The Wild Stallion

POWER, BEAUTY, AND GRACE.

Only humans would see something wild and free and want to dominate it. Only humans would break the spirit of an animal to claim it as their own. Only humans would enslave a living thing to impress his peers. The irony is that mustangs lose their desirable traits when they are captured; “Only the spirited are beautiful.”[1] This still didn’t stop horse-riders from capturing and “breaking” horses. Perhaps, like Austyn mentions, it is because “they’re free, independent, and excitable.”[2] Whatever the reason, the fact remains: horses are mastered by man.

There is something unquestionably beautiful about a pack of wild horses roaming raw, untamed country. The prairie itself, a habitat that has almost disappeared, has its own unique quality of beauty; the endless, smooth fields of grass are a tribute to the simplicity and power of nature. It seems only natural that horses would inhabit this land. Their grace and power radiates from their form as they gallop and play in the fields. I can’t say that a wild horse isn’t desirable; seeing one would certainly cause me to muse about strategies for capturing it. Still, this doesn’t mean I would try to execute these plans seriously. There are two reasons for this. First, I would be scared out of my mind. Anyone who has stood near a horse will never question who is more powerful. No one doubts that horses are dangerous. Even while petting the painted horses at Bump’s ranch, there were moments when a playful head rearing would nearly knock me off my feet. I almost had an adrenaline rush from feeling their hard muscles—a feeling that seemed humorous once I realized that the horse was thoroughly enjoying the attention. The second reason is that capturing it wouldn’t make it more beautiful. Wild horses are beautiful because they are wild. “The sight of wild horses streaming across the prairies made even the most hardened of professional mustangers regret putting an end to their liberty.”[3] In fact, humans almost have a knack for unintentionally removing beauty from the world.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IoRjz8iTVoo See clip at 11:12 for a unique view of trees.

IS THIS WHAT THE TAMER WANTED?

A prime example of this can be seen in our treatment of our planet. Nature, like mustangs, is beautiful because it is wild. Today, we have lost touch with this “wildness.”[4] Perhaps it is because we feel that we are above it. Maybe it is because we think we own it. Still, every day we take away the things we love most. Raw, untamed land has universal beauty, meaning that every living thing appreciates its existence. Why else would artists, musicians, poets, writers, photographers, and countless other people immerse themselves in it to free their minds? Yet instead of preserving this power (when beauty achieves a certain height, it has a real power. It is felt in the chest, and is what makes gasping seem more appropriate than talking), we extort it. There are movements today to rekindle our appreciation for it, but our actions resemble the last ditch efforts of a gazelle that is engulfed by a lion pride. Although it may not be too late, it is certainly late. The signs are everywhere.

One sign is the fact that wild horses are almost extinct, restricted to the last uninhabited regions of the northern states. Their freedom is gradually being taken away by one of the few animals that has the capacity to appreciate it. We are players in a tragic comedy akin to A Winter’s Tale, and like Leontes we are pushing away the things that we love—no, the things that we need. Perhaps this is why I am moved to explore green architecture, but one can’t help but to have a sense of hopelessness. How much have we already lost? How much more will we lose before we realize what we’re doing? There is still great value in trying to change our ways, but I will be salvaging, not protecting. The worst part is that I am part of the problem. The momentum of humanity is awe inspiring, but unfortunately cannot change directions quickly. The only remaining option resist. Maybe, if we are lucky, the mustangs will return—without sadles.

HORSES ARE MEANT TO BE FREE--WILL WE EVER LET THEM?

[1] X846
[2] Austyn’s Blog
[3] X111
[4] Wild is probably the wrong word to describe it, because nature is by no means chaotic. A better description would be “in harmony.” Nature is not the result of haphazard competition among animals and plants; it is a finely tuned machine that operates at an efficiency that will never be matched by humans.

Coetzee II: the discussion.

Objective: To explore the idea of raising, killing, and eating animals. Topics include: rights, lives, consumption, nature vs. humanity, and vegetarian vs. omnivore.
Goals: To figure out what each of us believes; to understand the opposite point of view; to figure out how to make a difference regarding animal rights.
1. Death by nature vs. death by human: Which is more compassionate? Why do animals kill less than humans? Would animals do what humans do if they could?
a. Austyn: “In previous class discussions people have brought up the point that, in the wild, a predator kills its prey gruesomely- we’re just doing the same thing; it’s natural. I don’t believe, under any circumstances, can one compare these two situations. When a lion takes down a gazelle, it snaps the neck. It doesn’t chew off the horns and tail; it doesn’t make a point of letting it bleed slowly so it’ll taste better.”
b. Tyler: “A lion does not kill its dinner while considering its feelings, nor does it go about the process making sure that its death is as painless as possible. No—it murders the animal in a way that is the most convenient, quickest, and easiest for itself.”
2. Animals as cognitive beings: Are animals as “intelligent” as humans? Can animals comprehend their situation? Does it matter?
a. Austyn: “Whether or not we feel various species’ roles in these commensalistic relationships are substandard, we should still respect them.”
b. Saumya: “Yes, who is to say that animals have less power than humans?”
c. Mary: “How can we so easily objectify hundreds of species without truly understanding their definition of “life”? And for the animals’ world views we think we comprehend, the question to reflect on is “are [we] sure about that?””
d. Samantha: “http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVtQPabMvZQ Did you notice how the elephant was completely oblivious of the lions before they pounced on him? He was not preoccupied with protecting himself; he was not in fear for his life. This is because the elephant, like all non-human animals, cannot “comprehend extinction.” (2)”
e. Jenny: ““Every living creature fights for its own, individual life” (Coetzee 99), and I believe that as creatures also fighting for our lives, we should at least try to understand the horrors of such an act.”
f. Jennifer: ““Living... with baboons, I discovered what Elizabeth Costello means when she says that to be an animal is to 'be full of being,' 'full of joy.' Like the rest of us, baboons get grouchy, go hungry, feel fear and pain and loss. But during my times with them, the default state seemed to be a lighthearted appreciation of being a baboon body in baboon-land” [3].”
3. Meat consumption: Is it right to eat meat? Is it morally superior to abstain from meat? Is the main issue with meat PRODUCTION or CONSUMPTION?
a. All people agree that the food industry treats its animals cruelly.
b. Jennifer: ““Treat your neighbors as you would like to be treated.” We seem to forget that animals are also our neighbors, to be treated with kindness – “kindness in its full sense, as an acceptance that we are all of one kind, one nature””
c. Tyler: “Meat still tastes good and I am going to continue to eat it. It’s just that now I tend to think about what I consume. Also, I tend to think about why and how we came to become so dominant over our fellow earthlings.”
d. Austyn: “This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t kill them for food- it simply means that we should be compassionate about it.”
e. Samantha: “Just because a human, an omnivore at the top of the food chain, chooses to consume meat does not make him or her inhumane or an unjust killer, it makes them natural.”
4. The act of killing: Would everyone be vegetarian if they had to kill their own meat? Why do you think the factory workers are so cruel? Do the consumers or the producers drive the meat industry?
a. Tyler (previously): “IN MY OPINION, HUNTING ONLY PROVES THAT ONE HAS A LONGING TO FEEL BADASS OR DOMINANT, WHICH DOES NOT JUSTIFY THE DEATH OF AN ANIMAL.”
b. Mary: If I had known that my McDonald’s hamburger came from a cow that was forced against its will to produce milk all day, stuck in a cage exhausted "from seeing only bars" with no freedom, I would have stopped eating them a long time ago.”
c. Jennifer: “I've chosen to abstain from eating meat so far, but I'm not sure yet what my intentions are in doing so. I know that a protest by one 125 lb girl with an already meager appetite for meat isn't going to change the industry.”
5. Making a difference: Does being a vegetarian help, or is it a personal choice (more specifically, does vegetarianism represent compassion or disgust)? What steps can we take? Do you think change is possible (realistically, not theoretically; we will assume that it is technically “possible”)?
a. Jennifer: “My recent vegetarianism is my own refusal to partake in the unjust treatment of animals, not an attempt to change how this world works.”
b. Saumya: “Every time I put my plate up in the cafeteria I see dozens of half filled plates with chicken, beef, pork, and fish on them and now I am disgusted. Not at the sight of left over food but at the thought of the poor animals who were abused and killed and not even to nourish anyone, to rot and be thrown away.” “The creators of the “green” market are geniuses and hopefully I can acquire a fraction of their talent and market a campaign for clean meat.”
c. Mary: “I believe that the actions you do are just as important as the actions you don’t. Feeling sorry for animals and offering them up pity is fruitless if you don’t use those emotions as a stimulant for change.”
d. Ben: “I encourage people to explore the endless possibilities of an elementary game like the associations of animal attributes to humans, and find out what one can learn about themselves, or their own realization about the understandings of species different from our own.”
e. Jenny: “I agree with this statement: if those who wish to have such commodities claim to care for animals at all, it is partly their responsibility to find another way of attaining their goals."

The Secret Lives of V's

COUNTLESS PEOPLE MISTAKINGLY ORDER VEGAN CHICKEN NUGGETS AT MCDONALDS EVERYDAY.

There is one thing that confounds every animal rights activist: the ignorance of the world around them. How can we noble humans bear to sink our teeth into the flesh of our animal counterparts? How is anyone attracted to the stench of marinating steak? These activists scoff and smirk at the deterioration of the omnivore’s colon and the weak morals on which they base their base lives. Haughty Animal Rights People (HARP) aren’t necessarily taller than the rest of the world, but for some reason they always seem to be looking down. They feel they are surrounded by pets—pets by Smuts’ definition: “The very word ‘pet’ connotes a lesser being” (X756). They yearn the day when everyone shares their superior view, but at the same time they seem to bask in their elevated status. Surely if there is any reason to not eat meat, it should be to join this elite group. But wait—there’s a catch. These HARPy’s live in a world of suffering that is shielded from the public eye. Painful bloating and sub-par stools are assumed, but there are two more things that poison their existence: ceremonial dinners and the taste of their meals. Listen, if you can bear, to the pain endured by these saintly homo-sapiens.
Sure there is cruelty in factories. Animals’ entire lives are dictated from birth to death, and their miserable lives are cut short with a short cut to the throat. Still, this is no match to the suffering imposed on a vegan trying to eat right at a public event. Think about it—while there is usually a vegetarian option at these various fundraisers, free dinners, and school events, the vegan’s plight is almost always overlooked. Hosts of such events may have a good cause, but the catering induces so much emotional stress that there ought to be another fundraiser to compensate the vegans that attended. An excellent parallel can be drawn from Hardy’s Jude the Obscure: Jude and Arabella starve their pig just as the hosts starve their vegans, and it most certainly “accounts for [their] crying so. Poor creature[s]!” (53). If there is any justice in this world, the future will accommodate all vegans equally, whether animals are treated right or not.

THIS FOOD LOOKS DISGUSTING-EVEN TO A VEGAN

Have you ever had vegan cuisine? If so, then it is clear that this was not a choice made for taste. Imagine if every meal you had contained three ingredients with a “—substitute” attached. Milk-substitute, egg-substitute, meat-substitute; the list is as long as it is unappetizing. “Human beings don’t die on a vegetarian diet” (Coetzee 103): this statement, though true, is only true in a literal sense. Countless vegans die daily of boredom, blandness, and hunger. “This vegan sausage is so blind I could die.” “This soy milk makes me want to kill myself.” People may observe vegans, but they never truly connect with them. They might say “I see the suffering of that person”, but they never say “I am that vegan, eating that disgusting food,” or “I am that vegan, sitting on the toilet praying that the tp doesn’t run out.” It is almost like the holocaust: just as the prisoners were given meager rations, vegans can almost never find sufficient rations. And their holocaust is far from over.

“Silently, a vision enters, slips through the focused silence of his shoulders, reaches his heart, and dies” (X763). This vision, for vegans, is of meat. They too are animals, and it is in their blood to crave meat. But they are above this. Cows have the right to wander aimlessly on grassy plains, chickens have the right to ceaselessly search for seed, and pigs have the right to eat rotting fruit in rainforests. Let these animals live up to their full potential, let them thrive and prove their worth. We cannot understand a cows point of view because we are not cows; therefore, we do not have the right to assume that eating is probably one of the most complex thoughts they have. It is our duty avoid eating animals, despite their nutritional benefit. If everyone had to butcher their own meat, we would all be vegetarians. This might because it is too time consuming for everyone raise their own personal hamburger cows, but the message remains: eating meat is not natural—even if only for a certain, elite group.

The World We Live In

Anyone who has owned a dog knows that animals can have distinct personalities. My first dog, Ama, was stubborn and competitive. Whenever I threw her a tennis ball, she would always fight to be the first to get it. Then when she brought it back, she would always stay ten feet away from me, no matter how much I chased her or called her. My second dog, Hola, is the opposite; she lives for affection, and will do everything she is told. My dogs were distinctly different, and possessed “human” traits. There is no doubt in my mind that my dogs loved our family.

DOGS DISPLAY LOVE AND COMPASSION--DO ALL ANIMALS?
My first instinct was to say that dog “love” isn’t as deep human love. Their emotions are much simpler and functional; "...[The dog] doesn't even think about what [he] will be doing next summer, or even next week" (X 743). Dogs love because it’s in their instincts; unless dogs work in packs, they will not be able to hunt. This instinctive love, since it is so chemically driven, is not as poetic as the kind that humans share. But then I realized, like Dana pointed out, that humans probably love for the same reason. Cooperation is an excellent adaptation, and enables a species to thrive. Granted, dogs will never be able to comprehend love as humans do, but this does not mean that it isn’t derived from the same origin. So, if love is an adaptation, then wouldn’t it be possible for all animals to love?

CHICKEN LOVE IS A LITTLE HARDER TO RECOGNIZE

For the sake of this argument, I’ll assume that they can. Now, as an omnivore, I am left in a moral dilemma: how can I support the slaughter of creatures that have the capacity to love? Is the taste of meat really worth killing animals? Today as I ate my chicken strips I imagined crazed beakless birds hitting each other with their heads. It was a bit harder to get down.
The way we raise animals for consumption today is cruel. The process is driven by economics and the “quick buck.” The cheapest way to kill an animal is certainly not the most humane, but we rarely encounter businesses that are willing to spend extra money. Why? Because they will lose money, and it doesn’t affect the consumers decision to buy. The crime is not consumption of the animals, it is the way we raise them. It has even been compared to the Holocaust by Coetzee--"Each day [there is] a fresh Holocaust" (Coetzee 80)A DAIRY COW'S EXISTANCE IS A SAD ONE, AND WE ARE TO BLAME.

It may seem cruel to want to eat animals that display human qualities, but it is a part of nature. Protein has been proven to contain amino acids that are critical to our body’s nutritional demands. Even though it is possible to attain the nutrients from other sources, this is merely a dietary choice.

It is impossible to tell the extent that animals love one another. Some obviously don’t—fish, ants, and birds—and others seem to only love when it’s convenient (starvation might change things). However, it is unnecessary for humans to devoid themselves of a natural instinct because they fear they are killing creatures that have complex human emotions.

Cruel Arguments

THESE IMAGES ARE DISTURBING, BUT SO ARE SOME OF

THE ARGUMENTS BEHIND THEM.

Animal Cruelty
Is it cruel to eat meat? Although the actual process of raising, killing, and processing the meat can be, the actual act of eating the meat is natural and instinctive. Proponents of animal rights argue that anyone who purchases meat is directly supporting the abuse of animals, regardless of their intentions. As a meat-eater, I am somewhat surprised by this logic, although I can see the motivation behind it. Still, there are aspects of the animal-rights rhetoric that I find exaggerated or oversimplified. Animals and humans are not equals; even more so, the Holocaust and the slaughter of animals for consumption are not equal crimes. Also, claiming that animals would “choose” alternate lifestyles is a weak and unsupportable argument, for many obvious reasons. There are many aspects argued by animal activists that I find disturbing, but I will focus on these two for now.

“The comparison here to the holocaust is both intentional and obvious: one group of living beings anguishes beneath the hands of another. Though some will argue the suffering of animals cannot possibly compare with that of former Jews or slaves, there is, in fact, a parallel.”[1] Comparing slaughterhouses to the Holocaust of WWII is an insult to the people that suffered under the hands of Adolf Hitler. Although there may be aerial images of both that look similar, this does not mean that they are comparable crimes. From above, a military base resembles a city or town—does this mean they have the same function? A slaughterhouse will never have the same connotation as a death camp. During Hitler’s genocide, millions of people were imprisoned, separated, tortured, and murdered merely because they existed. Although a cow may moo as their calf is taken away, the emotional bond between a family is exponentially greater than that of a cow and calf. The cow instinctively wants to keep its calf near, but the trauma of the experience will last less than a month, and for one simple reason—the cow doesn’t have the capacity to miss its calf. Destroying a family, however, causes crippling and permanent emotional damage. During the holocaust, the victims were targeted because of their background. Slaughterhouses have a completely different priority; the production of meat. If animals were taken to buildings and killed simply because they were animals, then I could see a parallel to the holocaust. I can understand the passion that people have for animals, but these activists must be more careful and respectful with their arguments. The “shock and awe” technique might be one of the few weapons utilized by the animal-rights movement, but it is childish and disrespectful to attempt to associate the tragedy of Hitler’s extermination of the Jews with slaughterhouses.

IT IS IMMATURE TO ASSOCIATE MEAT CONSUMPTION WITH THE HOLOCAUST.

“What animal would choose to spend their entire life in captivity…if they had a choice?” [2]Granted, I would never want to live they way an animal raised for food does. It is a pointless, unfulfilling lifestyle. Still, this argument is irrelevant for several reasons. For example, I would not want to live as a chicken does in the wild. They are under constant fear of being eaten by predators, days consist of eating and defecating, and mates would be attracted to me according to the color of my feathers. Does this mean that a wild chicken's life is undesirable? Also, would a chicken want to live as a human? Any ounce of energy not used for eating or mating is probably considered wasteful to a chicken, so our lives may seem pointless. The priorities of chickens and humans are completely different, so no comparison could be made. It is my belief that chickens would imprison themselves if they were given the choice. If there was a field where chickens lived with abundant food, and there was a trough in the center filled with grain, I think that the chickens would crowd and fight around that trough everyday. They are animals, and their instincts tell them to survive. Chicken pens allow them to reproduce, eat, and gain protection from predators. What chicken would say no to that? In the wild, death rarely occurs from old age--a chicken will most likely die from disease, starvation, or predators. In my opinion, it is much more humane to die by beheading than it is to be eaten alive by an eagle, starvation, or a degenerative disease. Although the argument I have made is equally as contrived as the one I am critiquing, the point remains: no one can claim to know what an animal truly wants. Even through sympathetic imagination, humans will never be able to fully understand a chicken's wants and needs.

THIS ELK FACES A NATURAL DEATH--A CRUEL DEATH, BUT A NATURAL ONE NONETHELESS.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOq18oecT1A

WILL THIS BUFFALO HAVE A PLEASANT DEATH? NO.

I think that they way we raise animals for food is cruel and unrefined. However, this does not mean that we should all be vegetarian. Animals have always eaten each other; it is a natural process of life. In fact, the protein that our ancestors got from eating meat has been linked to our large brain size. If animal-rights activists want to make real strides for animals, they should accept the fact that there will never be an all-vegetarian world. By lessening their goals, toning down their tactics, and focusing their resources, animal rights activists might be able to improve the living conditions of animals. Until then, their hostile attitude will continue to turn people away from their compassionate intentions.

MAYBE ONE DAY EVERY CHICKEN WILL BE FREE-RANGE, BUT I DOUBT THERE WILL BE A DAY WHERE EVERY CHICKEN IS FREE.

[1] X703

[2] X725

Following My Delusions

The other day I wrote a poem for the first time since the beginning of summer. My immediate thoughts after I finished were somewhat disturbing; I was certain that I was doing the wrong thing with my life. I love to compose music, and it is one of the most peaceful activities I can imagine doing. Lyric writing is something I started experimenting with junior year and it has also become a pastime of equal tranquility. This particular day I was certain that it would be so much more fulfilling if I were to suspend all other activities in order to focus on these passions. How amazing would it be to produce music for a career? I could be the next Ben Gibbard (not really!) The feeling only lasted a moment, but the thought lingers in my mind still.

BEN GIBBARD IS A SONGWRITER THAT INSPIRES ME TO WRITE

Even with all of the “freedom” in college, I find that I have almost no time to devote to music. My double-major has a knack for devouring all of my free moments (after finishing this, I have to go do five sketches of an eggbeater. Yes!) The few times I do get to play, I feel uncomfortable composing. It is usually a very redundant process and I feel sorry for the students studying in the lobbies. Today while reading Jude it occurred to me that I feel somewhat like Jude. He wants so badly to go to college, yet all of his attempts fail. He is unable to gain his most basic desire. After careful examination, however, I found that we are in very different situations. Jude wants to go to Christminster with all of his heart, and commits all of his energy towards it (especially if there isn’t a lady around.) “Hence I must next concentrate all my energies on settling in Christminster.”[1] I am doing the opposite; I have the ability to indulge in music, and have committed all of my energy to college. Again, Jude fails when he arrives in Christminster for the first time, despite his driven work ethic. I am afraid of failure, so I am pursuing something which I consider a safer path. It is hard to say whose position is more pathetic.

THIS IS WHAT STANDS BETWEEN ME AND MUSIC

I am not saying that am dissatisfied with my current situation, which I have been enjoying greatly. Architecture is growing more enjoyable each day, and the liberal arts are something I have always wanted to study. Still, there are just some moments when I wish that music could be a more important in my life. Tonight, for example—not that I have anything against eggbeaters. Yet like Jude resisting the sexual allure of his cousin, I fight the temptation of those black and white keys. Decent grades are necessary for me to keep my scholarship, so I don’t have the breathing room to overindulge.

AS ALLURING AS A HOT COUSIN

After missing music and romantically envisioning how life could have been, I realized why I decided not to study music in the first place. To me, music is simply a personal stress reliever. I have no desire to become famous, to play in front of loving fans, or to make ungodly amounts of money (although this is a common misconception—even some ‘famous’ musicians struggle financially.) I realized that while I was considering dropping out I nearly fell into a dangerous trap. Poor Jude did the same, and “his failure to distinguish between [image and reality] lead to disaster.”[2] Music, especially of the singer/songwriter sort, is an intensely trying career path. My vision of my career as a musician was skewed unrealistic. Before applying to college, I decided that music would still be part of my life but not my career. If all goes as planned, I can use it as an escape instead of as a support.

TALENT DOESN'T ALWAYS MEAN SUCCESS (I love his sad face)

It is hard for me to say if I am even going to stay with architecture. Like every college student, every day I find something that I think is interesting. The current path I am on gives me little room to explore, but Plan II’s requirements are going to force me to explore other areas of study—something I am grateful for. Perhaps after college my life will reflect that of Thomas Hardy. Instead of “giving up architecture for writing,” I’ll give it up for music.[3] Of course I can’t be sure of anything. Until I make those choices, my goal is to stay focused and strive for success in all of my endeavors. I am aware that it is important to focus, but quite frankly I’m not sure if I want to just yet. Or if I can.

IN JUDE'S CASE, IT WAS "COLLEGE OR COUSINS"

[1] Hardy 32
[2] X 638
[3] X 659

There Goes Bill!

HERE WE GO.

It would almost be appropriate to include an arch in every university under which the only entrance to the school is located. Engraved around the top would be a simple phrase: “The Rabbit Hole.” That would be a nice warning of the long, confusing journey that is to follow.

One of the most striking similarities between my stay here and Alice’s adventure is my inability to understand the logic of the inhabitants of this land—namely, professors. Each teacher seems to have their own perception of reality, time, and importance. Typically, they believe all three are at their infinite disposal. Even when I feel that I have got the hang of things, I find myself facing dead ends and dead stares. My Design I professors have constantly stressed the ability to look at things holistically and without subjectivity, and at one point I was certain that I had accomplished this. The result was not unlike Alice’s attempt to reason with the Queens’ perception of “subtraction”; “ ‘Then you think nothing would remain?’ said the Red Queen. ‘I think that’s the answer.’ ‘Wrong, as usual,’ said the Red Queen” (Alice 254). Only this time it is my temper that remains, not the dog’s.

JUST WHEN YOU THINK YOU UNDERSTAND THE PROBLEM, YOU FIND THERE ISN'T AN ANSWER

At other times it seems that I’m working my fingers to the bone to stay in a caucus race. There is one such teacher that coins himself as the leader, and it isn’t without a degree of accuracy. Why just the other day (or is my memory working backwards? It really would be more pleasant that way) we were told to prepare for a test with minute intervals per question, and minute details for answers! The challenge was (or is?) so maddening that I found myself reading in circles. Hopefully by the time the test comes, I’ll “[have] done all the screaming already,” although I fear that I’ll “have it all over again” when the grade is returned (Alice 198).

THE BROOCH IS THE TEST, AND MY FINGER IS...WELL, MY FINGER! SO...

WHY ARE WE DOING THIS AGAIN?

And how can I ignore the almost unnerving blur between the fact and assumption that puzzles me each day in biology? When I raise my hand to ask a question, I feel like I’m crawling down a chimney towards an enormous shoe. “There goes Bill!” I can almost hear the class say as the teacher scolds me for not paying attention (Alice 43). I only wish that I could nibble on my left handed mushroom to escape the glares of my peers (Alice 52). Still, even if my question is relevant and shared by the minds of my fellow students, the result, though less embarrassing, is more confusing. The answers to my inquiries rival those of the mad hatter in their ambiguity. I swear that I’ve even heard the following answer, adapted from the annotations of Alice: “Because there’s a b in both, and because there’s an n in neither” (Alice 72). My follow up question, of course, was “Does that mean there’s an e in each?” (Alice 72). The teacher wasn’t sure.

THERE GOES RUSS!

So as the days wind on I find myself changing sizes to fit the needs and standards of these strange rulers of an imaginary land, and I feel as genuine as a calf in a shell. Hopefully I’ll not consider my verdict of this detached reality before the evidence is evidenced. Still, I feel that the closest I’ve come to success thus far is the remembering of my name. One day I’ll wake up from this dreamy state and long to return to wonderland (just as Alice’s sister does), but this doesn’t help my current dilemma. Right now my goal is to simply survive the first years; the rest, I’m told, is sure to follow. It truly is a wonderful experience, and it is a shame that it is as temporary as Lewis Carroll’s love for little girls. Hopefully I won't hear the bitter voice of the queen as I walk the line five years from now: “—and just take his head off outside” (Alice 116). Wish me luck.

How to be Famous

There are several aspects of my personality that will have to change before I can be a leader in the dynamic field of architecture. It will not only require passion; to be a successful architect I will need to be technologically keen, efficient with my design, and be able to convince my clients to opt for sustainable architecture. In order to remain current with new technologies, I must be familiar with the economics of these products and involved with engineers that are capable of implementing them. To do this I will need to acquire communication and networking skills during my education at UT. If I want to produce efficient designs my studio will need good morale and tangible goals. To secure these aspects, I must have people management skills and the ability to execute rigorous organization and scheduling. In order to justify the initial extra costs that are associated with green architecture I will need to be convincing. Rhetoric is an essential tool that every architect must have, but I must also develop an architectural vocabulary. One of the most effective ways to do this is by critiquing architecture and knowing what makes form aesthetically pleasing. If I can master these three skills, I will have the tools to excel as a leader in the field. However, I need to remain true to my ideals during my practice. I must also work to obtain notable and influential contracts. Keeping these lofty goals in sight will help me push myself to my limits.

When an architect begins their design for a project, they have to keep two things in mind. The first, of course, is creating spaces that are appropriate and beautiful. This requires a trained mind and the ability to push one’s perception of a building. Truly beautiful architecture doesn’t merely satisfy requirements; it defines an area and produces spaces that lend themselves completely to their intended uses. The second aspect that the architect must adhere to is the budget set by the client. Exceptional architects can inspire the owner to increase the budget, but there is a certain point where sacrifices will be made. These sacrifices, if done properly, do not compromise the function of the building. Jester Dormitory, as any resident can tell, is a truly oppressing housing structure that resulted from a low budget. To avoid this pitfall, I will need to have a thorough knowledge of different materials, their qualities, and their cost. Even low cost materials, if they are intentionally used, can be beautiful in their own right.[1] The University of Texas Architecture Department has an excellent materials lab that serves this exact purpose. Although I have not needed to search for materials yet, there will be projects in my future design classes that will require thorough investigations in construction. It is crucial for me to explore sustainable and recyclable materials during these assignments. Otherwise, I will miss opportunities to see these products and their uses. By going through my education with the intent to stay environmentally conscious, I will be able to explore green architecture more extensively.


THIS INSULATION IS MADE FROM SOY AND IS BIODEGRADABLE.

In order to find engineers that can help me use cutting-edge technology, I will need to be able to network effectively. This requires the ability to relate with people and make personal connections quickly. At first I assumed that I would need excellent speaking skills in order to be successful at this. I quickly realized that this was the opposite of what I need to do; listening skills are what people remember. During our classes’ tour of the football stadium, Jimbo said that “Every once and a while you encounter someone that makes you feel like you’re the only person in a room.” Bill Clinton, the man Jimbo was describing, made a lasting impression because of his ability to truly listen. Interactions that induce these firm memories are made by using sympathetic imagination. By utilizing this style of empathetic listening one can create strong personal bonds. Covey observes that “When you listen with empathy to another person, you give that person psychological ‘air’ [that is necessary for survival]. After that vital need is met, you can then focus on influencing or problem solving.”[2] By using this powerful skill I will be able to connect with the people around me and work toward my goals.

THAT PERSON PROBABLY FEELS LIKE THE ONLY PERSON IN THE ROOM.

People management is closely related to networking, but it requires a much more personal and lasting relationship. The studio setting is one of collaboration and synergy; if the designers within the studio don’t enjoy being there or around their colleagues, projects will suffer. I have found that having fun is a great way to relate with people. I always try to keep a lighthearted atmosphere when working on projects because when I enjoy being somewhere, my ideas flow better. Also, a studio with open communication will be able to work together effectively. Covey states that synergistic communication means that “you are simply opening your mind and heart to new possibilities, new alternatives, [and] new options.”[3] This type of cooperation and idea-sharing is perfect for architecture. By creating a tightly woven community—especially one that is lighthearted and enjoyable—the efficiency of the workers will be increased.

FRANK GEHRY IS KNOWN FOR PUSHING HIS FELLOW DESIGNERS-SOMETIMES TOO HARD.

Time management is probably my weakest trait. My mind is typically only motivated when the consequences are dire. Unfortunately, procrastination can mean failure when it comes to designing projects. Even in the few architecture assignments I have had, there has been a reoccurring pattern: the more time I spend exploring different possibilities, the better the result is. Design projects, especially ones that require intimate detail, often only materialize after repeated experiments. Unless I start working on the projects prior to their deadline, the amount of exploration I can do is greatly reduced. In order to avoid this problem as a professional, I need to be able to set definite goals over manageable time periods. As a procrastination veteran I realize that great strides can be made during crunch time, but when it comes to winning or losing big contracts it is too risky to leave the design to chance. College is already teaching me that cramming is a high school phenomenon— hopefully it won’t be a problem for me by the time I graduate. It is my personal goal to be able to finish projects, papers, and studying with ample time before the deadlines.

I ONLY THINK ABOUT IT WHEN I DON'T HAVE IT.

The final step in producing architecture is perhaps the most important one. Unless the architect can convince the client that a building is worth building, their efforts are futile. This talent of “selling the building” is particularly challenging due to the fact that the building doesn’t exist. An architect needs to be able to transport the client into the building by describing the total sensual experience. Larry Speck, a respected Austin architect and professor, is a master of this technique. He has a powerful vocabulary that can make two-dimensional slides seem three-dimensional in the mind’s eye. He can also find beauty in every structure—a skill that is almost annoying. For example, in class he analyzed the form of Le Centre Pompidou. I am firmly opposed to the building and find it quite repulsive,

LE CENTRE POMPIDOU IS UGLY AND POINTLESS. YET I WANTED TO SEE IT.

but for a moment he made me appreciate it. He described the uninterrupted, sweeping spaces inside that were made possible by locating the utilities on the exterior of the building. I suddenly had a strong desire to see inside of the building, to experience those open spaces (though I was quickly disappointed by the photos of the interior.) Still, for a moment Speck was able to produce strong feelings of curiosity and wonder in me. His mastery of pathos is a skill that he can use to influence his clients, and has probably been a catalyst for his career. Even though green architecture is gaining popularity and merit, it will be hard to motivate customers to spend more money without strong arguments. Green architecture will not be influential until it exists; the ability to sell it is of upmost importance.

If I can truly master the abilities outlined by this paper, there is no doubt in my mind that I will be able to succeed in architecture. Whether or not I will be influential in the field is a completely different matter. There are countless talented architects around the world that produce beautiful works, and usually they receive recognition among fellow architects. These architects are well respected, and I will be thrilled if I can achieve their success. However, their work does not make the strong statement that is necessary to raise awareness about sustainable architecture. If I want to make people around the world think about green architecture, to truly explore its benefits and motivations, I will need to achieve a superstar status. Stardom is a goal that is stumbled upon more often than it is worked for, so I understand the loftiness of my proposition. Even a successful career could pass completely under the radar. Still, there are some fundamental ideals that I believe can lead to that degree of popularity. The first is to challenge what is accepted. I will need to lose my inhibitions when it comes to the accepted qualities of a building and release my creativity. The fear of failure is crippling, and will be difficult to overcome. When I lose this fear my architecture will reach its full potential. The second ideal is to stay true to my beliefs. If I do not firmly support the architecture that appears with my name on it, then my intended message will be weakened. Herzog and De Mueron, a partnership of architects that is revered world-wide, displayed this fortitude during the designing of the Blanton Art Museum here in Austin. The architects refused to compromise their submittal to the degree asked by the board of regents, and as a result they were fired. One year later, they utilized their ideas from the Blanton project on the De Young museum, and gained instant stardom for the building.[4]



TEXAS SACRIFICED GREAT ARCHITECTURE FOR UNITY--OF ROOFS.


Although it is obvious that my architecture courses are helping me towards my overall goal, it is harder to find direct benefits from my Plan II courses. Still, the classes I am taking in liberal arts are very important to me. My vision of my university experience includes becoming a well rounded person, both academically and emotionally. The required classes for my degree will expose me to the world and help me realize the context of my life. Also, having a wide base of knowledge will enable me to relate with a larger variety of people during my career. I don’t see these classes as a burden, but as a chance to help me focus on what is really important to me. I will cherish the educational opportunities made possible by my Plan II major.

I am nowhere near to being an influential architect; I’m not even sure what it means to design a building. As I go through school my understanding about sustainable architecture will deepen, and I will be able to see new patterns and steps that are necessary to achieve my goal. The other abilities outlined in this paper will not only help with architecture, but with any profession I decide to pursue. Effective networking, time management, organizational and people skills are important tools for any walk of life. When I do learn them, they will become invaluable tools for achieving my influential position in the green architecture world. I stand on the edge of a vast sea of knowledge; all I can do now is swim.

[1] In the Russell A. Steindam Hall at UT, I noticed that the linoleum in certain classrooms is arranged in a unique diamond pattern. The tiles are also about three 3’ by 3’, a much larger size than usual. The result is a floor that appears intentional instead of economic.
[2] Covey. 240
[3] Covey 264
[4] The designers refused to add a “red-tile roof” to their project, the only problem the board of regents needed changed. The tile roof would have been a compromise to their design, and they were adamant about staying true to their concept of a beautiful museum.

Role Heroes

HANG IN THERE GUYS, THERE WILL BE

A LOT MORE HERO ESSAYS.

Ever since I have been a part of formal education, there has been an essay prompt more common than the common cold. Either it’s a hot topic among teachers and admissions counselors around the country, or no one is creative enough to think a new prompt, but every seems to want to know who my hero is. This is the slightest bit annoying, considering the fact that I don’t think I have a stereotypical hero. The person I look up to the most never risked his life, ran into flaming buildings, or defeated an evil empire. My grandfather simply was an amazing man, and I have yet to find someone who was surrounded by as much love as he was. He was generous, compassionate, and had a wonderful sense of humor. But does this make him a hero?

APPARENTLY, THIS GUY IS A HERO

Dictionary.com defines a hero as someone who is brave, courageous, or noble, or someone who has committed an act of heroism. I never witnessed my grandfather rescue someone from a robbery, save a dying man, or commit a so-called act of ‘heroism.’ The biggest risk I saw him take was regularly giving to the poor, although he was still able to lead a comfortable life. I guess this makes him ‘noble’, but this can’t be the only criteria for a hero. Otherwise hero and noble would have identical definitions, which just isn’t right. Now you can see the dilemma I face each time the state wanted to test my writing aptitude; is my grandpa a hero?

The writing standards in New Mexico are fairly low (among the lowest in the country), so I wasn’t too worried about my scores as a bs’d my way through the essay. I would simply write about my role model instead of my hero, and would sometimes substitute the words without care. Still, it bothered me that all the children around me seemed to be furiously writing about their heroes. Is a baseball player a hero? Is a draft dodger a hero? Around the fifth time writing the essay, I realized that the problem wasn’t with the prompt, it was with the word.
Hero. Someone who commits heroic acts. That definition would confuse any poor third grader trying to write their hero essay.

'SO A HERO ACTS LIKE A HERO?'

In my opinion, prompt writers have mistakenly switched the definition of a hero with the definition of a role model. That, or I have lead a very unique life. I know very few people that are heroes by the normal definition, unless we count people that have gained national recognition. Louis Pasteur, for example, was a pioneer in the development of vaccines. But if I wrote a college application essay about how proud I am of Louis, admissions counselors would learn very little about my personality. However, if I described the values and qualities of my role model, my grandfather, I feel like they would gain a deeper insight as to ‘who I am.’ So why do they keep asking the same question?

THIS GUY DEVOTED HIS LIFE TO FIGHTING DISEASE.

HE'S ONE OF MY HEROES, BUT REPRESENTS NOTHING ABOUT ME.


Even the heroes described by Margaret Cousins were not necessarily heroes. She seemed to respect them deeply as shown by her detailed descriptions. “Dr. James B. Wharey who taught ‘The English Novel,’…seemed to me [to] know everything.” (X 945). However, to me this does not qualify as a selfless act, bravery, or that nebulous definition of a ‘heroic act.’ Even the heroes at UT, although there are some definite heroes, seem to be mostly composed of people that had to face adversity. Their success was the result of their work, and the driven by a completely selfish view. McCombs became rich as hell then gave money away, Bean flew to the moon, Crier became a journalist. When asked if she keeps up with college friend, Crier’s response was “Sure, they’re scattered all over the country. I think Texas did a pretty good job of preparing us to meet the world” (985). She went from judge to journalist and she keeps up with her friends?!

HOW TO BE AN INSTANT HERO.

Although I am exaggerating the facts, there is a bit of truth behind it all. Hero is a distinction that means (at least to me) someone has made huge personal self sacrifices for others. Prompt writers and students around the nation would do well to separated ‘hero’ and ‘role model’. They are far from being the same thing.

If the World's at Large, Why Should I Remain?

When I was younger, I had a very unique take on the idea of working "with" people. It was essentially a battle of wits, but I was the only one fighting. My goal was to use as many of my ideas for my school projects as possible. I was sure remain polite and open to ideas, but I only left aspects that I didn't particularly care about to be decided by my peers. Otherwise, it was my way or the highway. I cringe when I think about it today.

I WAS A SELF PROCLAIMED LEADER

Simply put I was an extremely competetive youngster. Everything was a test, and unless I got first I failed. I remember my heart rate accelerating before games of monopoly or scrabble. What if I didn't win? I would calm myself down by thinking of strategies and mistakes that I had made in the past. When I neared my last dollars, I would frequently stand, point fingers, demand rerolls, and even shout. It was really quite rediculous, and I was somewhat aware of that at the time. It didn't really matter.

THIS WAS MY BATTLEGROUND

One day, however, everything changed. It was when I was in middle school, and we were split into groups for a debate. I happened to be assigned to a group with an equally "driven" person. From the moment we sat down she was dictating everything that we would be doing. She claimed the best roles for herself and threw the rest to us like half eaten scraps. I was appalled. WHO did she think she was? She hurt my feelings, ruined the project, and --this is the worst part-- did everything that I would have done. Normally I would have seen this as a minor setback, a mere bump in the road. Not this time. Maybe it was because it was nearing summer, or maybe it was because of my eighth grade wisdom, but for some reason this time I sat back and reflected on how much of an ass I had been making of myself for the past 6 years. It was unnerving. I was really "that guy".

I WAS THE ONE ON THE LEFT

I slowly developed a perspective that was much grander than before. Monopoly games were a completely different experience for me: if I didn't win, I didn't care. It was fun to scrap for the right properties, but when the time came for me to sell my last morgage I was still having fun. School projects were also more enjoyable and much easier. I talked with my fellow classmates and asked them what jobs they wanted to do. Sometimes their choices would clash with my wants and sometimes they wouldn't, but I usually didn't mind if they ended up with my first choice. I realized that no matter what job I was assigned I would be able to do it, and in the long run I wouldn't really care about it. The result was the the important part; in this case it was the grade. After several projects a pattern developed- my groups almost always got A's. I realized that when everyone was doing what they wanted, they end result was more compelling. As Covey states in his book, "The essence of synergy is to value differences--to respect them, build on strengths, to compensate for weaknesses."[1] People used their strenghths to add to a successful project. And I got a lot more sleep.

A GRIM OUTLOOK ON TEAMWORK

This new approach to groupwork eventually spread to my other interactions with people. I realized that never had strong enough feelings about having a particular role to compromise my friendship with my peers. I developed the sympathetic imagination, and was able to truly relate with people. I no longer related with people by tolerating them, I related by understanding them. "As we have no immediate experience of what other men feel, we can form no idea of the manner in which they are affected, but by conceiving what we ourselves should feel in the like situation."[2] This technique, as described by Adam Smith, enabled me to see beyond my immediate wants and visualize my real goals. I began to cherish my friendships and family, and realized that these relationships were the things that I cared about. Goethe sums it up beatifully in this one-liner: "Things which matter most must never be at the mercy of things which matter least."[3] Don't get me wrong, I still fought with my brothers, pissed off my friends, and got over eager during video games and bad referees. It was the frequency of these explosions that diminished, and the time it took for me to realize my errors was much quicker.






Essentially, my childhood was misguided by my inability to trust others. My rationalizations were based off of my previous successes- "How can these other students do as good as me? I ALWAYS get A's." Once I learned how to trust my peers, I tapped into a resource that Covey values greatly. "Trust is the highest form of human motivation. It brings out the very best in people."[4] Today, I have no issues trusting peers during projects or group efforts. It has made my life easier, my relationships stronger, and has done anything but compromised my success. Afterall, everyone is invested in a group effort, and it is fairly rare to meet someone who doesn't care if they fail. Hopefully I can continue with this confidence in others as I go through college. Architects are forced to cooperate, and I can't wait for the process. With my current mindset the process should be fun and successful.

[1]: Stephen R. Covey, The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People (New York: Free Press, 2004), p.263

[2]: Walter Jackson Bate, “The Sympathetic Imagination in Eighteenth-Century English Criticism” ELH, Vol. 12, No. 2 (Jun., 1945), pp. 144-164.

[3]: Covey, 146

[4]: Covey, 178

One Wall at a Time

Musical Expression

As I delved into my thoughts to find out what my true passions were, I only found vague shadows of feelings that I couldn’t define. I love to compose music, I enjoy writing poetry, and art is an expression that I am so fond of that I am in the process of making it my career. The closest thing to a passion that I could define was the fact that I love to create; more than anything, the emotional release of artistic expression is something that I know I cannot live without. However, when I tried to find how these passions connected me to the world around me, the result was often contrived. Finally, I decided to take a simpler approach. I asked myself, “When was the last time that I was excited?” “Excited” at first seemed to be an overly simplistic criteria, but I arrived to an end much quicker than I thought I would.

I remembered my senior road trip and college acceptance letters, graduation and my first date, and a plethora of other random events that made high school bearable. Then, after a while of soothing nostalgia, I remembered an event that had a very significant impact on me. This “event” was a lecture by Antoine Predock, an architect from New Mexico. He was being awarded the American Institute of Architects (AIA) Gold Medal Award, and was giving a presentation after the ceremony. During the presentation he talked about current projects, how he became interested in architecture, and various other background information. Finally, he started his slide show and went into detail about various projects. He talked about the collaboration with his fellow architects, satisfying the parameters set up by the client, and figuring out how to make an artistic statement throughout the entire process. The result, as portrayed by the slides, had a compelling effect on me. For the first time, I was moved by the structure of buildings. The spaces within, the materials, the orientation; everything had a purpose and specific intent. Buildings were actually exciting.

Austin City Hall by Antoine Predock

Although I was positive that this was going to be the topic of my paper, I continued to browse the cranial archives. This time I made my focus a little more academic, and thought of papers, research, and teachers that had made a lasting impression on me. After a bit, I recalled a particular subject that I always found myself arguing about during high school: global warming. As of today, my opinion is that global warming is a pressing issue with a complex solution. But this was not always the case; for the majority of my life I was convinced that the shrieking environmentalists talking of imminent death were out of line and completely irrational. During my sophomore year, I saw “An Inconvenient Truth” for the first time. I was blown away, and was ashamed of my wasteful ways. At the dinner table, I brought up various facts and tidbits that I had seen in the film, but was surprised by my Dad’s reactions. For every depressing fact I had, he seemed to have a retort that was supported by scientific fact. Frustrated and confused, I decided to do some research on my own. I found out some very surprising things. Scientists were in the process of suing Al Gore, and were lead by John Coleman, the founder of the weather channel. I soon learned the topic was not as black and white as Al Gore had made it seem, and that climate trends have been far more volatile in the past than they are now. So who was right?

The global warming issue was then and is still an issue that I have mixed feelings about. However, it made me aware of a mindset that I believe makes sense. I concluded that global warming trends, if natural, would be nearly impossible to stop through by our doing. However, if the weather changes were the result of our CO2 emissions, then it would indeed be possible for us to correct them. Here is the part that determined my stance: we have no way of knowing what is causing the global warming, we only know the suspects. I decided that it is our duty as a society to make the effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. If it turns out that we were wrong about their significance, then the only result would be an atmosphere with less CO2. On the other hand, if the alarmists were correct in their predictions, then we will have preserved our fragile ecosystem from further damage.

You may have seen this coming, but it turns out that my seemingly unrelated “passions” actually fit together quite well, and are even the basis of a building craze today. Green architecture is becoming a more dominant force today than it ever has been before. For the first time, “skins” are surrounding buildings in order to reflect light and contain heat, walls are getting thicker and contain more insulation, grass roofs or “green” roofs are becoming mandatory in cities such as Chicago…the list goes on and on. Universities are offering classes on green building, and students are eager to sign up for them. And, perhaps this is the most important part, consumers are more willing to pay for them. The reason isn’t as noble as it sounds. Green buildings, by nature, maximize efficiency and cut down on heating and cooling costs. They also have a smaller impact on the environment around them. These buildings cost significantly less money and resources to operate, and for this reason are attractive to consumers living in a world where energy prices are constantly rising. So why aren’t there more green buildings? Why do the majority of people see them as an extra cost instead of an investment? Why aren’t more cities willing to see them as a benefit and not a political liability?

In Paul Roberts’ book, the End of Oil, he brings up an interesting phenomenon. American consumers, when purchasing a car, don’t see the fuel efficiency as a significant cost. If someone drives their SUV 15,000 miles a year, then the costs for fuel can be well over $3,000 per year. Depending on how long we own the car, the cost of fuel can equal more than half of the total initial cost of the vehicle. So why isn’t this one of the most important factors of buying a car?

$$$

The same ideology occurs when people build houses or offices; the upfront costs are more important than the maintenance costs. With a minimal amount of public education, green buildings won’t be seen as a “yuppie” fad but as a worthwhile investment. Even with this new motivation for purchasing green buildings, the original intent will be preserved. Maintenance costs, typically water, heating, and cooling, typically translate directly into electricity costs. Electricity is one of the biggest carbon producers due to its origins: coal fired and gas fired plants. So, if consumers start making efforts to save money by cutting costs, they are indirectly—but very effectively—reducing carbon emissions. Roberts’ illustrates this point again when he states that one of the more effective ways to reduce carbon emissions is through efficiency. He maintains that if the U.S. would have kept its strict fuel efficiency standards that were made during the Gulf War, oil prices wouldn’t be nearly as volatile or have as big as an impact on our economy as they do now. Again, there is a parallel to green architecture. If we make the efforts during a building’s design and construction to save costs, then energy demands will go down or at least remain stable as the years go on. The effort just needs to be made.

As a young adult and future architect, the field of environmentally conscious architecture is exciting. It provides an interesting and engaging challenge for me as a designer, and unifies beauty with efficiency. It also inspires innovation; green buildings aren’t just about florescent bulbs and double paned windows. The “De Young Museum”, designed by the renowned architects Herzog and Meyer, is covered with a perforated copper skin that reflects light in order to help keep the interior cooler. The School of Art, Design & Media at Nanyang Technological University in Singapore has a sloping, all grass roof that has insulating qualities as well as a beautiful look. For me, this is more than a fad or a romantic ideal; green building is a necessity and the smartest move that both designers and buyers can make. I still have much to learn about techniques, technologies, and the environment in general, but it is a driving force behind my perception of architecture. In fact it is almost a driving force behind my survival—not really. But it might help keep the summers a bit more bearable.

School of Art, Design, and Media De Young Museum

Hammering thoughts works if they are sharp and pointed, but not if they are illuminating.

Unity. University. That was easy.

So, a common theme that I seemed to pick up on while reading the previous blogs was rationalization. People were trying to rationalize their reasons for going to college. And quite frankly, some of the motives were depressing. How do I know? Because I'm here for the same damn reasons. Money, Job Security, "Intellectual Growth," Learning; it all seems so right. And its especially funny for me because this is the first time I've been able to see these ideals driving other people (I can just see Buddha sitting at his computer, thinking, "you poor lost little souls"). I probably sound pretty pompous...I'll explain.

Silly Children.

Since about, oh lets say fifth grade, I knew where I was going. The plan was simple: get straight A's, and womp the competition. This ideal changed somewhat during high school when I lost all competitive desire, and needed only personal success. In fact, I wished everyone around me success; if everyone in the school got straight A's, I would have been thrilled (there were 7 valedictorians in my class, and I was happy to share the rank.) The point is, I still thought that everything would be gravy if I stayed on track academically. I never stepped back to ask myself why.

Then, one miraculous day, I asked that question I seemed to be so afraid of: "Why?" In fact, it was about the time that I was going to choose which college I was going to attend. For the first time, I was doing some serious thinking about what I wanted to get out of my education. Surprisingly, it had nothing to do with what society had impressed upon me since I was a wee child. It doesn't even have that much to do with what I'm doing right now. Which is depressing. I had fallen into a trap that Newman describes perfectly: "Men whose minds are possessed with some one object, take exaggerated views of its importance, are feverish in the pursuit of it, and make it the measure of things that are utterly foreign to it (311)." I realized that I have been motivated by money and success for the bulk of my education. My motivations for doing well in school were always to "get into a good school." Why did I want to get into a good school? To get a good job. Why did I want a good job? Ask Pink Floyd. The soft focus is way too dramatic.

So why didn't my heart skip a beat when I got accepted into Cornell? Why didn't USC sound exciting? What was wrong with me? For fortnights I was in a funk, and my thoughts were all glazed over by a feeling of pointlessness. THIS was what I had worked for all of these years. THIS was it. What is wrong with me? Here I stand, in the University of Texas at Austin, where they "as an institution focus on the greatest of all resources--the human intellect" (307). Isn't that what I want? Here I stand, with one foot in Plan II and the other in Architecture and my youthful beauty radiating out of every orifice (thanks partly to JCL). Why am I not excited?

These seem like rhetorical questions. They aren't.

So after thinking about it, I've realized that I lack unity, no matter how cheesy it sounds. I lack unity between my desires and my actions. I lack unity between wants and my needs. I lack unity between my measure of success and society's measure of success. I lack unity between my dreams and my abilities. Newman tells me that "Knowledge, which is desirable, though nothing come of it, as being itself a treasure, and sufficient remuneration of years of labour" (310). Newman tells me that "knowledge is not merely a means to something beyond it, or the preliminary of certain arts into which it naturally resolves, but an end sufficient to rest in and to pursue for its own sake" (306). Mmmm, I feel all warm and fuzzy inside. Until I realize that these ideals are far from being realized in our society (no unity, get it?). I'm not saying that it's hard to get a job with a liberal arts degree; in fact, I think that the degree can be very competitive for grad school or even a job. Still, we are not learning for the purpose of learning...it's not its own end. The job is. So what am I supposed to do?
Apparently this is a "sleekstalk" from the "Land of the Lost." Relevant?

I don't really want to become an "intellectual", nor do I like arranging little black squares in order to convey primary and secondary spaces. I just enjoy creating, whether its words, poems, music, drawings, or buildings (someday). When I feel like I'm learning stuff that will help me with this, I am excited to learn. I just want to create. Is this my motivation for education?

Ever since that day when I asked myself "why?", life has been fuzzy. Almost nothing can phase me, and very little can excite me. I realized that I have no idea why I've been doing anything. It is with this broken motivation that I enter UT Austin, and is the tone of the first chapter of college. Don't get me wrong, I'm a very happy person and I've been having a blast on my own. There are motivated, friendly, funny, and smart people surrounding me, and I can think of no other place I'd rather be. I just lack a unified vision for my being here. Maybe that is the purpose of a university: to unify me. To unify us.