Control? (Day 1)

Twenty-four hours in:

I’m relaxed, and a little more thoughtful, but still have “monkey brain” – thinking of other things while I’m doing or thinking about something.  (This is a major reason I still keep a detailed task list, even in retirement – if I can get to my computer and record the thought or the thing that needs to be done, I’m pretty able to put it out of my mind.)  I can read, but only for about 30 minutes at a time.  Reading thoughtfully (as opposed to reading to get information, which is how I’ve spent the past 42 years) requires that I convince myself that I have nothing else that needs to get done.  That’s among the reasons I’m taking these three days / four nights off. 

            My nocturnal nature has returned with a passion.  I recorded some notes in bed, then read for a bit, turned the light out, and went to sleep – for 90 minutes.  I put a cloth over the bedside clock, and spent the next eight hours reading, using my computer, sleeping, sketching ideas for paintings, and sleeping – in some inchoate order.  I got up at 8:15, but napped repeatedly during the day.

            I feel no need for coffee, background music, or alcohol.

Control? (Prologue)

Ahh – I’m undertaking something new.  I’ve moved materials and food into an underused room in our house, and will sequester myself for three full days – I’ll have a bed, bathroom, phone, and computer, but no caffeine nor alcohol, and no commitments to do anything at any time.  (I realize that some folks have faced this for months now, and that others could never do this because of childcare or eldercare requirements.) 

My main task is to try to figure out how to need less of a sense of control – maybe figure out why control is so important to me.  Less control would make me less “high-strung,” would reduce my (I think normal) fear of death, and would probably help my art work.

"My life right now"

I’ve just recorded my first video clip — readers can actually hear the voice that my students suffered under for 40 years of lectures! This PBS resource is a great source of inspiration: PBS American Portrait. “Everybody has a story. Tell yours.”

“The conversation we didn’t have”

(Cross) cultural appropriation in the arts, 3

The arguments favoring versus condemning cross-cultural appropriation grow from very different conceptions of art, artists, and cultures.  Legal scholar Rosemary Coombe [1993] has identified two seemingly opposing bases for the defense of and arguments against intangible cross-cultural appropriation, which she calls “possessive individualism” versus “cultural essentialism.”  

  “Possessive individualism” is the Western Romantic ideal of the artist (writer, composer, choreographer) who takes all ideas to which “he” has been exposed, and through force of will, discernment, and creativity brings forth a new work.  If the work becomes highly regarded, it is a result of “his” genius.

                   “Cultural essentialism” implies that each person belongs to a single cultural tradition from which that person draws most of their identity or “voice,” and that the strength of their identity, the integrity of their voice, is diminished when others use elements of that tradition in their own voices.  It relies on the equally Romantic ideal of a homogeneous “people” or “culture” which jointly create and own artworks, stories, and styles. 

 There are important reasons why members of less-dominant groups (and I don’t necessarily mean ethnic minorities – this could pertain to women in our broader current culture) may use themes or styles from the dominant culture without causing harm.  The most fundamental is this:  The dominant culture is promulgated broadly – in some cases, has been forced on Native Americans and Australians, or on Africans brought to North America as slaves – and members of these less-dominant groups also belong to or “own” elements of the dominant culture.

_________________

Coombe, R.J.  1993.  The properties of culture and the politics of possessing identity: Native claims in the cultural appropriation controversy.  Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence 6(2): 249-286.