Tuesday, January 12, 2010


initial disclaimer, since this is not a fully formal communication method, i hope u bear with me on my lack of interest on capitalizing i's.
so i'm no artist... i have some preferences, sure, but i dont create many things outside of my thoughts. i like pretty things, whatever it is that i consider pretty. i change my environment so that it fits what i like; i play some music, i decorate, i wear clothes that i like.however, i dont rely on this preference system in order to fully express myself, i usually choose to do so in different ways. some people that i've talked to, agree on the following issue: art is not just an outside engagement. I'm not sure whether i agree or not, but i do find it puzzling, the middle point that is. what is it that makes something be on the outside, as opposed to the inside, of the mind. So 'clearly' expressing what my thoughts are would put them on the outside iff im uttering, painting, musicalizing, photographing or acting this clear expression (note to audience:many other ways were ommited for the sake of economy, which has been lost with this note...). So what if i dont "put it out"? what if i just think it, and keep it in? say one day im just thinking about how beautiful a cherry tree would look under a particular type of light, such that, it looks like a warm sunset with the solitude of white flowers. is this artistic if its not comunicating anything? if it is the case that i am, in fact, an artistic being, how can anyone tell?
going back to the first person/third person perspective pointed out in mind/body problem literature, or the unnaccessibility to measurable intentions, being able to tell whether someone is doing art or not, is kinda hard.
now, there are art experts. these experts are able to judge, by comparison, one art work with another, or one art work with a general idea. conceptually this should be a fair enough job. nonetheless, how can one judge one art work over another, if the artists are completely different persons, and even if the artist is the same, art works take place at, presumably, different times, perhaps different emotions. How can we set a prefered set of values over the artists prefered set of values?
so what bugs me is that we can't really pin point at 'the artist' given that identifying one relies on the testimony of the person, and this might be biased. Also we can't offer an ultimate 'art judgement' given the problem of setting an almost arbitrary prefered reference frame.

new year...new intentions

im intending to be a bit more inclusive this year, so im gonna try blogging again...we'll see how it goes...
in the meantime, im thinking about causation...

Saturday, August 9, 2008

Manuela Gomez has just published a book about Argentinian philosopher Jose Ingenieros (whose works have never been translated to English) where she links his ideas to those of Ralph Waldo Emerson. In a wider perspective, some gaps between Latin American philosophy and pragmatism are bridged.

Rediscovering the Philosophical Importance of Jose Ingenieros: A Bridge Between Two Worlds is being published by VDM Verlag in 12 countries. Manuela was born in Cd. Juarez and she obtained her M.A. in Philosophy from Texas A&M. Yesterday, August 8th, she held a book presentation at the Centro Cultural Paso del Norte in Cd. Juarez, Chihuahua where professors, students, and spectators alike gathered to witness Manuela's first book. The panel of about 5 professors, including Manuela herself, gave their take on the book itself. Some placed the book in its historical context, while others praised Manuela's achievement. There was an overall sentiment of joy and inspiration; one audience member commenting during the Q&A segment that he believed that girls should look up to Manuela in being well educated. He went on to say that this is the kind of people Cd. Juarez needs, but that he was sure that there were many Manuelas in this city; we just need to polish them.