Vol. XXI, 2
Bite The Sleeping Horse
ART
Publication Team Anthony Halstead Editor-in-Chief •
James Monsour Copy Editor •
Elizabeth Hoyle Layout Editor •
Courtney Shingle Executive Assitant •
Alesia Scoccia Cover Artist
Featuring Madi Jennings Cover Model
Table of Contents
Letter from the Editor -4Lessons in Love & Chivalry from the World of Ballet -5Shooting as an art? -8Putting the “sacred” in sacred music: understanding Gregorian Chant - 11 Can you believe she’s wearing that? - 14 To Live as an Art Form - 16 -
The Gadfly is a student run publication and a platform for free speech. The views expressed here are those of the individual authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Franiscan University of Steubenville.
“The artist is a receptacle for emotions that come from all over the place: from the sky, from the earth, from a scrap of paper, from a passing shape, from a spider’s web.” -Pablo Picasso
April/May letter from the editor. Art is one of those topics whose controversial nature we often take for granted. However, we are reawakened to the controversial nature of art whenever we are reminded of modern art and the many criticisms levied against it. From the often bizarre paintings of Salvador Dali to cookie crumbs arranged in a certain fashion that were mistaken by a janitor for being garbage, modern art has been deemed repulsive and meaningless. This then alludes to the fact that art is often the medium of controversiality. Hence there exists things like the bronze sculpture of two sisters with two children which is a depiction of a “real family” in Birmingham, England. But art is more than sculptures and paintings, and it is more than its often controversial character. Art is a medium of expression, and broadly considered, it encompasses much more than we may initially think. In this edition of the Gadfly, our writers have discussed different forms of art, from clothing to Gregorian chant, and what each form of art says about art in general. “Art imitates nature,” declared Aristotle, and the following articles, his thesis will be tested. Anthony Halstead, Editor-in-Chief
4
Lessons in Love & Chivalry from the World of Ballet Jean-Marie Bralley A Hopi Indian saying goes, “To watch us dance is to hear our hearts speak.” Dance is expressive of one’s innermost feelings. It is a vehicle by which those emotions can be conveyed powerfully to an audience and can make the spectators feel what the dancer is feeling. Dance can tell a story without words, and it has the capability to transport those watching into a different time and place. Dancing has been an integral part of human history down through the ages. Nearly every culture has its own traditional folk dances which are unique to it. In the formal dance world of today, there are numerous genres of dance: classic disciplines like ballet, jazz, tap, and ballroom as well as contemporary genres like hip-hop and break dancing. The different kinds seem to be continually multiplying. There are several television shows that, happily, bring dance into people’s living room. Though, unfortunately, the emphasis of these shows can sometimes seem to be more about overt (and objectifying) sexuality than about the art form of dance and the portrayal of inspiring and beautiful relationships between a male and a female dancer. However, this is not the only way in which the world of dance presents relationships, and one only has to travel to the theatre or search for a video on Youtube to watch a very different portrayal of relationships in the world of classical ballet. People may not initially think to look to ballet for an example of a positive, romantic man-woman relationship. Yet it is there, engrained in the very function and atmosphere of the movements. George Balanchine, the world-renowned choreographer and founder of New York City Ballet, once said, “The ballet is a purely female thing; it is woman, a garden of beautiful flowers, and man is the gardener.” At first glance, one might be taken aback by this bold, perhaps stereotypical statement; nevertheless, it warrants consideration. Most of society certainly associates ballet with girls and women even though there have been repeated examples of male professional athletes who extol the benefits of taking
ballet. The athletic prowess of male dancers could match almost any athlete; moreover, dancers must be graceful and artistic at the same time as they exude power and strength. There’s even a humorous saying about male dancers: “Real men don’t lift weights, they lift women.” However, I think Balanchine is grasping at something deeper than the mere physical aspects of ballet, though they could be considered the manifestation of that deeper concept. He is arguably touching on the relationship between man and woman as depicted in the world of ballet. That relationship is one of complementarity and chivalry, two words that are often excluded from the contemporary milieu regarding relationships. This notion of complementarity and romantic chivalry is manifested through the steps of ballet and through the interaction between the man and woman, especially in what is known as the grand pas de deux. The grand pas de deux can be found in full-length ballets, such as the pas de deux of the Sugar Plum Fairy and her Cavalier in The Nutcracker. The grand pas is danced between the two leads in a ballet, and it includes five parts: an entrance, an adage (slow) section, male and female solos, and a concluding up-tempo coda. Overall, the dance highlights the dancers’ strengths both together and individually. In the sections of the grand pas in which they dance together, the couple must possess unfailing trust in one another, not only emotionally but also physically as one’s bodily well-being partially rests with the other person. The ballerina must trust her partner to catch her, to physically hold her and to lift her, and to support her in her movements. In doing this, she exhibits vulnerability and self-gift, and through this, a certain strength and courage. On the other hand, the man must trust himself to care for and to uphold her, and he must trust her to do everything in her power to help him to support her. This help can be simply how she holds her body in a supported pirouette (turn) or by making eye contact with him before a lift. Just as communication is
The Gadfly
5 5
essential in off-stage relationships, one could say that the aforementioned examples are a form of unspoken on-stage communication which is necessary to make the grand pas de deux the best that it can be. Also as in real life, a major part of this ballet relationship is timing. Timing is everything in balletic partner dancing. In rehearsals, the duo should strive to come to know one another on a personal level. In order for the grand pas to be successful, the couple must learn each other’s quirks, weaknesses, and strengths. Only then can the dance be seamless and united. Naturally, this trust and coordination can only develop over time—which requires patience, another essential ingredient to both on and off-stage relationships. The two dancers painstakingly rehearse for countless hours, sometimes practicing the same step over and over. Through the good days and the bad, they must work together through frustrations, challenges, and even injuries in order to achieve their common goal of a mesmerizing and seemingly effortless final product for the stage. They both have a vested interest in the dance, and they must be willing to do what it takes to make it work. The male and female solos are the opportunity for the individual dancer to display his or her dancing abilities. A female solo can be elegant, graceful and even a little bit sassy. The ballerina may show off her turning and balancing abilities or other steps that exemplify strength. The man’s solo is typically filled with bravado and impressive turns and jumps. These solos are short but impactful. Despite the fact that they are complete and lovely in and of themselves, when the two dancers come together again, it elevates the dancing to a new level. Together they are able to do things they could not do by themselves, and with their combined energy and teamwork, they create a thing of beauty. The overall feeling of the grand pas de deux is one of chivalry, respect, and romance. The man’s character is inspired by the woman’s character, her beauty, and her love. The female dancer is supported, protected, and presented to the audience by her partner as the one to be watched and admired. His energy and strength are complemented by her quieter, gentler power. They are not in competition with one another but rather work together to be the best versions of themselves on stage.
This mutual giving and respect between the couple extends even to the final bow at the end of the performance. The couple returns to the stage together, but the man usually takes a few steps back for his bow so that, once again, the ballerina is the main focus. Furthermore, it is a tradition for the lead ballerina to receive a bouquet of flowers and often, she will pluck a flower from her bouquet and give it to her partner in a gracious gesture of sharing and affection. From start to finish, the grand pas de deux and the world of classical ballet promotes a version of male-female relationships that may be idyllic but is also inspiring and beautiful. Though real life is not like fairy tales and ballets, the values these stories and traditions embody are certainly worthy ones, and they deserve a deeper consideration and perhaps emulation in the real world relationships that are lived each and every day.
“Together they are able to do things they could not by themselves and with their combined energy and teamwork, they create a thing of beauty....They... work together to be the best versions of themselves on stage.”
The Gadfly
6 6
“Art doesn’t offer definitive answers. It offers possibilities, more questions and-at its best- a different lens through which to view the world.” -Rachel Hartman
Shooting as an art? John Boyle Since the invention of the bow and arrow, man has sought to hit the bull’s eye. Primitive man with the use of crude spears relied on their instinctive skills in order to survive. It is only until relatively recent times that man has achieved a new benchmark: the firearm. There are many different shooters in many different situations. Whether it be an Army Ranger, sniping an enemy hundreds of yards away, or a father and son at the range, each shooter is a unique individual, all holding to similar ideals. Humanity has always strived for a higher form. It’s an engrained instinct. A student wants better grades; a theologian wants to understand and learn continually about their beliefs; a race car driver wants to finish first. Like everyone else who sets goals in their lives, shooters strive for their own goal. A shooter wants that bull’s eye. A hunter wants the perfect shot, taking down their challenging prey. A sniper wants a clean kill. A competition shooter wants first place. Shooting is a way of achieving the personal goal they have set before themselves. God is perfect. The soul and the body are one, but yet separated by their nature. The part most like the Divine Creator, the soul, has an engrained desire to become closer to Him. In mastering our skills and ourselves as human beings, we draw closer to God. Through many different avenues, people find ways of bettering themselves, of achieving a more perfect being. Now saying that shooting leads us closer to God is quite a stretch. But in reality it’s not too far off. Being at the range, blowing off some rounds, and sometimes some steam, doesn’t directly give us a better understanding of God, but by shooting, we come to know ourselves a bit better. I learn things about myself in the patient routine of trial and error; I fail at a shot by a hasty trigger pull, and I learn what not to do next time.
Why do I shoot? For me personally, I’m not hunter and for sure not a military sniper. Neither am I a professional competition shooter (although that would be awesome). I shoot for fun. I shoot paper, I shoot cans, but best of all, I shoot giant watermelons just for the reliable satisfaction of exploding watermelons. I shoot with my friends to share what I have found to be entertaining. Shooting for me personally has multiple effects. These effects and experiences are what I’ll be addressing first here and now on this piece of paper that lies in your hands, so I think the best place to start is with my childhood. My love of guns started with playing Cowboys and Indians with my cousins, and with a strong fascination with action films. From there on, each slow step led to the ultimate goal of owning my own real guns. The honor behind having a gun in your hands, the responsibility, and the feeling it gives of being older is a wonderful combination. When I got to shoot my first gun, it was one of the most exciting experiences of my young life. I’ll try to explain why. When someone invests their hard-earned money or precious time into something by their own choice, they expect to get something out of it. Shooters all around will unanimously agree: we shoot because we want to; we shoot because it’s very rewarding. Walking down the range after a “cold range” is called, and seeing the target with your bullets on the bull’s eye – it’s very satisfying. There is great pride in accomplishing a difficult task and shooters are proud individuals. People cope with their stressful day-to-day lives in a number of different ways. Some people resort to TV and similar entertainment outlets, some go fishing, some go for a smoke, and then there are some who go to the range. The loud report of a firearm can be quite stressful to someone who is either unaccus-
The Gadfly
8 8
tomed to guns, or who doesn’t cope well with loud noises in general. But to those who find satisfaction in the small explosion occurring inside of the barrel, and the hole it makes on paper, those, my friend, are the people who find a great release. The proper use of a firearm, like anything, takes a particular skill set that must be acquired and nurtured. Going out and shooting as well as talking to other shooters is how these skills are acquired. There is more to a well-placed shot than just the pull of a trigger. In order to make a bullet fly in its desired direction, the mindset of the shooter must be calm, almost meditative. A smooth trigger pull, controlled breathing, and a calm mind are paths to a good shot. In addition to knowing how to shoot, there is a certain level of care that must be put into cleaning and maintenance. Every firearm owner should have a safety first mentality. Safety is generally pretty logical: like don’t point a gun at someone as a joke, or look down the barrel even you’re sure it’s unloaded. If you don’t have this mentality, you shouldn’t have a gun in your hands. Shooting is a very pleasurable and rewarding sport, and every shooter will agree with me when I say there is a high level of enjoyment that comes with going to the range. The social interaction and memories formed between comrades is priceless. Combine that with the fun of aforementioned exploding watermelons: the formula is perfect. I haven’t ever gone to the range alone and I probably won’t do so in the future. I’m not that guy who owns a couple of $2000 custom 1911’s, a $10,000 Barrett .50BMG, or whatever the cool kids have these days. I don’t own any expensive flashy guns that I modify and fine-tune 3 or 4 times a month. I have a .22 WMR (Winchester Magnum Rimfire) and an old Mosin Nagant which was manufactured in 1943 - both of which I didn’t spend more than $250 on (accessories not included). I purchased them for two purposes only: the first, being that I just wanted to own a gun because they are cool, and secondly to be able to go shoot it with my friends, particularly my father. The memories and stories to recall are truly
some of my most memorable times. So how is shooting an art form? Well first we must ask “What is art?” Art is defined as the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture. It’s producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power. We will start answering this question by looking at the gun itself. Someone had a creative idea, spent hours putting it onto a blueprint and eventually, through much trial and error, manufactured a piece of art. If designers put no heart, no soul, or no love into their designs, then we would have a bunch of ugly lumps of metal that eject other lumps of metal at high velocities. The art of it all makes shooting desirable. Every design, whether it’s simple and ugly like a Glock (I will get flak for this, so I’ll state that it’s my personal opinion) or as beautiful as a $3000 1911 with Damascus steel, swirling with a mind of its own, each has its own level of love, art, and passion put into it. The design of a gun is art in and of itself. When this firearm comes into the possession of a person such as myself, it is my duty to honor the piece of art. It’s my responsibility to create art of my own.
“Being at the range, blowing off some rounds, and sometimes some steam, doesn’t directly give us a better understanding of God, but by shooting, we come to know ourselves a bit better.”
The Gadfly
9 9
“In a decaying society, art, if it is truthful, must also reflect decay. And unless it wants to break faith with its social function, art must show the world is changeable. And help to change it.� -Ernst Fischer
Putting the “sacred” in sacred music: understanding Gregorian Chant Mary Bonadies
The Catholic Church has always been an institution of culture. From early medieval times all the way to the Enlightenment, the Catholic Church was where a person of any status or class could go to experience beauty of all kinds. During these time periods, sacred art was the most widely used genre for painters, sculptors, poets, and musicians. People looked to the Church to learn about and see these beautiful arts. Liturgical music grew and changed along with the other arts, beginning especially with the split of the Roman Empire. The title of pope was given to the leader of the Western church, and under him developed the schola cantorum, or school of singers. As the liturgy developed, texts were put into an order that was used throughout the year. When Charlemagne became emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, he played a big role in spreading the use of chant and the developing chant melodies throughout his domain. Much of this early chant, though no musical notation was used, is attributed to Pope Saint Gregory the Great, and this is where we get the name Gregorian chant. The legend of St. Gregory says that the Holy Spirit gave the Pope the chant melodies in prayer. There is no evidence of the accuracy of this legend because nothing was written down, and this is also the only connection Pope St. Gregory had with Gregorian chant. Partly because of its name and partly because of the encouragement of Charlemagne, Gregorian chant started to become the norm of the Western church. The melodies of Gregorian chant can seem mysterious, but when they are studied, they are really quite simple to understand. The text being sung is given a melody that brings out its natural accents, making the words easier to understand, and taking away any monotony there is in the recitation of text. Gregorian melodies were passed on orally for a long time before any notation was developed. Scholas in monasteries
and other places would teach boys to chant beginning at a very young age. It could take years, but eventually all of the chants would be memorized. The learning happened almost totally by listening and repetition. Eventually, some tools for helping the learning process were created. One such successful tool was the Guidonian hand, a method in which the palm of the hand and joints of the fingers are used to indicate the interval between pitches. In the tenth century, a system of notation was developed, in which small dots were placed at various heights above the written text to aid chanting. This was helpful as a reminder, but everyone who sang the chants would still have had them all memorized at this time. This new concept of notation continued to evolve slowly, becoming easier to read and more useful to one who did not have all of the chants memorized. Eventually, lines and spaces were used to show the interval between the neums, or notes, of the chant. The line and space system was well received, and the neums themselves began to evolve from little squiggles and dashes into clearer symbols. The square note notation that is seen today is the final product of this evolution. In Northern France, The monks of Solesmes were doing great work with the restoration of chant melodies that had been altered after the Council of Trent, and in 1903, Pope Pius X declared their chant interpretations to be the official Vatican editions. He wrote in Tra le Sollecitudini, “special efforts[should be taken]…to restore the use of gregorian chant by the people, so that the faithful may again take a more active part in the ecclesiastical offices, as was the case in ancient times.” The Solesmes chants are what we most often see today when Gregorian melodies are sung. Most American Catholics do not hear Gregorian chant regularly, and generally when they do they hear chant that is far below average, leading to a negative expe-
The Gadfly
11 11
rience. On the other hand, there are countless places in the United States that are working tirelessly to promote knowledge about the importance of the use of Gregorian chant in the liturgy, and also practical ways for today’s Catholic to make use of this great treasure. It is quickly becoming commonplace to hear at least parts of the Ordianry of the Mass (Kyrie, Gloria, Sanctus, Mortem Tuam, Agnus Dei) chanted, and in many cases, the Propers (the texts proper to the day/week) as well. My experience of Gregorian chant during the first 18 years of my life is probably about the same as most people. I had heard the name before, but I didn’t know what it meant. It made me think of slow music sung by monks and cloistered nuns. Chant was rarely used in my fairly conservative parish other than the Our Father and sometimes the responses. To me, sacred music didn’t mean very much because my only experience of it had not been meaningful. In fact, I can recall several times that I felt uncomfortable singing one song or another that used words that were sappy, even awkward. Not to mention confusing melodies, strange leaps, and an overall feel of a harmonious chorus from the credits of a Disney movie, not the worship of God. In Tra le Sollecitudini, Pope Pius X writes that “[Sacred music] must be true art, for otherwise it will be impossible for it to exercise on the minds of those who listen to it that efficacy which the Church aims at obtaining in admitting into her liturgy the art of musical sounds.” The first time I remember hearing Gregorian chant well done was at a Tenebrae service. I was a senior in high school, and I went with my youth group to the late night service at Notre Dame in the Basilica of the Sacred Heart. The choir sang the chants beautifully, with feeling, expression, and precision. Not only did the chanting sound beautiful and very much at home in the lovely Basilica, hearing it made me much more able to meditate on the text being sung. As I read along with the translations, I remember thinking that this music really just made sense. It was leading me to prayer in such a real way. When I started here at Franciscan, I did not have any opinions on liturgy or liturgical matters. In
The Gadfly
fact, I didn’t really even know that there were opinions to be had on the subject. As I learned more about all aspects of the Catholic faith, it became clear that all of the parts that come together to make up the liturgy are so very special, and must be looked at with great care and reverence. It also became clear that sacred music, especially Gregorian chant, is not a lost art. It is very much alive and necessary in our Church today. Sacrosanctum Concillium, the document outlining the liturgical reforms of Vatican II, holds sacred music, with chant as its ideal, as “a treasure of inestimable value.” Why then, are there so many Catholics who do not recognize chant as such a treasure? Because sadly, many of these good people are never exposed to much of the two thousand years of beautiful, cultural, inspiring history of our Church. In a lot of churches built today, there are not intricate paintings of angels and statues of saints lining the walls, not even an arch to draw the eyes to heaven. There is a stark atmosphere and bare walls. In response to these changes, much Catholic culture has been brushed to the side. Similarly, just as the paintings in a church have become less important, so has the music. The problem with this is that the Church, in her wisdom, has time and again told us that Gregorian chant has pride of place in the liturgy, and for good reason. A painting by Raphael or a sculpture by Michelangelo lead to contemplation, and so does chant. Even more than that, chant speaks the text of the liturgy. Gregorian chant really can be sung by anyone- it is not just for choirs, or for the Extraordinary Form of the Mass (Tridentine). It is the foundation of the living tradition of sacred music in the Ordinary Form (Novus Ordo), and the congregation has every right to hear it and to sing it. Gregorian chant is one of the most “Catholic” things we have, and we should be proud of it, promote its use, and cherish it. The timeless beauty of Gregorian chant can lead to nothing but truth, making it a high form of worship. This truth is not found in any particular ideology, but in the person of Jesus Christ.
12 12
“An artist must scream at the page if they want a whisper to be heard.” -Anonymous
Can you believe she’s wearing that? Megan “Buttons” Salzano I’m a firm believer that art is present in just about everything, whether it’s something God-given or man-made. But what exactly is “art”? To some people, it’s how they make a living. To others, it is an otherworldly skill that seemingly uses all the forces of nature against them. (If you’re like me, you have that same sentiment, only about sports.) Moreover, the formal definition of art is the expression or application of creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power. So what other forms of art are there besides paintings and sculptures? If we are talking about human works, there are cathedrals, pieces of literature, musical compositions, gourmet dishes, Volkswagen hippie vans, and vast urban cityscapes. Art is literally everywhere. God also makes art; constellations in the night sky, birds that sing on spring mornings, and children in all their wide-eyed wonderment. Yes, human beings are works of art too. The next time someone says to you, “everyone is beautiful in their own way,” instead of hitting yourself (or them) in the face, maybe you can try to consider the statement’s philosophical merit. Think about the positives; I mean, the statement does allude to the fact that all humans have aesthetic qualities and are therefore works of art. So, in truth, every person is beautiful. (However, I am in no way condoning uttering the aforementioned statement. Not because it’s untrue, but because it’s just about the worst thing you can say when someone wants reassurance. But I digress.) Anyway, if all of these things are thought to be forms of art, isn’t it fitting to say that fashion is a form of art too? I mean, every article of clothing on the market has been, at some point, a person’s brainchild. The entire fashion industry is comprised of people using their imaginations in a creative design process, with a desired goal of having other people wear their masterpieces. I would even go as far as saying that fashion is one of the most important means through which art is expressed. Here are some reasons why. #1: Clothing had a functional purpose before it had an aesthetic purpose. Since the fall of man, we
The Gadfly
have needed to cover ourselves with clothing. Yet, treating clothing as a negative thing because of [Adam and Eve] isn’t sensible. It is such a useful tool! I mean, it protects us from the elements, keeps us warm, and keeps us from getting arrested for public nudity. (Uhh, I promise I’m going somewhere with all of this…) And although this doesn’t pertain to art at all, the functionality of clothing is why fashion exists in the first place. If we didn’t need clothing, we wouldn’t even be discussing fashion as an art form, because it wouldn’t exist – much like the culinary arts wouldn’t exist if we didn’t need to eat. #2: Fashion designers design some atrocious clothing. We often see glimpses of runway models on tv, in magazines, or even at real fashion shows. And I don’t know about you, but it’s been a long time since I’ve seen anything normal or subdued on a runway. I normally end up saying to myself, “Ew! Who would ever buy that?” And the truth is, probably no one, but it doesn’t matter. If you’re prestigious enough to have your clothing designs in a fashion show, nobody actually needs to like them. Nowadays, fashion shows are more like art expositions anyway, which I think is awesome! I’m all for tasteful artistic expression, yet (and this is me digressing again) you will never be able to convince me that the reason you’re watching the Victoria’s Secret Fashion Show is for its artistic properties. (Is anyone ever going to tell those poor models how gaudy those angel wings are?) #3: Fashion can tell you quite a bit about history. By looking at garments that people wore, one can learn what society was like in past eras. An era known for its radical change in conventional fashion is the Roaring Twenties. Comfort became a priority as men started wearing wider pants and women ditched the tight corsets and ankle-covering dresses. And thus, the flapper dress was born. #4: One can learn about people of different cultures from the fashions they wear. Style varies wherever you go in the world, and it’s important to be respectful if you meet someone who dresses drastically different than you. I suggest treating these encounters as opportunities to learn more about people from dif-
14
ferent cultures. There must be a reason they dress the way they do, just like there are reasons you dress the way you do. #5: A person’s fashion sense is an outward expression of who they are. This is the most important reason why fashion is such a valuable art form. We’ve already established that, in regards to fashion: we need clothing, not all clothing is meant to be worn practically, and we should keep historical and cultural norms in mind. Yet, if someone asks, “why do you dress like that?” would any of those answers truly suffice? Maybe, but I don’t know anyone who would reply, “I’m wearing this outfit because I’d be naked without it” or “this is what today’s society tells me to wear”. Let’s be honest; it’s 2015 and we live in America. Today’s “anything-goes” fashion scene is the epitome of individual expression. And what is art? Individual expression. People dress the way they dress simply because they like it. And there are two ways individual expression via fashion constitutes a form of art. First is the creativity we put into our outfits. When we wear something we find aesthetically appealing, we look and feel more beautiful, more confident, and more like the masterpieces we are. Second, by wearing these things we like, we communicate something about ourselves to the world. It can be difficult to do this, but we just need to remind ourselves that we are not people-pleasing robots. Odds are, if you’re wearing something you love, some people aren’t going to like it. But who cares? This brings me to my next point. What you wear has the potential to describe what you like, but it does not define who you are as a person. Likewise, the way someone dresses does NOT give other people permission to define them, stereotype them, or judge them. I know fashion pertains to both men and women, but it’s rare for me to see a man getting snubbed for the way he dresses. So, here’s to all you ladies at Franciscan. I wrote this part for you because it’s high time someone said this: It’s NOT okay to judge a woman by what she wears. Why do people feel the need to bash a girl’s personal fashion sense? Who’s to say that she isn’t worth getting to know just because she’s wearing a mini-dress or an ankle skirt? Or because the side of her head is shaved or she has piercings on her face? Ladies, every single one of you is a masterpiece. Don’t believe me? Just ask God. For you are fearfully and wonderfully made, and you need to start recognizing
yourselves as such. It’s so incredibly hard at this school, but we have to be confident in who we are. We have to remind ourselves that God loves us no matter what we wear and no matter what we do. (Then we can tell the haters to stick it.) Not to mention (and this goes for guys too) we need to start treating each other better in this regard. Saying, “can you believe she’s wearing that?” is only going to damage you in the end. If you see a girl wearing something you don’t like, remember that what she’s wearing doesn’t concern you. Not your outfit, not your problem. You don’t need to make fun of her or talk about her on social media. I can guarantee you “Yoga Pants Girl” has a name, a story, and a kind heart. And that “Frannie” over there is absolutely gorgeous and wouldn’t waste her time trying to put other people down. Oh, and that girl whose hairstyle you said was unattractive? Well, her head is still shaved and she’s still happy with the way it looks. In conclusion, fashion is a form of art, and wearing your clothing in a way that makes you happy only adds to the masterpiece that you already are. Also, tying back to my title… yes, I can believe she’s wearing that. And she looks fabulous.
“Odds are, if you’re wearing something you love, some people aren’t going to life it. But who cares?...What you wear has the potential to describe what you like, but it does not define who you are as a person.”
The Gadfly
15 15
To Live is an Art Form Joseph Danaher
“If a man is called to be a street sweeper, he should sweep streets even as a Michelangelo painted, or Beethoven composed music, or Shakespeare wrote poetry. He should sweep streets so well that all the hosts of heaven and earth will pause to say, ‘Here lived a great street sweeper who did his job well.’” – Martin Luther King, Jr. The answers are all there if you look for them. You can Google a how-to or search for a scholarly article that tells you the statistics for everything you could possibly want to know. Others have gone before, and they have discovered so that we may know. Systems have been built to make sense of everything, and lists have been made to readily provide us with the necessary steps to do what’s best. Inventions have provided a species, one which once died young due to unforeseen catastrophes, with security and certainty. Knowledge is power; as long as we acquire the facts, we can then live well. There is something about the above proposal that seems very impoverished. It seems to lack the vivacity and fire that has invigorated all the people that have gone down in history for a life well lived. We do not admire Socrates, da Vinci, Mozart, Copernicus, Washington, or Gandhi because they merely attained checks in boxes, following the steps of what was considered the right way of life. We admire them for something that transcended such an easy route, something that was so radically unique as to separate them from any sense of mediocrity. Their accomplishments did not arrive as the result of only technical learning, for there was something more about them as persons that did more than knowledge alone can ever do. They lived their lives as creative, impassioned individuals, dedicated to expression of who they were. In the Concluding Unscientific Postscript and Either/Or, Soren Kierkegaard, the father of existentialism, makes a Socratic attempt to help us know the
The Gadfly
answer to what the good life is, precisely by showing that he cannot know what that will entail for your life or my life. Objective lists of actions to take or ideas to be known can never provide the complete answer, for the individual is not a theoretical object that can be generalized abstractly. One can think abstractly and come to know universally accessible ideas, but one cannot feel, decide, or act abstractly. To Kierkegaard, to live is to become who you are as this particular individual, not as just another human trying to be fully human. The good life is not attained by knowing, observing, or passive adhering. It is attained through creative action in the midst of uncertainty, through passionate commitment to goals and to people, in spite of insufficient knowledge of the facts. There are certain things that are good for everyone to do, but the good life is not an answer to be intellectually understood. It is something to be lived, and lived in unique way. Many things in life cannot be answered by anyone but the individual himself. Courage truly understood is courage lived; love truly apprehended is love that is alive. Rote learning means nothing. Great people of history are forever remembered because they broke from the mold, from merely following the crowd, from simply doing what they were told. They didn’t just follow a trade blindly or live a life passively. Kierkegaard refers to the Greek philosophers such as Socrates, saying that “in Greece a thinker was not a stunted existing person who produced works of art, but he himself was an existing work of art.” There is an artistry to how great people live. Yet what is it that makes the lives of Copernicus or Gandhi artistic like the lives of da Vinci or Picasso? Art is not just painting colors on a fabric canvas; art is making the broadest brushstroke of yourself on this world as your canvas. Such a masterpiece can be formed in countless ways by the diverse individuals whose lives will never be repeated throughout the rest
16
of time, as philosopher John F. Crosby notes. To Kierkegaard, every single one of us has both the ability and the duty to be who we are, to live as an individual, accepting the immense responsibility for this great artistic freedom. The great visual artist uses the same paint, stone, geometrical laws, and sights as every other artist. What sets him apart is that he does so in a way that leaves the imprint of his own being in the work of art. He goes beyond just getting the check in the box of painting or sculpting with competence, and he does so with excellence. But such excellence is not merely due to greater technical knowledge or even genetic advantage. It is the result of a life-orientation in which he is consciously aware of who he is and what reality is, and he unites the two together through an impassioned commitment to creative action in his trade. He does not create only to earn a living, and he does not express himself merely to gain the approval of others. He utilizes his gift to add value to the world. Such value is only so high because of his personal ingenuity, one which takes what is available to him and makes something different and new with it. Limitations may abound, such as with El Greco and his astigmatism or with van Gogh and his bipolar disorder, but impediments are only difficulties, not defeats. Creative expression is the virtue they seek, for there is no other virtue that is lived in any other way than directly through it. The good life that the philosophers have sought to define for millennia cannot simply be painted on one canvas for everyone else to see. Every person must paint his or her own work of art to live life to its fullest. Every individual exists as the particular person he is in order to fully be that particular person. The opportunity to add value to the world is available to all, not by virtue of being more gifted than others at lucrative skills, but by being the extremely unique, important individual who one is. The biggest thing stopping us from living life as a work of art is our own fear. Taking upon ourselves the daunting task of life, the task of breaking from anxiety and despair on
The Gadfly
to active creativity, is something which Kierkegaard understands to demand lifelong, daily struggle and effort. But simply going along with the crowd or hiding away from danger will never fulfill us. The people we admire throughout history did not play it safe by doing what everyone else was doing. Copernicus did not accept given explanations; Gandhi did not simply watch oppression; the Beatles did not simply play what everyone else did. They didn’t divinely bring some new objectively accessible reality to the table ex nihlio; they brought themselves to the table. So can you, and so can I. Their audacity did not only earn them our admiration; it brought them their life-fulfillment. As Nietzsche states, “The secret for harvesting from existence the greatest fruitfulness and greatest enjoyment is – to live dangerously.” Attempts to understand and attempts to apprehend the world are all worthy efforts. Knowledge is worth pursuing and understanding worth gaining. But when it comes to the question of how we should live, all general explanations fall short. Uncertainty abounds and countless details cannot be accounted for ahead of time in foresight. As solo musician and U2 producer Brian Eno states, “Rationality is what we do to organize the world, to make it possible to predict. Art is the rehearsal for the inapplicability and failure of that process.” As we struggle to find knowledge, we will never be able to figure everything out. But life does not ask perfection of us; it calls us to a passionate commitment to living in spite of not having all the answers. In such a way, we live life as an art. Art is the unique expression of the person. We can create masterpieces that show the world what we’re made of, by being most fully ourselves and making it better. Show the world who you are!
17
“This world is but a canvas to our imagination.” -Ralph Waldo Emerson