Our Duty to Die

First, apologies for the dark subject matter of this blog. Blame it on it still being under 40 degrees outside even though we are in the middle of April. Its dreary, rainy, and the wind is cold. One is suppose to write about such themes in such a dark and dreary environment, right? When in Rome...

So the last broadcast of This American Life was on the theme of "mistakes". Broken up into two acts, the first was a lengthy, bizarre story on the first years of cryogenics on the west coast. Without going into the details of the story (although it is a fascinating listen and I highly recommend it), the ideology behind cryogenics brought to my attention (obviously) the occurrence of death and how it is perceived in America(and possibly a large majority of the rest of the western, first world).

The main concept behind cryogenics for those who are unfamiliar is that "death" might possibly be just another form of illness that someday we may be able to cure. According to the show this idea gained popularity in the early sixties and thus led to the idea of cryogenics. So if you freeze someone in the first few moments of their death, it is assumed that someday, there will be a cure for death and these people can be "resurrected" or "reanimated".

Death is surely something that many of us have trouble coming to terms with. Perhaps this gets easier the older you get, maybe not. Furthermore, it seems to me, although I know this can be argued against, that in a first-world society we are removed/shielded from having to encounter death on a personal, intimate basis. Surely, our lives are not riddled with death due to the absence of war and disease within our immediate vicinity. Nevertheless, the fascination still remains, if not heightened by our disconnect from it, and thus I believe it could be argued that maybe this is the reason why violence is recreated and depicted so frequently in various outlets of media.

I am aware though that there is an argument that we have become desensitized to death. And with that desensitivity, cultural practices that help us to deal with death have deteriorated. (I think Heidegger has some things to say about this which I don't care to look up)

However, I would like to present that if we are so removed from death, as I believe, then it has developed a culture where our ability to understand, cope and accept death has also diminished. The outcome is perhaps ideas such as cryogenics. The outcome is also, perhaps, the development of an attitude which asserts that we exist atop some sort of constructed hierarchy which gives us more of a right to live longer(or forever) than certain"others". I feel that there are numerous events that have taken place just in the last 10 years which could be argued to be connected with the existence of such an attitude.

Finally though, my main reaction to the event of death in regards to this radio program was personal. Immediately, this idea that we could permanently "defeat" death seemed so absolutely selfish and characteristic of an attitude that the first world would produce to me. When I heard that people actually felt a right to be able to freeze someone, in order to at some time possibly reanimate them was something I immediately had a objection to. Upon further examination, I discovered that my objection was because death, to me, is something that we not only obviously all have to endure, but something that is our "duty" to endure. How dare we try and cheat death. And thus for the first time, in a long time, I feel like I came to some sort of small, epiphany on my own mortality. If given the option to live forever, or if cryogenics was much more closer to a possibility than it is today, I would clearly decline. What a strange world we live in where even the idea of never having to die has strongly been considered and undertaken...that is...if you have the money ;)

To not end on a completely dark note... take comfort in this small celebration of longevity:

Brought to my attention by my friends blog Systems of Operation, photographer Mark Story has traveled the world the last twenty-plus years in search of centenarians (people that are over 100) and super centenarians (110 years old) to get their stories and take their portraits. Its called "Living in Three Centuries: the Face of Age"

Check out the site...here is an example:
10 year 115 day-old*
man of German and Irish descent.
Several of his grandparents lived past 100.

He served in the Army in World Wars I and II
and then worked as a railroad brakeman.
During the Depression
he traveled much of the country
riding the rails with hobos.

At 102, he was walking ten miles a day.
Now he walks three miles a day and can still
read the bottom three lines on an eye chart.
He gave up drinking in his 60s,
but smoked into his 80s.

He continues to work a few hours a week
at a tanning salon/espresso cafe.

He said, "I still chase
good-looking women around.
I just can't catch up with them —
my legs don't work fast enough.

100x50

So...as you may have already heard, Me and a Ms. Madeline Stevens have begun an experiment in short fiction called 100X50.

Basically, we each will post fiction (or something) original for 50 days straight that is 100 words or less.

If you get a chance, check it out for the next month and a half or so. There is a lengthier description of what its all about on the page.

Hearts...

Translation

Taken from the often entertaining, interesting and totally worth a hit every now and then Litlab.

Can we even do this in our language? Probably, but it would sound silly. In addition, I find the Czech portion really aesthetically pleasing to look at. I want to hear audio of this being read.

enjoy:

ída Sobková: Prosté popisování pátečního poledne / A Simple Describing of a Friday Noon

A short story in Czech where every word starts with the same letter and then translated in English.

In Czech:

Prší. Pátek patnáctého prosince. Pošmourné počasí protíná polední pauzu. Pozdní podzim povzbuzuje pápěří pampelišky poletovat. Plnicí pero popsalo papír poletujíjcí pod podloubím. Proslulý proutník Pavel provází podél podloubí pihovatou Pavlínu. Proč právě Petra? Proradný prostopášník povalil Pavlínu pod platan, poodhalil Pavlínin pihovatý pupík. Pořád poprchává. Pavlína promrzla. Pojď popijeme pro pohodu. Pokračují paloukem, přicházejí k pohostinství „Pod Pařezem.“ Popíjejí Plzeňský Prazdroj, peprmintku, punč – prostě praví požitkáři. Pojď popít pomálu podomácku pálené pálenky. Potřebujeme přejít potok. Pak projdeme pokosené pšeničné pole. Promiň, provlhlo pověšené prádlo. Proč? Prší, pitomče. Pan porybný povídal podivné předpovědi. Pokud povídá pravdu, přijde pravá pohroma. Přehrada potřebuje poopravit proti prolomení. Pak prošel pohřební průvod. Paní Pazderková podlehla příušnicím. Protivný policista Parma pokukuje po plačících pozůstalých. Podívej, pomaličku přestává pršet. První pichlavé paprsky prozařují palouk. Přines pálenku. Pec plápolá posledním posmoleným polenem. Pavlína pomalu přestává plakat, promrznutí přestává. Ponenáhlu poleno praskne, plamen povyskočí, podnapilý Pavel polije Pavlínu pálenkou. Pavlína plamenně poskakuje. Podívej pitomče, pálenka podporuje plameny. Popadne placatku pálenky, praští Pavla po palici. Pavla pohltí plameny. Pospíchejme potopit postavy pod proud potoka. Plameny pohasly. Pavel povídá Pavlíně: Přestávám pít pálenku. Pravím, Plzeňský Prazdroj, Punč, peprmintku pouze. Pitomý pátek.

In English:

Raining. Friday, the fifteenth December. Murky weather passes over a noon-hour. Late fall encourage blow ball to fly. A fountain pen overwrote the paper flying under the arcade. Renowned voluptuary Paul promenades freckled Pauline along the arcade. Why Pauline? Perfidious libertine laid Pauline under the sycamore; he undressed Pauline’s freckled bellybutton. It’s still drizzling. Pauline is freezing. Come, we’ll partake for strain. They continue walking throughout the glade; they are arriving to the pub “Under the Tree Stump.” They drink Pilsner Urquell, Peppermint, and Negus – simply real sybarites. Come drink some of my family style eau-de-vie. We need to cross the creek. Then go through the mown wheat field. Sorry, the hanged clothes soaked. Why? It’s raining, you idiot. Water bailiff told me strange prognoses. F he told me the truth a real disaster is coming. Reservoir needs to be repaired against crashing. Then a funeral procession came. Mrs. Pazderková succumbed to parotis. Mean policeman Parma peeked around on crying mourners. Look, the rain is stopping. First sharp rays are shining on the glade. Bring the eau-de-vie. The fireside flame with the last pitched log. Pauline slowly stops to cry, she is not freezing anymore. All of a sudden the log crack, the flame jumps out, tipsy Paul spill eau-de-vie to Pauline. Pauline falmy jumps around. Look, you idiot, eau-de-vie supports the flames. She snatched the flask and punch Paul on nob. Paul is eaten by flames. Let’s go hurry to sink our bodies under the flow of the creek. Flames die down. Paul is telling to Pauline: No more eau-de-vie drinking. I say, Pilsner Urquell, Negus or Peppermint only. Damned Friday.

Questionable Art?

Aliza Shvarts, a Yale art major has decided on something peculiar and controversial for her senior art project. As reported by the Yale Daily News Shvarts has decided to document her nine-month process of artificially inseminated herself "as often as possible" while periodically taking abortifacient drugs to induce miscarriages. She plans to display her relics of the piece by showing video recordings of these forced miscarriages as well as preserved collections of the blood from the process.

Needless to say, the project got national attention and sparked much debate. While it was recently reported that Shvarts was supposedly faking the whole process or re-titled as "creative fiction" by Yale university, the piece brings up an interesting question of when, if ever, can art go too far? Are there boundaries to art when it comes to as one student from Yale stated as, "manipulating life for the benefit of her art"? Without any applicable normative aesthetic to determine what is or isn't art(please argue this..please?!), the question remains if all morality and/or ethnics are also absent from art today as well.

My immediate impulse would be yes. Academically, there seems to be an emphasis on the relativity of morality depending upon what eachh culture we are specifically examining. We are taught to recognize and respect these cultural differences. However, issues do arise. International human rights efforts often encounter problems and/or lack of support when it comes to bringing up issues such as female genital mutilation. While one may be hard pressed to find someone who would actually argue PRO for this, it isn't completely unthinkable to devise an argument which would be founded in a tolerance for such practices in order to not project one's culture,and all the norms and morals that go with it, onto this 'other' culture.

The point is if we look at art then it is easy to see such application of certain ethical standards to have deteriorated due to the arrival of a sort of "liberalism" (i guess...) which emphasizes (may be too much) a tolerance for all people, their way of life and practices. On paper it sounds great. However, when you get into issues like FGM, it becomes a problem. The same goes for art. Anything goes, right? Well, what about Ms. Shvarts?

Personally, I don't have a problem with Ms. Shvarts piece. Actually, I find it fascinating and all that much more disappointing that she actually DIDN'T go through with it. I think her piece speaks to the fascination and sort of "mysticism" if you will of the female body that still exists in today's society.

In addition, art already has a long history of artists who have utilized, manipulated and damaged their bodies for art. Marina Abramovic, Chris Burden, or Tehching Hsieh are a few performance artists who immediately come to mind. Their work was much more taxing on the body than Shvarts proposed piece. Even artists like Eva Hesse who worked with toxic material all her life have sacrifice health for their projects. There doesn't seem to be too much of an issue with these artists because they are not hurting(usually) anyone else in the process. However, what happens when we actually do cross that bridge and effect others? Unwillingly? Are we violating an 'ethics' of art? Or does, and if not should, such a thing still exists?

Costa Rican artist Guillermo Vargas ‘Habacuc’ sometime last year in a gallery in Managua tied a dog up in a gallery, put it on display, then let it starve to death. As reported, People entered and left, day in and day out. The dog remained without water or food and eventually gave up the ghost. The artist has said a number of different things about the piece. Most of what is said refers back to the situation of massive amounts of stray dogs that are throughout the major cities of Costa Rica. One statement the artist suggest that if he had not captured this dog and tied him up he would of died anyways and no one would of noticed. (Google his name for more. Its hard to get a good link to anything that isn't completely biased). Recently, his name has blown up all over the Internet again because he has been invited to reenact the piece in Honduras.

Now, I am an animal lover and yes I find this disturbing. However, apart of me feels that this is an overly-hyped issue that roots back to our westernized, first-world attitudes towards animals and pets. Frankly, animal rights would probably seem like a pretty absurd movement in most third world countries where huge portions of the population are going without food. However, I don't want to go so far as the fully back that assumption so rather I will stick with what I know which is that we, in this country, have the privilege to even have pets. Our attitudes towards domesticated cats and dogs is much different than some countries. And while this piece probably wouldn't fly in the U.S., it certainly seem to go over relatively acceptable in Costa Rica.

So in regards to art, which seems to be without any borders or if it does have borders damn are they fucking broad, do we accept this? And if we don't accept this then under what pretext do we make that judgment call? That it is unethical? That it is morally wrong? If so, then what are exactly are those ethics that we must abide by in art? And if we do make that judgment then I find it imperative to take into account cultural and moral relativity? And furthermore if you are a liberal, progressive, open-minded individual who supports the application of such relativism then by what means do you make that judgment without becoming hypocritical?

I don't like the piece. However, I find it difficult to extract an argument against it that isn't rooted in my own subjective and emotional objection to it. I would almost rather argue against this relativity, and for a moral standard ,than try and argue against the piece within the definitions of such.

Juno Review

Here is my latest review on Fanbolt of the film Juno.

Actually click on the link for me even if you don't want to read it. If I get the my review get the most hits thi month then I win something. Thanks!!!!