Comments (5)

By Katie Kish, August 5, 2009 2:22 am

Last week my best friend and I decided we should start pulling ourselves out of bed earlier than noon and stop wasting our days away watching old reruns of our favorite shows or informericals. While this didn’t last more than two days, those two days were fun. One day we went shopping up and down Queen street and eventually got shot back into our Mississauga past while having lunch at Jack Astors. The other day we went to the newly renovated AGO. While we were there I jotted down a million little notes that I can’t completely comprehend anymore. However, I’ve decided to go to Ohio this weekend (for the Secular Student Alliance’s 9th Annual Conference) and have been looking at art galleries in Columbus which ultimately reminded me of my trip to the AGO and a few sentiments I’d like to share. But I would first like to apologize – I didn’t write the names or artists of any of the pieces I’m about to site… I should have, and I’ll try to get my BFF to fill in what he can. But…my descriptions will have to suffice.

1. Art is uncomfortable… and that’s okay. Some artists seem to enjoy dealing with issues that make other people squirm. Some people deal with these pieces of art by laughing at them. Others call these pieces irrelevant. And some, like myself, end up feeling useless and guilty after seeing them. I’m speaking specifically about two pieces. The first was a tepee that was made out of traditional colonial garments, on the side there was a beautiful western chandelier. There was a video playing with a native riding a horse, and two white men. The white men were bathing in the water and call the native over to join them. They end up stealing his clothes, beating and raping him. The second piece was the same sort of theme, it was totem poles made out of golf bags. Some laughed at the video, calling it funny (because it was done in a bit of a humorous way) and others actually said the artist was living too much in the past when the natives “stuff was really an issue”. Most people I saw ignored the totem poles. The words to describe what these two pieces of art are depicting are endless, and not happy. But its interesting how people can’t (or maybe don’t want to…) deal with it. They either need to turn it into a joke, or call it irrelevant. Maybe the reactions themselves show that these aren’t really issues in the past.

2. Minimalism... has  a purpose. The way the AGO is set up is that each floor is either a different time period or a different theme in art history. There is one section for minimalism. I remember the first time I ever saw a painting that was simply a red line from floor to ceiling. …I mean, the color was a pretty nice shade of red, and the line was really big – but even at that age (around 12 or 13 I think) I couldn’t help but think “wow, what a hunk of total crap”. While my feelings about minimalism haven’t really changed, even after developing a greater appreciate for art in general, I was glad to see some of the pieces at the AGO. Minimalism, as far as I know, was a time period when artists were trying to take back the simplicity of art. They were trying to tone down the Andy Warhols and pop-culture crap that was “ruining” art (that ruined art happens to be my favorite stuff…). So they made these (very) simple paintings as a response. While, largely, I think we can all agree this time period of art was more or less a gigantic failure it is still a part of art history. It is important to keep all the history there, and not just hide or tuck away the parts that were really stupid. …That is my new appreciation for minimalist art work – its crap, but it is historical crap.

3. Kids under the age of 18 are dumb. I say this for two different reasons. The first is that I heard so many children running around saying “I could do that” (to a Monet…) or “Thats not art, that’s just a picture of Elvis in three different colors”. I know parents want their kids to grow up being cultured – but honestly, if you’re going to bring them to an art gallery teach them to STFU and take the time to explain to them the importance of some of the stuff. While some art seems to use techniques that seem to be pretty simple, people at every age should be taught the importance of respecting and attempting to intelligently look at pieces of art. The second reason deals with a situation that happened to me last December. I was at Xu’s for christmas dinner and his little cousin was going on about how the modern art was useless and held no meaning. He spoke specifically about an artist who used a sink on a canvas. The kid went on and on and on about how dumb the sink was. I had never seen it, so I couldn’t say anything. However I finally saw it and learned that it was a piece done by a man who wanted to make ordinary objects in our lives seem wondrous again, as they were in our childhoods. Now – Im not a huge fan of the idea, but there was definitely more to it than this kid was saying. Part of the issue was that he just didn’t appreciate anything that didn’t immediate look pretty – but mostly it was because he was probably just regurgitating something his mother had said about it.

4. Surrealism is boring.

5. I take a long time to digest things. This may explain #4. My BFF moved very quickly through the exhibits…or so I thought. He would be done an entire room and I’d still be on the first painting. To make matters worse…even after I finally finished looking at everything I would still be thinking about them on the next floor. As we wandered out of the modern art area and down into the surrealism area I was thinking about the modern art through the entire surrealist section. By the time we were done the surrealist section I started writing some notes. My BFF asked what I was writing about the surrealist art (since I hadn’t said anything the entire time we were in there he was surprised that I had stuff to write…) but was shocked when I told him I was writing about the modern art stuff and was totally unable to digest any of the surrealist stuff I saw because I was still thinking about sinks, Warhol and minimalism. (Thinking back, the surrealist stuff was really boring…maybe thats why I stayed in the modern art section for so long)

6. The group of 7. My BFF and I got into a bit of a quarrel over the group of 7. While I live and breath for Harris and Carrs paintings (Harris’ lines with Carrs lines…can you imagine?!) he couldn’t stop talking about how they  were a bastardization of Canadian landscape and because they were funded by the government they were used as a tool of colonialism. They were over-simplifications of Canadian landscapes and an attempt to rid the natives off of the canvas and Canadian history. And when I mentioned that Carr does indeed paint natives the issue turned into a white woman painting the lives and cultures of natives and that this was not a proper representation of Canada. “But, it’s so beautiful…” I would respond. While I understand what he is saying, and agree that there are deep social and cultural issues with the group of seven’s work (and most art work for that matter) when is it okay to stop worrying about the issues and just enjoy the beauty that the artists has put on the canvas? Now, obviously the two aren’t mutually exclusive but at the time it seemed like they were. BFF wouldn’t  let me look at the group of 7 in peace and I just wanted him to bugger off.

7. The renovations are neat, but I think the ROM looks cooler.

Anyway, these are my thoughts and impressions of the AGO this time around. Hopefully I’ll be able to write a bit about the art galleries I visit in Ohio. I’d really like to get to the MOMA at some point this year too. Xu and I are looking into a trip to NYC in the near future, so that will be a definite target for us.

Comments (0)

By Katie Kish, February 28, 2009 2:02 am

1. Without a single higher authority on how we should behave, how do we determine how our relationships with the non-human world should look?

I guess I should first start by saying that morality isn’t monopolized by religion – how we should behave doesn’t stem from a higher authority but rather with our natural instinct of empathy. As social animals we empathize not only with our immediate families but with our “tribes” and then less so with outsiders. Every religion in the entire world has some variation of the categorical imperative:

“Whatever you do, consider your consequences as if they were universal law”

So if *every* human group known as a “religion” has come up with a form of this independent of one another, I don’t see how it has to be monopolized by religion – it is obviously something that is inherently inside of us to do. Thus the idea that atheists even need to be questioned about “how do you know how to behave” is completely moot.

Having said that – it doesn’t really answer the second part of your question because they’re independent. I can’t speak for all atheists or those who don’t have a higher power, all I can do is argue that there is both intrinsic and altruistic value in applying the need to preserve the world that is outside or our social group.

I would argue that the non-human world has value in and of itself… so whether or not we’re religious… we have an obligation to respect that intrinsic value. There is an ethical dilemma situation that professors often put 1st year environmental studies students into. “If you were the last person on earth, there would be no humans after you, and there was a tree in front of you and an axe…would you have a problem with cutting it down.” There is obviously no benefit to cutting down the tree, and no humans to use that tree once it is chopped. There is no promise of extended survival for one’s self if the tree is cut so people tend to say no. But then the prof usually asks why, and doesn’t let you answer for any selfish or personal reason. The end result is the idea that you don’t cut the tree down, because it is an organism. It has value in itself and attempts to live on its own, the tree doesn’t “want” to die. This idea about nature, not being utility but being something on its own, is a vital mindset that the world needs to adapt to save ourselves. This idea of “oh its just a tree” or “oh it was just the dodos” needs to disappear. If not for the intrinsic value of nature then for the the altruistic, which I’ll get into now.

There is no benefit to being wasteful and there is moral obligation to think of future generations. A philosopher Thomas Hurka wrote a wonderful book called Ethical Principles. In it he argues that, ethically because of utilitarianism, inherent empathy or whatever you want to call it we have an obligation to not harm people. This doesn’t only include people that are here in our country at this time, but it includes all people, all over the world and for future generations. We in fact, he would argue, need to take care of everyone for as long as we can. Because of this (he argues the following with climate change, but I’ll apply it to a different level) it is morally wrong for humans to create laws that harm humans. Because environmental degradation harms humans, it would thus be wrong to create laws that would take out necessary resources for life. …With this, even with my very dumbed down version of his paper it is easily persuaded that we need to avoid environmental degradation, and change our current practices so that our future looks more environmentally promising.

So, part a of your question – we don’t need a single authority to tell us how to behave because we have inherent human tendency to be empathetic toward those in our social group and humanity. Part b it is bad for society and morally wrong for humans to degrade the environment on a survival and empathetic level.

2. Do you feel that secular worldviews are inherently more, or less, sustainable, than religious ones? Or do you think how sustainably we behave is not dependent on secular v. religious worldview. Please explain.

Just like I can’t speak for all non-believers I also can’t lump all religions together and say that being an atheist is more environmental than being a Christian or Jew or Muslim. However it isn’t always independent of religion. What I say in the following does not apply to ALL Christians or those in religion, but just to some – and I would argue that it was translated into our Western world’s attitudes.

The Western world was founded on Judeo-Christian tradition…it is in our constitutions, governments…everywhere. Unfortunately this tradition involves the idea that the world was created for the purpose and use of man to benefit, flourish and live. *Some* Christians would believe (and I would say this early tradition believed) that creation (earth, organisms, eco-systems) was planned explicitly for man to rule and use. The tradition separates humans and nature instead of looking at them as a united organism. It not only makes this dualism of man and nature but God also insists that man use earth to advance and prosper.

This however is in direct conflict with eastern religions where humans are indeed seen as a part of nature and neither rules over the other. Also some Christians would believe that because everything on the planet is part of God’s creation than we must respect and live sustainably within this global ecosystem.

So yes, some worldviews are better for the environment than others. But there are atheists who are ruthless capitalists, there are Christians who are conservationists and vice versa. But I would argue that the current ecological crisis that we’re going through, at least in the West, is at least partly due to the traditional christian view of humans being separate from nature.

3. As religion becomes increasingly unpopular (though as our conservative Metro Transt stance in Halifax has shown out here it isn’t dead yet), is there still a space in secular worldviews for the kind of reverence for the non-human, or even more-than human, that tends to make for sustainable, respectful of the environment behaviour?

Absolutely. But again, I think it something that should ALWAYS be considered no matter what world view we’re talking about. Environmentalism would actually be very important for secular people, because we focus on the lives we live on earth, as we think it is the only life we get.

“Spirituality” – I define it here as the feeling of something transcendental and sublime, and not at all necessarily supernatural – is also not something that is monopolized by religion. Many atheists are awestruck by the absolute wonder, beauty, complexity, and magnitude of so many things found in nature. Biology and ecology shows us how amazingly complex and interconnected everything is, from the smallest cell to the largest whale, and the entire global ecosystem as a whole. Astronomy and physics brings us majestic images of galaxies billions of light years away and enormous forces of nature that are at the same time capable of creating and destroying life at a whim. There certainly is much reverence in the natural world that can be derived by non-religious people. E. O. Wilson, renowned ecologist, conservationist, and atheist, wrote much on this subject.

Apart from spirituality, one can, as I mentioned before, derive this kind of reverence and respect for nature easily through philosophy and ethics. Peter Singer, one of the leading philosophers of ethics today is at once an atheist and one of the principle founders of the animal rights movement.

Comments (4)

By Katie Kish, February 14, 2008 1:46 pm

Boys scouts need to be straight. Not only do they need to be straight, they also need to be Christian.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epCflp9EwTk[/youtube]

I doubt they outly deny the fact that gay guys can do scouting, but its a funny clip -and a good episode of the shoe…rather I’m assuming the reason they needs to be straight is because being gay doesn’t following biblical rule. Even after being publically called out on it and facing pretty huge reprecautions in some cities there was still no change in the standards of the group.

“It’s disappointing, and it’s certainly a threat,” said Jeff Jubelirer, a spokesman for Cradle of Liberty Council, referring to the rent’s impact on the scouts’ chances of staying on the site.

Jubelirer said that $200,000 a year in rent “would have to come from programs. That’s 30 new Cub Scout packs, or 800 needy kids going to our summer camp.”

Nevertheless, Jubelirer said, scouting officials will ask City Solicitor Romulo L. Diaz Jr. for details on the real estate appraisals that yielded the $200,000 rent figure.

Cradle of Liberty officials have said they could not renounce the scouts’ long-established policy of not opening membership to atheists or openly gay people without running afoul of their charter with the scouts’ National Council.

Well, maybe make it a group that all young boys can join and then we’ll care about your issues. They have to be Christian because that’s where morality stems from… or so they say. (This happens to be my current biggest pet peeve – the notion that in need to have morals you need to have god. It upsets me.)

Anyway, so they have a straight and moral group. I guess that’s pretty good, I’ll let them do their thing.

Oh…

err….

but…

A 15 year old scout goes ape shit and kills his entire family.

Nicholas W. Browning remained jailed without bond after confessing early Sunday that he killed his father, John Browning, his mother, Tamara, and his younger brothers, Gregory, 14, and Benjamin, 11, according to Baltimore County police.

His father was a highly regarded business attorney, and the family lived in an affluent suburb. Browning played golf and lacrosse, was active in his church and was close to becoming an Eagle Scout.

Huh. Does killing your entire family count as being moral? I wonder if they’ll let him keep all his badges.

I’m not done.

Scout LEADER is California is accused of molesting boys.

A scout leader who once sued the City of Berkeley for challenging a national Boy Scout ban on members who are gay or atheist has been arrested on felony charges that for at least five years he sexually abused young males in the troops he led.

I think that counts as homosexuality AND lack or morality – but what do I know about morals, I’m just an atheist. Seriously, boys can learn some great things from boy scouts, how to camp, have fun etc… I think it’s a great idea to have a group like that for boys. I just wish it wasn’t full of hypocrites, people who discriminate against a boys sexual preference and their religion. I can only imagine the number of boys who are feeling homosexual urges but are repressing them as to stay in the group, to remain “part of them”… it’s sad.

I hope that one day the boy scouts open up their arms and becoming a little less judging and ridiculous so that all boys who want to be a part, can be.

Comments (10)

By Katie Kish, April 12, 2007 4:00 am

It seems as though that over the past few days I’ve had more run-ins with pornography than what I would usually expect in a day. I watched a movie where an atheist couple’s video store is shut down in the early 90′s or some time like that because of their “adult video section”, a couple of friends and I were hunting around “porno tube” for kicks, I saw the wheelchair accidental pornography and ran into Sage’s post about porn.

I’ve always wanted to write a feminist post about my views on porn. If it increases rape, if it belittles women, if it should be for 21+, 18+ or even 16+… If certain things should be banned from porn, if porn should be sold pretty much everywhere, if sold should be in libraries… etc. But the fact of the matter is, my answer to all of these things is “I don’t know”. Truth be told, I really don’t watch porn, I always thought that maybe I’d “grow into it” but I have yet for that stage in life to happen. I have watched porn, but with friends, when we all laugh at it.

After days of contemplation I have decided that porn is speech, and people shouldn’t be afraid to let out information that they like that speech, or have been involved with that speech. I think porn stars should be able to freely list it as previous job on their resume and that people should be able to rent it without feeling ashamed when they walk up to the counter at the video store.  Sex is natural, sexual arousal is natural and needing help to become sexually aroused is completely normal. I obviously think child porn is wrong… If I lived in the States, my argument would thus be that porn is completely within the coverage of the First Amendment.

The fact that pornography strikes up debates within feminist groups, and raises issues and ideas about class, gender and race shows that pornography conveys and communicates ideas and a premise therefore it should be protected as free speech.

When someone watches porn, they may not realize it or make the connection, but they are is mediated thought. The viewer is aiming at a particular frame of mind, and the intention of having the pornography is to control the thoughts. A law that prevents shooting up heroin is protecting people from a body disabling and physically disastrous abuse, rather then preventing a person from thinking.

I don’t believe that casual induction into pornography will disable a person’s social skills. I also don’t think a husband who reads playboy is tearing apart a family, I think there are some communication issues – but if that’s where he wants his thoughts to be, that’s where they are going to be. Some of the most celebrated movies, pieces of art and compositions of music have been created out of the freedom of thought, and out of the ability to allow one to stagger into dangerous areas of the mind. Sexuality, in this same idea, can be seen as an art form to a person, and pornography is a way to lead your thoughts into areas of exploration resulting in something more enjoyable, more exciting and more interesting.

We don’t confine an artists mind from exploring the darkest corners, so why should we put shame on those who want to wander into the unknown world of sexuality and get help with being sexually aroused? We shouldn’t.

This isn’t to say that I don’t have problems with porn. I think a lot of pornography puts women in to a submissive role. It also gives false ideas about what sex is like in real life… (women don’t have an orgasm giving the guy a blow job, believe it or not.) There are also direct inflictions on racial differences and discriminations which I don’t agree with. I’ve read many papers exploring the racial discrimination in Hustler magazines… with black men looking big, mean, controlling and extremely in power, were has a white man would look small and insignificant. The black man would basically rape and pillage what appears to be a woman belonging to the white man – I don’t think stuff like this is all that appealing.

Its hard to draw a line between art – speech – racism – misogyny. It depends on context and viewer. A picture of a visible racial discrimination in a Hustler magazine is going to portray a much different meaning and understanding than a picture of a visible racial discrimination in an art gallery. So for that reason, I will recognize that pornography can be harmful.

In regards to a submissive woman, I am fully aware that pornography will also show men in a submissive position – again, fine lines and who am I to call whats right and wrong? But it is a fact that pornography industries will willfully deceive consumers – so it is up to the consumer to be conscious of what they are looking at and what sort of understanding they should/are taking from it… Which I know, is a bit much to ask of a man who is whackin’ it, he’s a little preoccupied.

But that also says a few things about our society…  and how people are raised and what not… Anyway, my point is – porn is okay – to condemn and prevent it is to condemn and prevent growth of ideas and the mind … in a way…Also, I had a really hard time finding a picture to go with this post.

Comments (3)

By Katie Kish, January 11, 2007 1:44 pm

You know what bothers me? Something that ends up to be so pretty that it is no longer used for its original use. Like… there is a chair in my station that is really nice and really expensive – but no one sits on it… Because it’s really nice and really expensive and no one wants to be the first one to leave a mark on it. I feel like Murke (hardy har.) but honestly, it really bothers me. …A lot of things are really bothering me.
More on this later, I guess. …I’m skipping class right now, I think Im going to take pictures of campus… So I’ll post those later.