Searching for liquid modernity

I'm working on a project for a class that was originally going to be about the people on the outskirts of society. I was going to walk around the Boston Commons and through pictures I took of these people, I thought, I'd be inspired to explore Zygmunt Bauman's concept of liquid modernity. Liquid modernity is Bauman's way of describing the context we are living in now. Basically, without the solid social forms of the past, we have fewer frames of references and are left as individuals to our own devises. We all become more fluid in our lives without the constraints of the past. We have more choices and more possible paths than ever before. Interpret this as good, interpret this as bad... but I am not making a value-judgment at this point. I am just trying to observe the liquidity around me, specifically by looking at those who are not accepted into the mainstream, the flow of society.

It turns out that with winter approaching there are fewer persons from this population in public spaces outdoors. With very few images to look at, I have not quite felt the inspiration I expected. Today I'm revisiting the images of one performer taken for that project and posting them to try to get more inspired. I've added a picture from NYC because I think it contributes to the collection.

I think there is a lot to be explored in urban greenscapes like the Commons and Central Park. I find so much irony (not sure if that is the best word) in the images above. It's amazing how the awe of incredible structures of industry and of nature can coexist with the awe of poverty.

Never enough

I had to press pause and stop to contemplate when this TEDx talk introduced the idea that we live in a culture that tells us "there is never enough." Things are "never good enough, never safe enough, never certain enough, never perfect enough, never extraordinary enough." The presenter in this talk, Brene Brown, lingers on that last idea of the extraordinary. She says that you can't have the good emotions all of the time, you have to have the bad too. We are on a quest for extraordinary when the moments that in fact give us the most joy are ordinary moments. She says, "honor the ordinary."

There are many ways this "never enough" concept can be used. As consumers we feel as though we never have consumed enough. I have never thought about this in the context of emotions though.

Health of the nation

Two videos about public health policies. How healthy are our policies really? How healthy is our current consumer culture? 

What makes you passionate?

I went to a departmental dinner last night for majors, minors, and a few alums who were in attendance to talk about life after college. Everyone sat around a few tables, ate, chatted, and then eventually each alum introduced herself to the group. After dinner was over, we had a chance to mingle so I went up to an alum who began her introduction with a summary of a quote. I found the quote word-for-word online today:

According to this law [the law of Dharma], you have a unique talent and a unique way of expressing it. There is something that you can do better than anyone else in the whole world--and for every unique talent and unique expression of that talent, there are also unique needs. When these needs are matched with the creative expression of your talent, that is the spark that creates affluence. Expressing your talents to fulfill needs creates unlimited wealth and abundance.” 
― Deepak Chopra

This was something I needed to hear. I needed to hear that unique is good... that who I am is good. It confirmed what I believed, and was worded so beautifully. When I walked up to her afterwards I thanked her for sharing the quote. She was glad to hear that it resonated with me, and then asked me what I wanted to do after college. I admitted to her that I have absolutely no idea where I see myself in a year and a half. She responded, simply, "What makes you passionate?"

When is the last time someone asked you that question? I cannot remember the last time it was asked of me.

I've been asked many times, "What are you interested in?" "What do you want to do after graduation?" "What are you studying?" "What classes have you taken?" But, I cannot recall the last time someone mentioned the word 'passion.' Passion implies a much more important connection. It isn't just an interest, it isn't just something that makes you curious. It is something that drives you, that is connected to you deeply and emotionally. It gives you motivation to work, to wake up, to be.

"What makes you passionate?" she asked. And I froze. Or rather, I felt like I was suddenly defrosting from a long time spent immobile in a cold and contained state. A state where I forgot who I was and why I was there. A state where I felt uncomfortable with my decision to study what I am studying and where I am studying. A state that I accepted as formed, as decided, as fact.

"What makes me passionate?" I asked her rhetorically  The ice shattered and at last I remembered. At that moment,  I finally re-"felt."

Perception and experience

I am on the search for the right vocabulary to express how I feel. Until then, I'll take pictures and hope your perception of the image is similar to my experience of the moment.

Here is a picture I took today in Boston. I was in the city on a search for inspiration for a final paper topic in my social theory seminar.

I think a video has the potential to bring the viewer a tad closer to perceiving something similar to the actual original experience.

Here is a video of people in a different city on a different bridge.

Which medium do you think brings you closer the moment as I experienced it? I realize these are two totally different moments, but that's part of the point. Which medium provides a more "whole" and overwhelming experience? 

Umbrella Man

I think about the umbrella man a lot.

It's easy to commit to sinister explanations even though there are also non-sinister options. It is easy to conclude that what you see is true and that it's the only truth. Errol Morris does a beautiful job conveying this message simply.

If you have time to watch the video, watch it here. If you don't have time, the main point of the conversation is below. As is true with most of Errol Morris' work, the story is much more than the verbal content of a conversation. Watch the video for voice, for expression, for person.

"If you have any fact which you think is really sinister, right... is really obviously a fact which can only point to some sinister underpinning... hey forget it man, because you can never on your own think up all the non-sinister perfectly valid explanations for that fact. A cautionary tale."

What is the black umbrella in your life? 

Caring for the environment

I've always been concerned about the environment at a very basic level, but yet I feel I have been concerned more than many around me. I'm not even sure if my concerns are rational, but I have had the concept of 'limited resources' on my mind since I can remember. My parents and my Montessori elementary schools taught me to care about the earth. At one school we raised the Earth flag in addition to the American flag. I owned a tote bag that read "hurt not the earth, neither the sea nor the trees." I knew the Lorax speaks for the trees. But I started to really notice the little things when I got to college. Here I notice the waste of electricity in an elevator ride to the second floor when you're fit to walk up one flight of stairs...The waste of electricity in pressing the 'handicap' button so doors automatically open when your perfectly able to open the doors yourself...The dripping of water in bathroom sinks and tubs with knobs that just need to be tightened...The concept of using only one paper towel when drying your hands...Reusing a dish if it's clean enough... All very very seemingly insignificant things which, again, I have no real proof make any sort of difference. I just assume that they do, and they make me feel like I am living a little bit more sustainably than if I hadn't been thinking about them. Saving the earth one paper towel at a time, right? I think often about the need for buildings, houses in particular, with electric outlets in more easily accessible places so that things can be unplugged when they are not in use. I also think often about the need for a better system of recycling, or reuse, or even the elimination of the need for packaging and other products that are frequently ignored and trashed. Still, these are the little things. Perhaps the little things add up, but that's part of the problem: Where do we begin? How do we best, most efficiently affect change? How do we determine what change should be affected in the first place? How do we determine what we want the alternative, the 'new' that results from the change, to be? I am becoming more aware of how complex the whole idea of 'saving the environment' is to implement. The NY Times published a relevant Op-ed recently. Check it out if you have a chance, but first here's a quote:

"Unfortunately, the sustainability movement’s politics, not to mention its marketing, have led to a popular misunderstanding: that a perfect, stasis-under-glass equilibrium is achievable. But the world doesn’t work that way: it exists in a constant disequilibrium — trying, failing, adapting, learning and evolving in endless cycles. Indeed, it’s the failures, when properly understood, that create the context for learning and growth. That’s why some of the most resilient places are, paradoxically, also the places that regularly experience modest disruptions: they carry the shared memory that things can go wrong."

I also just generally like the concept that it's the failures that "create the context for learning and growth." It's a good message that can apply to many aspects of life. 

There's much more to say about the environment and sustainability, about capitalism and policy, and about concept and practice. Perhaps I'll write more about this at a later date. The article mentioned previously in combination with my studies this semester have me thinking about how time and space have changed our approaches to problems and have shaped the actual creation of the problems themselves. 

Single or series?

Images can be arranged in many ways. The way they are arranged can change their interpretation. For a series of photographs, there is significance in the order of presentation. Here are three separate images of children and their caretakers (most likely nannies) right after a school let out in NYC.

The images give a different "feel" to the viewer as a series than as, say, a single image. 

I put the pictures together to create a single image. I think the single image captures the way I perceived the situation when I was actually sitting and taking the pictures.