopefully accurate statistic here> hours in front of a screen every day. These screens are windows to whatever we wish to see. The internet offers us places we’ve never been and people we’ve never met IRL. Our lives exist in front of them, our eyes scanning spreadsheets and two-dimensional newsfeeds when they were designed to perceive depth and location of prey we used to hunt. We have no reason to search after running animals when we can purchase preservative-pumped meat through online retailers. Computers take away our need to move beyond the glowing pixels in front of us.

With several hours spent before screens each day, one begins to wonder the aesthetic appeal of such devices. Is it the great graphics that draw us in? New Apple products are perpetually improving upon display and interface design. Is it the simple appeal of the Internet and the indirect connections we can make with other humans? Constant improvements on social media sites and web browsers are adapting to make these experiences increasingly easier to access, speedier, and more enjoyable. Whatever the case may be, we are spending exponentially more time before screens as “better” technology continues to develop. In this sense, a significant portion of our minds and presence exists within this virtual realm. We take up residence in our homepages and online media sites, but when we exit out of our browsers, we are faced with an image that overtakes our field of vision—our desktop.

Most often, these pieces of art are beautiful depictions of the real world, whether it is a panoramic view of mountains or oceans or a photo of family or friends. These pictures can be cycled and rotate, becoming abstract shapes and designs, but in whatever case, they are what we perceive as visually pleasant. If these images are constructs of actuality, as art is most often based off inspiration found in the real world, why is it that they make such a dominant presence in our virtual existence? Perhaps we are setting up a home in the screen, a place to find peace or silence when the world is loud or find action and life when reality goes dim? If computers are the places for our minds to explore and wander, the world is left to be a simple provider. Rather than be enjoyed or explored as a primary passion, it is a place we are simply stuck in and thus escape to the virtual realm. Beautiful desktop images serve as enjoyable views when glued to the screen. These pieces of art can be seen as indirectly evil, as they are offering a Land of Lotus leaves to our visual senses, enticing them to spend more time before the screen. For this reason, I have set my desktop to the most atrocious scene I could spawn:

Rather than waste away my years before a screen, lulled into satisfaction by misleading visual art mimicking the true beauty of the real world, I hope to spend less time in front of the screen and more time in reality. Despite the many great tools it can provide, the computer is a double-edged sword. We ask it questions and it answers them. If we ask it why we should spend more time in reality, it will give us an answer, perhaps even a good one, but it will lure us back to our virtual desktops.

Google, why do I ask you my life questions? And how does Yahoo always have the answer?

Maybe that’s why I spend so much time in front of this screen?

Film vs. movies and Literature vs. Books: End this war!!

The other day, I went home for the weekend and to catch up on sleep and on Saturday night, catch up with my older sister.  We were sitting on her couch contemplating what to do for the rest of the night when suddenly, she got this mischevious look in her eyes that made her look like a third-grader with a secret to tell.

“What is it?” I asked.

“Oh nothing,” she said, like there was definitely something.  “Just…I feel like watching a really girly, really sappy movie.  Would you be up for it?”

“You bet!” I remember saying.  I was relieved that she didn’t tell me she had cancer or something.  But afterwards I thought about the trepidation she must have felt before asking me about what to do for the night.

And it got me thinking, as an avid cinephile and bibliophile, why are some people so ashamed of watching films or reading books that are in a genre?  What’s so bad about chick-flicks and chick-lit that makes normal people scrunch their faces and avoid asking you to watch them?

Does calling a movie a ‘film’ elevate it to some sort of high status?  Does ‘Literature’ confer a sort of sacredness to texts that ‘Thriller’ does not?

As someone who loves serving up some Austen, Tolstoy, Baudrillard, or Borges from time to time, I will also admit that I have read ‘Bridget Jones Diary’ waaay too many times to count.

And I’ve laughed out loud every time.

Gets me every time.
Gets me every time.

That is something that reading Baudrillard has never made me do (except when I’ve laughed at Baudrillard to avoid crying because I have no idea what he is saying).

This man has never made me laugh.
Never gets anyone laughing, but is lauded for dissing Disney World.

I am not saying that one is better than the other.  From time to time, I NEED challenging literature in order to assure me that my liberal arts brain can still function.  But from time to time, I think even the liberal artsy should get down from their marble column and descend into the pages or film clips of the genre book or movie and not be ashamed of it.