New Artwork: Entry No 9
The concept that “corporations are evil” is so utterly stupid. Its like saying “people are evil”. Some people are indeed classified by others as evil (who, by classifying them as such, classify themselves as good), but not ALL.
A lot of corporations do very stupid, idiotic, unethical, and flat out revolting things. But several things:
Who gives these corporations money?
Hmm… oh wait a second. Us.
The money does not come from nowhere. At any stage, people can just stop giving them money and the offending companies will simply go bankrupt.
But we don’t.
Why is this so?
Because, (and this is especially the case with oil companies and mining companies (mainly those in the Congo. I am referring to a specific subset of mining companies)) we rely on them.
We need their products.
We choose to consume their products.
So who is the guilty party?
Well, obviously, as usual, everyone INCLUDING THE CONSUMER involved. Everyone is held responsible.
We have such an urge to section off “Evil corporations” from us so that we have someone to blame.
"Oh, my latest smartphone relies on minerals mined in horrific conditions from the Congo? Don’t worry. Although I paid the corporation for it, I am not the guilty party. It’s not like I forced them to make it. They are the evil ones.
They are EVIL, whereas I merely state my disdain for them and cleanse myself from guilt.”
I think it is time for people to actually accept responsibility for the way the world is.
WE are the ones consuming these goods. When we buy them, we take partial responsibility for how they were made by paying the company which made them.
But I digress.
The main issue with the whole “corporations are EVIL” thing is that it is wrong.
While some, even many, corporations are evil, they have had an undeniably positive impact on our life.
Medicine is created by corporations.
Computers which we rely on every day are made by corporations.
Petrol, needed to move any significant distance, needed to travel to different countries and gain new experiences, is made available by corporations.
Books, holders of almost the entirety of human knowledge, would be restricted to the social elite, costing hundreds of dollars each, if it was not for the mass production offered by corporations.
Toilets, sinks, plumbing, bandages, needles, food, research(!!!), phones, games, musical instruments and cameras are all made available to us by corporations.
Some corporations put their heart and soul into delivering what people need or want with everything they have, delivering the best possible product to us with ethical treatment of staff, the respecting the environment.
We should praise these companies, and feel truly grateful for what they offer, and tell them that.
Some corporations are greedy, cruelly exploiting people, governments and the environment. Enslaving people, holding governments hostage, destroying the environment, leaving nothing for future generations.
We should not only condemn these corporations but exercise our CHOICE (If no one buys their products, they go bankrupt.) to NOT BUY their products.
These companies act cruelly because no one does anything to stop them. And no, whinging about them on the internet does nothing. Attending the odd protest does nothing.
Educating people on how to properly research their products, establishing proper standards on the treatment of employees in and outside of Australia, informing consumers, doing our own research, and most of all exercising FREE WILL can and will make the world a better place if we try.
But this can only happen if we accept some responsibility for the actions of others.
Alright. So it has been a sufficiently long period of time since my last artwork that I need to do a bit more of an explanation than “it’s coming.”.
Firstly, a summary: I have consumed content, be it music, art or video games for my entire life, and have in recent years started to want to produce content. Now, this is MUCH harder than you would expect, and indeed the moniker “The Silence of Truth” came from a failed musical experiment. The graphic design I did for the album, however, encouraged me to begin some artworks.
In the meantime, I have become more proficient with music, and in particular analog synthesis, while at the same time producing artworks a a frankly RIDICULOUS rate (2 artworks a DAY at one point) before life took over and I had to reduce the amount.
Then certain… events caused some mental instability. I had to stop and think about my life, learn about existentialism, and decide how I wanted to live. My artworks stopped coming, and my musical output dried to a halt.
It is worth noting that none of my music or art is or was particularly good: something which I easily recognise. However, over time I have become much smarter. I have started to become more ambitious. I want to make people think, to make people question everything. I have stopped wanting to be popular, I have stopped wanting to make people happy with my artworks.
Often the intention is misery, but ALWAYS with a point. I want to subvert the very concept of fiction, of enjoyment, of money, of life. I want to subvert your consumption of my artworks.
Of course, aiming for the skies and being pretentious pretty much guarantees failure. But I don’t care. It is better to try and fail than simply do what is expected of me (produce artworks like Shadow Play which “look interesting”, to the extent that I made a second purely to test whether it too would gain a decent reception and it did, proving that people are predictable and prefer “pretty” artworks to ones which make them think”), and I will NOT monetize (that is to say, I will never aim to make a profit with my artworks).
While other people expecting you to work for free does devalue your work, it is the CHOICE which is important. I am not trying to make money from art (indeed money for me devalues art). I work for that. I am trying, as hard as possible, to make someone, somewhere, LISTEN. To have a message, and deliver it.
TO provoke someone, to make someone FEEL.
And this requires thought. If I pumped out artworks, it would be equivalent to throwing poo at a wall. Some would stick. But it would still be poo.
To your eyes, my artworks from now on may still be poo (and it IS: art is not inherently more important that anything else. The latest pornography is no different to the latest nude portrait (or any other form of art!) other than social acceptance!), but it is poo with lots of thought put into it.
So now I ask something of YOU, lone person reading this in the world:
Think. Look at my artworks, and think “why did the artist do this? What are they trying to do? WHY?”.
And even if you hate it, if you think for even a moment it is a job well done.
I have a fear of death. A really big fear of death. I sat in a train once, visibly shaking, almost retching with nausea, utterly gripped with the mind freezing, stomach churning terror of death.
Now, these anxiety attacks started recently, and are triggered by anything that makes me think about death (although, so far, not writing this, which is paradoxical). Ironically, as I enjoy fantasy, philosophy and horror games. Not the best combination when it comes to “mortality triggers”, I am sure you will agree.
The two pieces of media, both of which I utterly adore, which caused particularly horrid terror attacks were:
Amnesia: A Machine for Pigs
The League of Extraordinary Gentleman: Century 1969
Amnesia was before I realised I had a problem. I just thought it was paranoia, but I was starting to see my death everywhere in real life. his I believe led to a particularly horrible attack.
Now I love AMFP, but I cannot play the game anymore. It causes mild anxiety and nausea. I utterly love the writing in that game, the concept, the execution and the atmosphere. But I simply cannot play it without it triggering anxiety and negative thoughts, which can sometimes lead to another attack.
Century, on the other hand, triggered an attack through - wait for it - depicting ageless immortality. Even without mentioning death, it managed to trigger an anxiety attack lasting roughly six hours. Luckily, reading it again does not trigger attacks, and it is quickly turning into one of my favorite set of graphic novels.
Now, I am never going to stop reading. I simply find the anxiety attacks not enough of a deterrent to stop reading. However, things like AMFP I avoid because I know it will just trigger another anxiety attack each time, rather than simply the one off of reading.
Just for context, the anxiety attacks are morbid (but not suicidal, due to the nature of the fear (a fear of death very much makes one NOT suicidal!)) thoughts, depression, hyperventilation, extreme nausea, a choking sensation, and a phenomenon I can only describe as “internal screaming” which seems to be exactly how it sounds. They generally last 6 or more hours, and I physically cannot do anything remotely requiring effort while they are underway.
It is morbidly funny in hindsight.
I am one of those who believes that the previously accepted concept of gender is fading away, or at the very least should fade away. But this leaves a lot of the stereotypes which we created becoming irrelevant.
Firstly, the concept of cross-dressing. Cross dressing is (for this writing, anyway: see the end for notes on definitions) dressing as the “opposite” gender to your ‘current’ gender, although this is sometimes defined by sex.
The problem with this definition in the changing of gender assumptions is that I could just cross-dress as a woman wearing jeans and a T-shirt and still satisfy the definition. That is to say, this is one of the many concepts which contradicts the dissolution of the gender binary. Once there is little difference in clothing between the currently polarised fashion trends for men and women, the act of cross-dressing becomes irrelevant.
However, some may point out that cross dressing is often done using clothing that accentuates the gender you are cross-dressing as, i.e for a man dressing as a woman a dress is essential, as it is something unique to women in Australian society at least. but once these identifiers disappear, or to be more precise if they disappear, cross-dressing will do no more than hark back to a time when society was more gendered.
This brings me to my main point: “transgender” is based on the idea of transcending gender. This is particularly important as society imposes gender upon people, and those dissatisfied with the “side” they have been assigned of the so-called gender-binary (it is not truly binary) feel dissatisfied and hence transcend the gender assumptions placed upon them.
This also will kind of disappear with the dissolution of the gender binary. Once there is no gender imposed upon you (however, other things will be imposed to replace gender: ideologies always rub off on children from those who raised them), there is no gender to transcend. However - and this is important - transsexual is NOT transgender (at least with my definition: trans gender = transcend gender, trans-sexual = transcend sex), though it does share many aspects of it. Sex is not imposed by society, it is imposed by nature. Whether the dissolution of gender removes the mental dissonance (I must add context to this sentence before people place intention into my words: trans-sexuality is caused by dissatisfaction by ones sex: I am curious as to whether the removal of traditional gender ideals will change this dissatisfaction at all) is something to be seen.
And finally, we have the old bugbears of heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality (which are the only three which are worth analysing for now: there are only so many combinations of 2 people with a possibility of two sexes. Three to be precise: MF - Heterosexuality. MM & FF: Homosexuality. If the combination does not matter to the subject(s), then it is Bisexuality. These are the definitions which I shall be using for now, and yes, it does adhere to the “traditional” model of a two person relationship, but I cannot be bothered with combinations growing exponentially with each additional
person (f(n) = 2^n, to be precise).) Each of these are defined by… well, there is no rigid definition. The line between sex and gender is regularly blurred in others definitions. So, showing my roots as a mathematics student, I am going to use variables.
Let (g)(Sexuality) represent ‘genderised’ sexuality (so (g)heterosexual means sex between people of ‘opposite’ genders) and (s)(Sexuality) represent sex-defined sexuality (so (s)heterosexual would be mean sex between people of ‘opposite’ sexes).
Obviously (g)heterosexual, (g)homosexual and (g)bisexual would become irrelevant, as would anything defined by gender. It is interesting to propose what could happen to (s)heterosexual, (S)homosexual and (s)bisexual. They would definitely exist, but should hopefully have less importance attached to it. It already has a ridiculous and unnecessary amount of stigma attached to it (see: the word ‘gay’ or ‘fag’ used as an insult) and it would be nice to see it go away. I predict that any society which dissolves traditional gender concepts would HAVE to be more tolerant.
But yeah. Stuff will change if gender disappears its traditional form.
I should add that all arguments contained above are based on the given definitions of trans-sexuality etc. The definitions given are like variables: they are just words that I have assigned specific meanings, and hence are not up for debate (Imagine this. “Let x=2. But wait! Last time, x was 3! It can’t be 2!)
Why do people get so annoyed with having political messages embedded in mediums? Everything is political, everyone has an opinion, and using a medium to communicate our ideologies (or at least how we wish for these ideologies to be perceived!) is one of the best ways to express ourselves.
Really, when people make this statement (“I wish this book/movie/game/painting was not trying to hit me over the head with their politics”), they often mean that the opinion expressed (the “politics”) is an opinion not shared by themselves. And I do not see what is wrong with that. We should all be exposed to a wide range of opinions so that we can make an informed choice of our own.
Stating that a medium should not be used to express an opinion is stating that we should not have to ever think or be challenged, simply having our own beliefs thrown back at us. As thinking creatures, we have a responsibility to challenge and be challenged. We have to look at ourselves and find out exactly why we believe what we believe, analyse our own ideologies and biases, in order to be able to refine them constantly.