Sunday 27 October 2013

Why are you reading this?

Yeah you! Why are you reading this?  What gives me the right to your free time?  Did you arrive here by chance? Are you family? Are you my friend?  Are you my facebook friend?


With the internet, everyone now has a voice.  There is now an over abundance of soapboxes to stand on, but this is causing the real question to now be who should we listen to?  In the old days, all you needed was a Tv or radio show and people had no choice but to listen to you.  There were only a handful of soapboxes.  You had to catch a lucky break with a newspaper job or publishing contract to have any hope of sharing your thoughts with the world.  Now everyone has access to everyone else’s opinions if they want.  Anyone can write a blog or start a Youtube channel.  But now, how does anyone gain a foothold in a writing career?  How does anyone create a voice worth listening to?


Unfortunately, this is the life path I have chosen for myself.  I feel like my calling is in writing and expressing myself.  But a great amount of my anxiety lies in the question of why should anyone listen to me?  Nothing gives me a free pass to everyone’s attention.  I don’t have have many credentials.  At the same time, I don’t want to feel like I’m representing any kind of respectable institution like a newspaper, magazine, school curriculum or a university.  Perhaps I’m too artistically idealistic, but I hate any kind of censorship or compromise to my work.  I wouldn't want to write if I couldn't say “fuck” where its appropriate.          


I’ve got to believe that the only hope for this kind of life-path is the attractiveness of a totally honest and unique personality.  The only way to create an internet voice worth listening to is the total uninhibited expression of my true honest self.  I look at the people I admire.  These are never the smartest people.  They are not usually academically credentialed.  But somehow their honest self is expressed through their creations.  Music, comedy, artwork, books, acting, lectures or however they express themselves.  This is my ideal.  I’m not sure yet what my greatest strength is, but my guiding light is myself.  If I can bring an uncompromised and unique personality to the forefront of what I create, I believe this will be the correct path to take.  


This all sounds like an excersize in ego masturbation, but what other choice do creators have?  A kind of confidence, or maybe arrogance has to exist in order to think that people want to hear what we have to say.  I routinely post some of my artwork on facebook.  I get a kind of satisfaction every time someone “likes” or compliments my drawings.  At the same time I have a pang of narcissistic guilt, every time I post something that I’ve created.  What right do I have clogging up other people’s facebooks with posts that seem to scream:  “look at me!” “look at me!” “read my blog!” “don’t you think I’m smart?”


On the same coin, what right do other people have in clogging my facebook with vacation pictures, dessert recipes, conspiracy theories, drunken photos and articles somebody else wrote. But I digress this is a topic for another time.

Its all very gross. but perhaps all this self promotion is a necessary evil.  If you don’t like it, feel free to block me.  If you can tolerate it, thank you!    

Wednesday 23 October 2013

So, I wore a woman's purse

For my sociology of gender course, we had to do something that would subvert our gender in some way. So I decided to wear a woman's purse to school for a few days. I thought I knew what I was getting into, but the experience was more overwhelming than I had expected.

First of all, I want to look at what makes a particular bag a “woman’s purse”.  It apparently is a very subtle difference that genders the object.  The bag that I chose is a turquoise in colour and is leathery.  It has a thin black leather strap with large ornamental metallic rings connecting to the bag.  It’s soft to the touch and the shape is malleable.  The difference is small, but definitely noticeable.  My subversion experience gave me a keen eye for what other people were wearing as well.  A few people I noticed were obviously subverting gender with their bags because they were transgendered.  But there were no other "cisgendered" men wearing women’s bags  A man will wear a bag if it doesn't call attention to itself.  It will usually be dark coloured.  Black, brown, blue, green and red are usually found on men.  The kind of bag that is appropriate for a man to wear is much more modest.  If a man does wear a purse, he might call it a “Man purse” or a satchel.  Very specifically named to indicate that it is not a woman’s purse.  What is most important to note is that men’s bags are gender neutral.  It wouldn't be a diversion or subversion of gender for a woman to wear a bag that is also appropriate for a man to wear.  A modestly coloured backpack, shoulderbag, duffel bag, suitcase would be totally normal for a woman to wear.  There doesn’t seem to be a social restriction on what kind of bag a woman can carry.            

My experience with gender subversion began when I actually purchased the bag.  The university book store was selling some miscellaneous used objects on a clearance table.  I had to gather up some courage to pick up the bag and bring it to the cashier.  I placed the bag in front of her, handed her two dollars and said “don’t ask”.  She responded with “hey I don’t judge”.  Its interesting that I felt like I had to explain myself for why, as a young man I was purchasing such an unusual object.  Another woman who was also present, jokingly remarked, “Its beautiful. It matches your eyes.”

A few days days later, I decided to bring it to school as my means of carrying my stuff instead of my usual backpack.  I wrote my name in big letters with a black sharpie on the bag just to aleve my fears that people would think that I stole some woman’s bag.  I decided that I would I use my purse to carry my wallet and cell phone.  I typically carry both of them in my pockets but I think that women usually carry these things in their purse.  This way I would have to carry the purse wherever I went.  It would give me the full purse experience.  I haven’t experienced being this uncomfortable in public in a very long time. Not since being an insecure junior high school kid have I felt so visually awkward and out of place.  As I approached the school on my bicycle, I was petrified as I passed some of the other students.  I wasn’t sure if they noticed my purse or not, but what mattered was how I felt. When I got the school, I tried keeping the purse out of sight as I ate breakfast.  I think I’ve observed a few people giving me odd looks as I walked pass them with the purse in full view.  I smiled at people a lot more than I usually do.  The kind of smile you have when you’ve been thinking of something funny.  Maybe because I was trying to unconsciously tell everyone who saw me that this odd situation seemed very silly to me as well.  Right now I’m writing this paper at a school computer, its nearly 3 pm and I’m hungry for lunch.  But I’m too embarrassed to walk up to the food court and get something to eat.

I ran into a female friend of mine at the end of the first day with the purse.  We talked about various small talk things including what I was doing with the purse.  What I found interesting was that she said she wouldn't have noticed anything unusual about my bag if I hadn’t brought it to her attention.  If I may be rudely judgmental for a moment, I’d have to say that I consider this particular friend of mine more of a girly girl(bleached blonde hair and lots of pink).  If she didn’t notice anything odd about me, why would the rest of the university?  The university is probably the most “progressive” and non judgmental place in Lethbridge, so why would people be constantly judging me as if I were in high school?   This made me think that I was making a bigger deal about carrying a woman’s bag than was necessary.  This may have been a sign that this gender subversion project was telling me more about my autobiographical identity, rather than how the rest of the people in my world see me.  Maybe it was just pointing out another instance of insecurity of my own failure to live up to this culture’s image of masculinity.  Previously I thought of myself as someone who didn’t care about being thought of as sub-masculine.  I’m never the most physically imposing person.  I don’t exhibit many overtly masculine qualities.  I didn’t think I cared too much about by place on the gender scale.  But this experiment showed me that I really am concerned about my own place in this gendered culture.  

Why are the bags we carry so important to our gender identity?  Could it be about body image?  Is it about the different kinds of gender specific objects we carry?  I think its a combination of several things.  I think what may look like an arbitrary difference in bags, is more a result of other cultured gender differences.  When I wore the purse, I used it to carry the things I usually carry in my jeans pockets.  Keeping things in their jeans pockets is the usual place men carry their everyday objects like a cell phone or a wallet.    But its very rare to see a woman carry a large object, like a wallet in her back pocket.  Well, a close look at pants fashion will give a possible clue to why this is.

Women’s pants tend to be much tighter fitting than men’s pants.  So carrying a wallet in her jeans would be uncomfortable perhaps.  But maybe more importantly, her figure would be undesirably distorted.  The purpose of her tight fitting jeans in the first place was to reveal the attractive shape of her backside.  It would then make more sense that she keep her pants clear of any object that would change her shape.  I found out that this intention is even more blatant than I thought.  In discussion with one of the female class members, I discovered that many styles of women’s jeans have impractically small pockets, making it virtually impossible to carry large objects anyway.  Men’s pants are relatively more loose fitting than women’s and have larger pockets.  This could be an example that the apparent shape of his butt is not much a concern to his body image or his masculinity.                  

Since I spend most of my time at the university, I see that men and women both carry relatively the same amount of stuff.  But in the real world, a woman may carry a bag because of a perceived need to bring more things with her.  On a daily round of errands, say a day shopping around town, the average man will not likely bring more than whatever he can fit into his pockets.  But you might expect a woman to bring her purse with her in the same scenario.  Why is this?  I cannot say for sure, but I can speculate.      



 A very interesting thing I noticed was the difference in the way I held the purse made.  If I put the shoulder strap across my chest onto the opposing shoulder, it felt a little more appropriate.  Hanging the bag on the shoulder of the same side made me feel more uncomfortable.  The way a woman carries her bag also has an effect on her body image, this could be a reason why strap positions I experienced, felt gendered.  A woman will usually wear a shirt that will reveal the shape of her breasts.  A purse strap that crosses her chest, will awkwardly obstruct her breasts if she is wearing a revealing shirt.  In order to preserve her body image, the purse will be held on the same shoulder.     

A deeper and more speculative reason for gendered bags may have to do with men and women’s difference in mentality.  Men are expected to be more dominant and possessive.  Men are expected to be more independent and personally responsible for the things we own.  We keep our wallet and cell phone very close to our body to make sure we are always in possession of it.  We can constantly feel them against our bodies.  Throughout the day, I habitually touch my wallet in my back pocket, just to comfort myself.  In fact, some men wear chains on their wallets just to be safe.  This was another odd feeling I noticed when I carried the purse.  I had to double check for my important things inside the purse throughout the day, just to make myself feel better.  Frankly I feel naked if I don’t feel the bulge of my wallet in my back pocket.  It would take a lot of time for me to get used to the state of mind of letting go of these personal objects.  

in our culture, women are often thought to be more passive and docile.  They’re not expected to be as owning and controlling as men.  The idea of a gendered bag reflects this attitude of feminine passivity.  The purse puts more distance between the object and the owner.  The woman is not as intimately connected with the objects she possesses.  Its a subtle but noticeable difference in my own experience.  Another fact that makes the purse representative of feminine domestication is how susceptible to theft it is.  A woman has less of a physical connection to her valuables   The purse is a more exposed object at risk to be stolen then say, a (chained) wallet.  It illustrates how women are viewed as defenseless in the face of adversity, requiring a man to be responsible for her.  Of course this is all conjecture, but I thought it was an interesting idea anyway.    

Wednesday 2 October 2013

The future of art in the age of the Internet

Is there a living to be made in the future as a musician?   Some of my more musically inclined friends are currently facing this dilemma.  How can the average up and coming musician expect to make enough money to sustain themselves while pursuing their artistic passion?  The internet has created an environment where no one has to pay for any music if they choose not to.  I can empathize with their struggles.  But like everyone else I also take advantage of the convenience that so-called “piracy” gives us.  I’m not particularly opinionated either way.  On one hand I can see that the internet is breaking down so many barriers, some we didn't even know existed.  I see the widespread distribution of all information as a very good thing.  But I’m also aware that people need to be able to feed themselves and pay rent.    

The attitude for creation

lately I’ve been an evangelical preacher about pursuing what you are passionate about.  To a point where it may be irritating for those around me.  If you find something you are passionate about and have the freedom to pursue it, I believe you have to dedicate your life to that pursuit.  If you think you don’t have a passion, I believe you must drop everything in order to discover that passion.  At a certain level, pursuing a passion requires great sacrifice.  You may not be able to support a spouse or family.  You may not be able to dedicate yourself to school or higher education.  You may have to live in poverty.  But you can’t have your cake and eat it too. If you’re an aspiring artist, realize that you will have to give up many things to become a master.  But it should feel like a duty to give yourself to the higher cause of art.  If you really believe you are an artist or creator, it shouldn't feel like a choice to pursue it.  I think this attitude is going to be crucially important as we move into the internet age

The cult of personality.  

We live in a society where we worship musicians.  I obsess over and idolize many bands.  Hell, I even got a Iron Maiden logo tattooed on my leg when I was 20.  When someone gets to that kind of immortal status as an artist, it’s no longer just about the art.  The art becomes secondary to the person who created it.  You become more like a prophet or mythical figure.  If the band Rush releases anything new, I eat it up like candy.  I’m almost unable to recognize it’s true artistic value objectively.  When we get into the same livelihood as those we idolize, we work with the far-fetched distant fantasy in the back our minds where that kind of success is possible.  A fantasy though it is, we still realistically expect to be recognized individually for the art we create.  Because we have a sense of “owning” that which we create.  This ego driven desire, causes a need to be personally recognized for the art we create. When someone appreciates our art, we want to be known as the person who created it.  

The problem with the music “industry”

Perhaps the environment that produced a “music industry” in the first place was itself, unbalanced.  The music scene of the past century has been of an ego-driven and fame based nature.  Because of its democratic nature, the internet is now just revealing the true value of the art.  Maybe the internet is just revealing the realistic expectations we should have about artistic pursuits.     

The concept of owning art doesn't exactly jive with my sense of fairness.  Music as a commodity doesn't make sense to me.  If a piece of music can be recorded and replicated infinite times, what are you selling exactly?  Certainly its not a scarce resource.  From my understanding of economics, I think at the most basic level, there is no way that information like music can be “sold”.  The only reason there ever was a market for music is because of the method that music used to be delivered.  Either by radio or solid media like tapes, CDs or vinyl were the only way you could hear music.  It cost manufacturers and radio stations to distribute this music.  So the only commodity that was actually being sold were the time and services of those with the platform on which to distribute it.  This is probably how we ended up with an over inflated value on popular music and a small population of millionaire musicians.  But the internet has now destroyed any kind of scarcity of distribution to speak of.  How now shall we determine the monetary value of music?   

Plus, the skill it requires to produce music is decreasing.  I’m afraid to insult any electronic music fans here but, I doubt it requires as much effort to create a Deadmau5 album than a Van Halen record.  There aren't many actual instruments being played in dubstep or techno.  Should the effort it took to create a piece of art equal the cost to buy it? There are many unanswerable questions when it comes to knowing how to pay musicians.

The only option moving forward is voluntary donation directly to the artists.  I really don’t see many other ways. But I’m trying to be optimistic about the future, I’m not discounting the unseen possibilities.

Music as the exception

Why does the music industry seem like its the only victim of this market shift? I think nearly all forms of art are going to be affected by the gargantuan presence of the internet.  If not directly affecting the platform to distribute it, its changing people’s attitudes towards art.  The necessity to purchase the results of creativity is no longer there.  We don’t feel obligated to pay for anything creative anymore. I don’t know, but perhaps thats the way things should be.  This keeps the artists free from any financial motivations that may taint the pure passion of their art.  We’ve all heard the story of the once great musician, comedian or actor who “sells out”.     

Here I am, publishing blogs for the world to read without any need for a magazine, newspaper or journal.  Granted it’s a very small audience at the moment, but it doesn't stop me from writing passionately about the things I care about.  I write to hone my craft.  I write because I feel like I have to.

My blogs aren't my “intellectual property” to sell.  It would be ridiculous to expect to be paid with money every time someone read my blog.  I’m just ecstatic that one person took time out of their day to read what I have to say.  My blogs are my own exercises in writing.  They are a growing and (hopefully) improving collective body of unique work on which I try to build an honest intellectual reputation.        

In regards to the music “industry” this may be a helpful attitude for up-and-comers.  Things aren’t going to be like they used to.  But I think there is a place in the world for every passionate individual with a little talent.  Don’t ever expect to get financially compensated for what you do, just be excited someone wants to hear your stuff.  Just keep putting all your passion and effort into this and maybe one day you’ll get what you feel you deserve.