I can't complain about my eyes because I came by them honestly. My mama gave them to me, passing down the single brown eye gene she got from her father to all three of her children in the equivalent of winning a coin toss three times in a row. And everyone knows you have to flaunt what your mama gave you.
It didn't take me long to realize that the heroes in books didn't tend to have brown eyes. Blue, green, grey--those are all cool. (I'm looking at you, Jonas.) (I'm looking at you, Harry.) They're the clues that our heroes and heroines with the mousy brown hair or messy black hair are secretly special and beautiful. (I'm looking at you, Meg Murray.)
The only time you see brown eyes being described as beautiful is when the main characters are black and brown people. Even then you'll get the black or Asian person who inexplicably has light-colored eyes in defiance of the odds. (I know it can happen in real life, but in literature it only happens to main characters.)
But chances are the narrator will call the brown person's eyes "black." Which when I think about it would be incredibly creepy in real life because you wouldn't be able to distinguish at all between pupil and cornea. The real reason to say "black eyes," is because black is still a slightly more romantic color than brown.
Don't get me started on "violet." I understand when it's used to refer to a particular shade of blue. But sometimes the author literally means the character is walking around with bright purple eyes. For no reason besides identifying them as the main character. (Looking at you, Alanna.) I don't care how good the rest of the writing is. That image is fucking ridiculous.
Madeleine L'Engle even wrote a book where all the good guys have blue eyes and all the characters who don't are either evil or shouldn't be allowed to breed with the blue-eyed people.
Really? Really?
Also, some of the good characters are Native Americans who are good because they are descended from Welsh people.
I just don't know how a normally chill person can write an entire book on this premise and not pause a moment to think, "Huh....Does that sound a tiny bit racist?"
Brown eyes are often associated with dogs or cows. Loyal, sweet, a bit dim-witted. Once someone told me my brown eyes were pretty because they looked "honest." I didn't say, "Wow, way to say my eyes aren't actually pretty." So I guess not so honest.
On top of having brown eyes, I'm also a ginger, which makes it very rare to find characters who look like me. Most people assume that red hair = blue or green eyes, pale skin, and Irish. (My great grandparents came from Germanic countries.) Because of the brown eyes I tan easily and burn rarely.
The stare of blue or green eyes is a mysterious gaze that pierces your soul with its ethereal power, as of a fairy-like being who somehow possesses infinite wisdom.
A brown-eyed stare probably makes someone look like a serial killer.
I have to admit that blue and green eyes are just objectively better. On the whole people prefer cool colors to neutral ones. My favorite color is blue.
As an adult I'm not as bothered by having brown eyes. After about 25 you stop thinking that you need to change things about yourself to look fabulous. I make my brown eyes fabulous. I use gold eyeliner, and it looks awesome. My skin, hair, and eyes all have the same undertones. I can't imagine my face with different color eyes.
And maybe it makes sense for me to have brown eyes. I'm not a fairy. I'm fierce and I don't tolerate idiots. I stare them down with my dark brown eyes.
Tuesday, June 27, 2017
Sunday, June 11, 2017
A Writer's Greatest Fear
As writers our greatest fear is not that we can't write. It's that we don't have anything to write about because we're not deep.
Anyone can learn mechanics. You can get a couple of grammar/construction books from the library, or hell, use Google to learn how to figure out how to write a correct sentence. But since you're a writer you're also a reader so you'll be inhaling any good writing you can get your hands on anyway. You'll learn by osmosis.
Anyone can put the effort in.
But then there's that moment. When you enter a contest, or write for a class or a club, or anything really, when you've put so much effort into your story, and worked on it night after night, and rewritten it five times, and finally you sort of like it.
Then someone else gets up and says, "I didn't really know what to write about, so I just decided to write about something that had happened to me. I was 13 the first time I was raped. Within a year, I was living on the streets..."
And suddenly it doesn't matter what you wrote because you will never in your life write anything as important as what that other person wrote. Because you're boring as fuck.
You're boring because your parents never hit you. Because they're still together. Because they gave you an education. Because you're healthy. Because your partners never abused you.
Wherever you go, people smell the stench of old money. And they judge you.
Moreover, you're white, so that's that.
And here you start feeling haunted by the specter of the "P" word. Not pretentious, although that's another good one. "Privilege."
Mostly we talk about checking your privilege. But I've checked it. I guarantee you. I've taken it out, turned it over, and acknowledged, "Yep, I'm Mommy and Daddy's little princess who gets what she wants." I didn't ask for it. It just kind of showed up.
Being privileged means you're simultaneously enviable and boring. Maybe the second takes the sting out of the first for other people. I don't know. It's like being back in church when it's "share your testimony time" and everyone's on the edge of their seat waiting to hear from the gay hooker drug addict who found Jesus and is now a youth pastor. Because that's where the juicy stuff is.
But I don't know if that's the way anyone really approaches life, or writing for that matter. Your ordinary boring life might seem exciting for someone else. I'll mention in passing that I lived in Japan for three years and people who I consider much more interesting will say, "That's amazing! I haven't done anything as cool as that?" And I'm like, "Are you kidding? You're way more interesting than I am!"
The people who are really worth talking to and paying heed to don't see the world as a stage where everyone is competing for the spotlight and let the best dramz win. Authentic people will accept you the way you are and won't typecast you.
Also, it's an incredibly modern way to think of writing to say that all writing is a reflection of your actual life and you have to experience everything in life to be able to write about it. Why are people still making movies about how Shakespeare wasn't really Shakespeare? Like he had so be some tragic noble figure who had some great love story behind the scenes. When all the data we have points to Shakespeare being a pretty normal, middle-of-the-road dude.
So no matter who you are, if you want to write, just write. Whatever you're interested in, even if it seems weird.
Anyone can learn mechanics. You can get a couple of grammar/construction books from the library, or hell, use Google to learn how to figure out how to write a correct sentence. But since you're a writer you're also a reader so you'll be inhaling any good writing you can get your hands on anyway. You'll learn by osmosis.
Anyone can put the effort in.
But then there's that moment. When you enter a contest, or write for a class or a club, or anything really, when you've put so much effort into your story, and worked on it night after night, and rewritten it five times, and finally you sort of like it.
Then someone else gets up and says, "I didn't really know what to write about, so I just decided to write about something that had happened to me. I was 13 the first time I was raped. Within a year, I was living on the streets..."
And suddenly it doesn't matter what you wrote because you will never in your life write anything as important as what that other person wrote. Because you're boring as fuck.
You're boring because your parents never hit you. Because they're still together. Because they gave you an education. Because you're healthy. Because your partners never abused you.
Wherever you go, people smell the stench of old money. And they judge you.
Moreover, you're white, so that's that.
And here you start feeling haunted by the specter of the "P" word. Not pretentious, although that's another good one. "Privilege."
Mostly we talk about checking your privilege. But I've checked it. I guarantee you. I've taken it out, turned it over, and acknowledged, "Yep, I'm Mommy and Daddy's little princess who gets what she wants." I didn't ask for it. It just kind of showed up.
Being privileged means you're simultaneously enviable and boring. Maybe the second takes the sting out of the first for other people. I don't know. It's like being back in church when it's "share your testimony time" and everyone's on the edge of their seat waiting to hear from the gay hooker drug addict who found Jesus and is now a youth pastor. Because that's where the juicy stuff is.
But I don't know if that's the way anyone really approaches life, or writing for that matter. Your ordinary boring life might seem exciting for someone else. I'll mention in passing that I lived in Japan for three years and people who I consider much more interesting will say, "That's amazing! I haven't done anything as cool as that?" And I'm like, "Are you kidding? You're way more interesting than I am!"
The people who are really worth talking to and paying heed to don't see the world as a stage where everyone is competing for the spotlight and let the best dramz win. Authentic people will accept you the way you are and won't typecast you.
Also, it's an incredibly modern way to think of writing to say that all writing is a reflection of your actual life and you have to experience everything in life to be able to write about it. Why are people still making movies about how Shakespeare wasn't really Shakespeare? Like he had so be some tragic noble figure who had some great love story behind the scenes. When all the data we have points to Shakespeare being a pretty normal, middle-of-the-road dude.
So no matter who you are, if you want to write, just write. Whatever you're interested in, even if it seems weird.
Tuesday, May 30, 2017
If we talked about design the way we talk about writing
I am looking a piece of artwork, perhaps a panel for a comic or a work for sale. Perhaps this scene takes place online in a forum or at a local gallery. Maybe the location doesn't matter. The artwork being discussed is a symbol which I chose for its relevance to a strongly visual society.
We don't tolerate anything that offends our eyes. Our ears and our intellect? That's another story.
Me: Hey, what's up with the shadows? The light source is clearly on the left but the shadows are on the left too. Shouldn't they be on the right?
Rando: Huh, I never noticed that. I don't think it looks weird, though. I don't really pay attention to the light source when I'm drawing shadows. It's too complicated to keep track of anyway.
Me: But doesn't it look weird to you? Like the person in the picture isn't in the same place as the light source?
Rando: I dunno. She looks like she's there to me. I don't really have a problem with it. I do, however, have a problem with the privileging of literalist art. Art by definition is non-representational. It never follows the rules of physics exactly, and it never should.
Me: I get that if the artist is trying to create an unsettling effect, but everything else in the picture is much more standard. So for me it's weird that she shadows are in the wrong place. I just end up thinking about the shadows instead of what's going on in the rest of the picture.
Rando: It must be so miserable to nitpick the little details all the time instead of just enjoying art.
Me: Um....I think perspective is hard but ultimately rewarding because it can really make your art pop and add depth.
Rando: Your insistence on the classical rules of art is inherently classist because it discriminates against artists who never had the money for art school or who come from non-western traditions. African art, for example, doesn't use perspective but it is as valid as any system that does because it adheres to its own internal logic. You're also racist against black people.
Me: Didn't I just say I don't mind breaking the rules if it's done intentionally to create a specific effect? But you sort of have to know the rules before you know when to break them, right?
Rando: You obviously need to check your privilege before you engage in these discussions. Did not your upbringing give you ample opportunity to learn the unfair and arbitrary rules placed on what is considered "correct" design, created by society with the implicit purpose of oppressing the working class and minorities?
Me: So my two degrees and years of work experience make me less qualified to talk about design?
Rando: I see you concede my point.
Me: No, you don't have a point because it's not like minorities are some hive mind that all draw the same way.
Rando: You're twisting my words now, and I don't have time for these rabbit trails. I've made my point several times and you keep dodging the question.
Me: The shadows are stupid!
Rando: You're more stupider!
Me: More stupider isn't a word!
Rando: It is in some dialects! A word means exactly what a bunch of people say it does!
Me: You will always get judged during job interviews and you'll never know why!
Rando: Capitalism is the devil!
Me: Whatevs. I bet you've never drawn in the African tradition in your life. You just patronize the poor ignorant coloreds because you think it's cute.
Rando: I am so blocking you! Block Block Block!
Some time passes.
Me: Huh. He's gone. Did that even happen?
We don't tolerate anything that offends our eyes. Our ears and our intellect? That's another story.
Me: Hey, what's up with the shadows? The light source is clearly on the left but the shadows are on the left too. Shouldn't they be on the right?
Rando: Huh, I never noticed that. I don't think it looks weird, though. I don't really pay attention to the light source when I'm drawing shadows. It's too complicated to keep track of anyway.
Me: But doesn't it look weird to you? Like the person in the picture isn't in the same place as the light source?
Rando: I dunno. She looks like she's there to me. I don't really have a problem with it. I do, however, have a problem with the privileging of literalist art. Art by definition is non-representational. It never follows the rules of physics exactly, and it never should.
Me: I get that if the artist is trying to create an unsettling effect, but everything else in the picture is much more standard. So for me it's weird that she shadows are in the wrong place. I just end up thinking about the shadows instead of what's going on in the rest of the picture.
Rando: It must be so miserable to nitpick the little details all the time instead of just enjoying art.
Me: Um....I think perspective is hard but ultimately rewarding because it can really make your art pop and add depth.
Rando: Your insistence on the classical rules of art is inherently classist because it discriminates against artists who never had the money for art school or who come from non-western traditions. African art, for example, doesn't use perspective but it is as valid as any system that does because it adheres to its own internal logic. You're also racist against black people.
Me: Didn't I just say I don't mind breaking the rules if it's done intentionally to create a specific effect? But you sort of have to know the rules before you know when to break them, right?
Rando: You obviously need to check your privilege before you engage in these discussions. Did not your upbringing give you ample opportunity to learn the unfair and arbitrary rules placed on what is considered "correct" design, created by society with the implicit purpose of oppressing the working class and minorities?
Me: So my two degrees and years of work experience make me less qualified to talk about design?
Rando: I see you concede my point.
Me: No, you don't have a point because it's not like minorities are some hive mind that all draw the same way.
Rando: You're twisting my words now, and I don't have time for these rabbit trails. I've made my point several times and you keep dodging the question.
Me: The shadows are stupid!
Rando: You're more stupider!
Me: More stupider isn't a word!
Rando: It is in some dialects! A word means exactly what a bunch of people say it does!
Me: You will always get judged during job interviews and you'll never know why!
Rando: Capitalism is the devil!
Me: Whatevs. I bet you've never drawn in the African tradition in your life. You just patronize the poor ignorant coloreds because you think it's cute.
Rando: I am so blocking you! Block Block Block!
Some time passes.
Me: Huh. He's gone. Did that even happen?
Thursday, May 11, 2017
Why I lost interest in atheism
I tend to get super interested in things in phases. It's usually something I don't like or I'm not comfortable around and usually avoid. Then the thing appears in a new and different light and I want to learn more. Then I LEARN ALL THE DETAILS AND HISTORY EVAH. Then the obsession wears off and I get into something else.
For a while I was into learning about people who had no religion and didn't believe in any spiritual beings. I'm very into fantasy and not-material things so I didn't think I could relate to that mindset. But in some ways I relate a lot because I tend to be very cynical and prefer a rational explanation instead of a supernatural one.
Even when I was at a Christian college, I was always thinking, "You really heard the voice of God telling you to study abroad? Really? Because it sure sounds like you just really want to study abroad. Just freakin' own it already!"
I'm really glad I learned about atheists because the stereotypes about them are THE TOTAL OPPOSITE OF TRUE. I cringe now when I read any piece by a religious person describing what "atheists" believe.
They aren't angry at God. FIRST BECAUSE THEY DON'T BELIEVE IN DEITIES LIKE THAT'S BASICALLY THE DEFINITION OF ATHEISM DUH. However, they might object very strongly to belief systems that revere a character who's actions are petty and vengeful.
They do believe very strongly in morality. They just draw their morals from history and what we know about human behavior. Also, the Bible is not the only place or even the greatest place to go for morality.
THE BIBLE NEVER SAYS SLAVERY IS WRONG Y'ALL.
Those are just some of the things I learned about atheists. But I don't think it's a belief system that really describes the way I feel.
Eventually I got bored with learning about atheism, but for a reason that probably makes a lot of sense to most atheists. All atheism is is a lack of belief in a deity or deities. It doesn't tell you anything about what a person is like, if they're nice or mean or boring or whatever. There are misogynist atheist trolls, and totally nice atheists out there.
So I don't think most of the important questions in life can be answered by deciding whether or not to believe in a deity. No matter how you answer the question, you still have to decide whether you're going to be a jerk to the person next to you. If you want to be a jerk, you can probably justify it either way. Either God hates the people you hate, or no God means you'll never get caught.
Overall I'm more interested in if you're a nice person and why you believe what you believe rather than what specific religion you follow. Or lack thereof.
For a while I was into learning about people who had no religion and didn't believe in any spiritual beings. I'm very into fantasy and not-material things so I didn't think I could relate to that mindset. But in some ways I relate a lot because I tend to be very cynical and prefer a rational explanation instead of a supernatural one.
Even when I was at a Christian college, I was always thinking, "You really heard the voice of God telling you to study abroad? Really? Because it sure sounds like you just really want to study abroad. Just freakin' own it already!"
I'm really glad I learned about atheists because the stereotypes about them are THE TOTAL OPPOSITE OF TRUE. I cringe now when I read any piece by a religious person describing what "atheists" believe.
They aren't angry at God. FIRST BECAUSE THEY DON'T BELIEVE IN DEITIES LIKE THAT'S BASICALLY THE DEFINITION OF ATHEISM DUH. However, they might object very strongly to belief systems that revere a character who's actions are petty and vengeful.
They do believe very strongly in morality. They just draw their morals from history and what we know about human behavior. Also, the Bible is not the only place or even the greatest place to go for morality.
THE BIBLE NEVER SAYS SLAVERY IS WRONG Y'ALL.
Those are just some of the things I learned about atheists. But I don't think it's a belief system that really describes the way I feel.
Eventually I got bored with learning about atheism, but for a reason that probably makes a lot of sense to most atheists. All atheism is is a lack of belief in a deity or deities. It doesn't tell you anything about what a person is like, if they're nice or mean or boring or whatever. There are misogynist atheist trolls, and totally nice atheists out there.
So I don't think most of the important questions in life can be answered by deciding whether or not to believe in a deity. No matter how you answer the question, you still have to decide whether you're going to be a jerk to the person next to you. If you want to be a jerk, you can probably justify it either way. Either God hates the people you hate, or no God means you'll never get caught.
Overall I'm more interested in if you're a nice person and why you believe what you believe rather than what specific religion you follow. Or lack thereof.
Monday, May 8, 2017
My Review Porfolio
Hello! This is collection of links to my reviews for the Reviewing the Arts Class.
Art Museum Review
Restaurant Review
Movie Review (Cinequest)
Movie Review (Just for me)
Not a review but a piece I'd like to feature this at the student showcase.
Thanks for reading!
Art Museum Review
Restaurant Review
Movie Review (Cinequest)
Movie Review (Just for me)
Not a review but a piece I'd like to feature this at the student showcase.
Thanks for reading!
San Jose Museum of Art Review
It almost made up for missing our trip to the Cinequest festival,
which had to be scheduled during my evening class. I still haven’t forgiven
everyone for that.
The San Jose Museum of Art is a community effort. In 1969 a
group of citizens saved the condemned building (previously a post office and
then a library) from being torn down by converting it into a local museum.
Their vision crosses the boundaries between different cultures and classes,
between science and art, and between the new and the old.
From both the website and the galleries, you can see the
focus is modern art pieces that break genres and highlight political and cultural
issues. Their mission statement reads, “The Museum fosters awareness of
artists’ broad contributions to society and engages audiences with the art of
our time and the vitality of the creative process.”
The exhibits change every few months, but on the day I made
the trip, the gallery on the first floor was showing “Fragile Waters,” a
photography exhibition containing the work of Ansel Adams, Ernest Brooks, and
Dorothy Monnelly. Designed to explore the scarcity and pollution of water, the
exhibition was put together by Adams’ daughter-in-law Jeanne after an oil rig
explosion in 2010.
Instead of descriptions, each photo is accompanied by a relevant quote from one of the photographers or a famous author to give the gallery a more contemplative feel. I spotted lines on water from both Antoine De Saint-Exupery and Robinson Jeffers.
There are even original glass plate negatives from when Adams was a teen, and a Deardorff camera Adams used to take some of his iconic photos of Yosemite Valley. Seeing this huge bulky camera made me remember how hard it was to get these photos and develop them back in the day. That's part of the journey too.
Instead of descriptions, each photo is accompanied by a relevant quote from one of the photographers or a famous author to give the gallery a more contemplative feel. I spotted lines on water from both Antoine De Saint-Exupery and Robinson Jeffers.
There are even original glass plate negatives from when Adams was a teen, and a Deardorff camera Adams used to take some of his iconic photos of Yosemite Valley. Seeing this huge bulky camera made me remember how hard it was to get these photos and develop them back in the day. That's part of the journey too.
Some call Adams' photography "fanciful," but that's not necessarily a bad thing. His photographs look to me the way landscapes look inside my head but never in my photos. He is sharing a vision with the audience, and that's not easy to do.
Upstairs, the meditative gallery, “Your Mind, This Moment”
helps visitors slow down enough to really take in what they’re seeing. I had
more fun observing my classmates than the displays. Several of my class were
fascinated by a spot of light projected on the wall. From my point of view off
to the side, they were looking at a half moon. When I moved over to their
position I saw that they were looking at a disk of light hovering in front of
the wall.
The upstairs also housed “Darkened Mirror: Global
Perspectives on Water,” “Beta Space” by Victor Cartagena, and Diana Al Hadid’s “Liquid
City.” Everyone in my group seemed most impressed by the last. The giant sculpture
felt half desert cathedral, half limestone cave full of stalagmites—echoing
both the natural and human worlds.
The basement level always has an educational gallery that connects
art to another discipline, such as science or mathematics. Fittingly, I saw a
crowd of junior high students investigating the displays. So I only took a
quick look around before heading to the gift shop.
It’s hard to recommend the museum because all the displays we
saw were temporary, so if I go back later everything might look entirely
different. I felt a little gypped when I saw the much more extensive permanent
collection on the website. I started wondering, “Did they have some galleries
in the back I missed?”
But the location won’t change. I wholeheartedly recommend a
visit as part of a trip to downtown San Jose. The gorgeous old building faces
the Plaza De Caesar Chavez with its iconic fountains (and in December, the
Christmas fair). You can get through the museum in two hours and head across
the plaza to Tech Museum afterward—or hang out at one of the many local
restaurants or coffee shops. (I recommend Bijan Bakery because they have
awesome cakes.)
Admission is $10 for adults, $6 for students, $5 for kids
7-17, and free for kids under six. Getting the student admission is worth it,
but the cost isn’t prohibitive even for broke Millennials or families with
kids.
Even though the galleries in the San Jose Museum of Art are
constantly changing, the museum does have its own distinct identity. By
focusing on modern, multicultural, and political art, it feels like the right
museum to represent Silicon Valley.
A video of our experience:
Youtube Link:
Tuesday, May 2, 2017
Maggies Banquet
So last Friday and Saturday, April 28-29, I was in LA!
I haven't been there for so long! I think I went there a grand total of once after graduation. But because SHiFT Magazine was included in the magazines entered, Miranda and I got to go to the banquet and network with other magazine people.
I'm disappointed that I didn't plan the trip a bit better so I could do more touristy stuff on the weekend. We got in Friday afternoon and left early Saturday morning. So we basically came for the event and nothing else.
In fact, we got to the hotel a mere 20 minutes before the speaker part of the event started, so we had to dash upstairs and make ourselves look like we hadn't just stepped off an airplane in about 15 minutes. Under the circumstances, we did a good job. I'm a fan of RuPaul's drag race, and now i feel like I can sympathize more with some of the challenges.
There was this cool slide show at the end with all the different magazine covers.
After the dinner, Miranda and I ran back to the tables with all the magazines and stole all the ones that looked interesting (especially the student ones). Then we figured out that the hotel had a hot tub, so we changed into our swimsuits and hung out there for an hour. The weather in LA was balmy and perfect to be outside at night.
So we had a great time overall and got some new contact, but the best part was the hot tub.
I haven't been there for so long! I think I went there a grand total of once after graduation. But because SHiFT Magazine was included in the magazines entered, Miranda and I got to go to the banquet and network with other magazine people.
I'm disappointed that I didn't plan the trip a bit better so I could do more touristy stuff on the weekend. We got in Friday afternoon and left early Saturday morning. So we basically came for the event and nothing else.
In fact, we got to the hotel a mere 20 minutes before the speaker part of the event started, so we had to dash upstairs and make ourselves look like we hadn't just stepped off an airplane in about 15 minutes. Under the circumstances, we did a good job. I'm a fan of RuPaul's drag race, and now i feel like I can sympathize more with some of the challenges.
 |
| Our American Eagle Airplane |
 |
| Our room at the Sheraton |
 |
| Miranda with the student magazines--before they got messed up and stolen by the guests (including us) |
 |
| Us dressed up all fancy |
 |
| selfie at the banquet |
 |
| Us at the photo booth |
 |
| Jane Silbering presenting the awards |
There was this cool slide show at the end with all the different magazine covers.
After the dinner, Miranda and I ran back to the tables with all the magazines and stole all the ones that looked interesting (especially the student ones). Then we figured out that the hotel had a hot tub, so we changed into our swimsuits and hung out there for an hour. The weather in LA was balmy and perfect to be outside at night.
So we had a great time overall and got some new contact, but the best part was the hot tub.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)