Oh noez!





I am considering becoming a recluse, or a Buddhist monk, or ascetic. Ideally I would become a kind of J.D. Salinger, shutting myself away from all the idiots, crazies, and assholes of the world to create hauntingly sincere works of art for the enjoyment of no one but those who I know would understand them. Well, that's probably what Salinger did; I wouldn't know, would I, since he kept to himself. And good for him.

Human flaws and frailties are fascinating and moving when you encounter them in a book or a play or a movie. The metaphors and allegories insulate you from the raw pain, the paralyzing and logic-deadening emotion of dealing with real people. You can turn off a movie and throw a book across the room, but you can't make someone understand on anything but a superficial level, no matter how patiently you explain. You can't avoid hurt, you matter how carefully you choose your companions. You can't erase your own flaws, no matter how bad you want it.

Art hands you the bulletproof vest so you can reflect upon yourself and your weaknesses with little damage to yourself and none to others. I could spend the rest of my life in Zen-like literary contemplation, puttering away at improving myself while doing the least harm to others.

If I'm strong enough, and disciplined enough, I will start working a lot harder on creating the best work that I possibly can, completely ignoring the distracting infantile babbling of the world at large, disregarding everything and everyone but objective brutality from a dozen intelligent, informed and reliable people. A better version of J.D. Salinger. Considering the way today has gone, I think today might be the day to start.

I won't get far as an artist without cultivating contacts and networking and all that ghastly fake ladder-climbing, but I suppose if I can produce a few works that I can die being proud of, the general consensus of the mouthbreathers is immaterial.





Practical section of blog:

California...

Oh noez!





I am considering becoming a recluse, or a Buddhist monk, or ascetic. Ideally I would become a kind of J.D. Salinger, shutting myself away from all the idiots, crazies, and assholes of the world to create hauntingly sincere works of art for the enjoyment of no one but those who I know would understand them. Well, that's probably what Salinger did; I wouldn't know, would I, since he kept to himself. And good for him.

Human flaws and frailties are fascinating and moving when you encounter them in a book or a play or a movie. The metaphors and allegories insulate you from the raw pain, the paralyzing and logic-deadening emotion of dealing with real people. You can turn off a movie and throw a book across the room, but you can't make someone understand on anything but a superficial level, no matter how patiently you explain. You can't avoid hurt, you matter how carefully you choose your companions. You can't erase your own flaws, no matter how bad you want it.

Art hands you the bulletproof vest so you can reflect upon yourself and your weaknesses with little damage to yourself and none to others. I could spend the rest of my life in Zen-like literary contemplation, puttering away at improving myself while doing the least harm to others.

If I'm strong enough, and disciplined enough, I will start working a lot harder on creating the best work that I possibly can, completely ignoring the distracting infantile babbling of the world at large, disregarding everything and everyone but objective brutality from a dozen intelligent, informed and reliable people. A better version of J.D. Salinger. Considering the way today has gone, I think today might be the day to start.

I won't get far as an artist without cultivating contacts and networking and all that ghastly fake ladder-climbing, but I suppose if I can produce a few works that I can die being proud of, the general consensus of the mouthbreathers is immaterial.





Practical section of blog:

California residents, PLEASE, make sure you go to the polls in November! The California Supreme Court has recently and justly found that people cannot be denied the basic right of marriage because of their sexual orientation. It's truly a proud day for our court system and our constitution.

However, there will most likely be a state constitutional amendment on the ballot that will override the court's decision to once again strip gays of their rights.

-"But marriage has always been between a man and a woman! Gays shouldn't push their agenda on other people!" An SG member (tell me if it's okay to publicly credit you!) had a very good analogy: Less than 100 years ago women didn't have the right to vote in this country. They were told they were attacking centuries of tradition and accused of pushing their agenda onto men. And yet today, even most Christian conservatives would not support taking away the right to vote from women - because it's a right. Marriage is a personal matter, so what does it matter to you who I marry?

-"But you have civil unions, why do you have to have marriage?" Because a civil union is not marriage, and this "separate-but-not-quite-equal" institution violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution. Because separate is not the same as equal. The California Supreme Court justices used the same logic and legal basis to reject bans on gay marriage as they did decades ago to reject bans on interracial marriage. Why should a person be denied the right to marry just because the love of their life is a different race? Because that person is being unfairly denied a basic right based on who they love. The same logic applies to same-sex love. Without marriage, gay partnerships will not have the same rights and protections given to heterosexual partnerships, and it is neither fair nor constitutional.

-"But in 2000 61% of Californians voted to keep marriage between a man and a woman. How can the courts completely fly in the face of the will of the voters?" Because the will of the voters is not constitutional! This is exactly why the U.S. has separation of powers, with the court system having the final authority to decide whether a law is constitutional or not. Because the majority is not always right. A majority of people once supported pogroms and racial cleansing. A majority of Americans once supported slavery, and then segregation. It is the court's job to prevent democracy by mob rule. The federal Constitution cannot be amended except by vote by at least three-quarters of the states, and while it is surprising and unnerving that it takes no more than a majority vote to amend California's state constitution, it is a fact that anyone who believes in dignity and human rights must go to the polls to deal with.