Insert slick title here

I just know better

2008-07-09T03:44:00.007+03:00

(or I don't, but that couldn't prevent me from thinking I do, now could it?) Over the last few days, I've been a bit concerned with thoughts on the topic of prejudice. I'm going to attempt to submit before you, a few of my considerations regarding the topic. Hopefully, some of you can chip in and this can evolve into some sort of conversation, as I fear my thoughts are neither sufficiently argumented nor developed. It is my belief that the basic premise for prejudice can be condensed to the following sentence: An assumption is far more facile than a question. I tend to think that our brain's capacity is actually limited. Granted, it's an amazing machine, but there are only so many things you can have on your mind at any one specific time. You can't really go into great detail about everything so you opt for this or that specific field of expertise, and try to have a consistent level of knowledge in as many others as you can. So when something new comes along, I believe it's the brain's inward decision to submit the new element to a pattern that feels comfortable. And that's where prejudice would kick in. Rather than asking yourself a question, you choose to alleviate some pain from your mind, by replacing it with an assumption. Here's one example of prejudice, just to clear things up. From my own experience, out of a strong dislike for Coldplay, and a sense that whatever they will produce until the end of their careers will be bland and uninteresting, I've chosen not to listen to their new album. I will not to bother myself with that question and will Just Say No(TM). One could argue (and rightly so) that what I'm describing here is the effect: this happens because of a preconceived notion that Coldplay is boring. How that notion popped up in my head is rather irelevant. It got there, one way or another, and since my brain is far more preoccupied with other affairs, I simply "stick" to what I know. Incidentally, that example also raises the question "Is prejudice bad?". I guess all I can answer is, not necessarily. I am sure no human being can function without it, but my guess would be that how good/bad it is depends on the quantity we tend to apply to our daily routine. The more you rely on prejudice, the less you think. The less you think, the less you change. Now do I need to tell you why that's a bad thing again? ... Please throw me some input, preferably comments here. I'm especially interested in your perception of when prejudgement becomes a bad thing.

blip 06

2008-06-28T18:09:00.001+03:00

blip 06 -

You are not Ramanujan

2008-06-27T15:23:00.009+03:00

(unless you are, in which case you already know it and don't really need that much advice from me) This blog post concerns genius. Pure, unabridged, undeniable genius. The kind that you perceive, but don't really perceive, because there's no way your head can get around it. It also concerns you, my reader, more specifically it concerns that highly likely possibility that you are not the above mentioned kind of genius. But first a little something on Ramanujan which I shall be taking as an example for what genius is all about. So there are two components to his obviously sparkling mind, that are very important to the point I want to make. First of all, his intelligence and especially his intuition where most likely beyond anything his peers possessed. Secondly, his approach to the field is completely unconventional with respect to everything that was happening in mathematics around him. To Ramanujan, mathematics was something akin to religion, or at least spirituality, part vision and part guesswork, at a time when people were starting to standardize the way you hold a pen when you write mathematics. So this is probably misdirected, as most people reading this blog will have no such thoughts, but here goes: My opinion is that genius is something of a binary attribute. Either you have it, in which case you know you do, or you don't. At least for me, there's nothing in between. There's no way you can not be a genius today but be one tomorrow. Maybe that sounds trivial to you, or maybe it sounds wrong, I really would like you to share your opinion. So, if you are constantly unappreciated by your peers and you're thinking "Well, gosh ( because you're weird enough to use that word), maybe I'm an unappreciated genius like Ramanujan" or the worse "Or maybe I'm not but eventually I could be", my suggestion is to take a very long look at yourself. And even more importantly, if you think you can do great things of value like Ramanujan without formal training, the slope you're about to travel on is, in my opinion, very dangerous. Yes, some people can accomplish fabulous feats without any (or with very little) theoretical mastering of that domain. However, it is my belief that most cannot. This thought is, however, very pervasive for folks around 18-19 years old, as some of my readers are. Remember, Ramanujan had made discoveries that puzzled his contemporaries, and lots of people dozens of years after he died. He was appreciated but not properly understood. He had doubts about himself, but most of his doubts were directed at the value of his work. But hey, if you're neither valued nor understood, you're probably doing something wrong. So, if you're one of those people who think "well, I don't need to learn this properly like everyone else does, I'll just rely on my intuition", start trying to do things in that domain. If, after some time, you've done things that you find to be good, or (a better hint that you're on to something) you become addicted to doing what it is that you do and you start to consider formal training as something of a distraction, you were right. The main point is: don't stand around idle wondering if this is the case. If you're half way between, get formal training, it has been designed from the beginning to help you become much better than you are likely to, on your own. Any thoughts?

blip 05

2008-06-20T23:14:00.001+03:00

blip 05 -

blip 04

2008-06-14T02:06:00.001+03:00

blip 04 -

blip 03

2008-06-12T03:52:00.001+03:00

blip 03 -

Art in layers, Layers in art.

2008-06-06T19:02:00.004+03:00

I've kept trying, for the last few days to determine a term for something. I haven't been too successful in doing so, thus I'm just going to describe it in my own words, and perhaps someone can tell me what it should be called. This became apparent to me throughout the streak of Hitchcock films I was watching a little while back (which shall hopefully continue again very soon). As you watch his films, as long as you want to think about what you're watching (and not remain passive like a piece of furniture), you are bound to discover quite a few things. The way his works seem to work, as far as my current understanding tells me, brings me to my concept, that I shall try to explain in the next few paragrahps. For now, I'll call it layered art. The basic concept here is that, based on your capacity to understand a piece of art, you can "take home" various feelings, thoughts, notions and interpretation based on the work you've just interacted with. Now what the layering is about is that the "auteur" puts up various layers of meaning, for various parts of his audience to resonate with. Take the example which started this whole notion in my head: Hitchcock. The very first layer of course, is the most easily noticed one, that of suspense. This is his trademark, Hitch is an expert, a wizard, in terms of manipulating the visceral state of his audiences through fear and anticipation. The second one, which many people will observe is the visual layer. Hitchcock was very much interested in the cinema as a visual art, and he sought to make films that "could be understood if the sound were to go off", based on influences by many of the German Expressionists of the 1920's (most notably, F.W. Murnau). But there's another layer, going beyond the first two. Hitchcock employs a deep and paradoxical psychological layer that most viewers will pass by without observing. His characters are often ambivalent, sometimes androgynous, they often act based upon their own fears doubts or uncertainties, leading to a very charged atmosphere in many of his films, before anything interesting plot-wise ever appears on screen. So that's kind of how this works. These three points of view,and probably many others are embraced by Hitchcock who basically leads you down such a path. And at the end of it you find, of course, himself. His attitude towards women, especially towards mother figures, towards social mechanics, are all there behind pictures, being inflicted upon the viewer. And that's probably where the fun is at. Even if the receiver only sees the obvious layers, he's bound to be affected by the deeper ones, even if it only happens in an incidental fashion, without his concious acceptance of it. This all just seems to me like a very interesting technique in manipulating the mind of the people looking at your creation. So this is what I like to call layered art. If this has a real term, please let me know and I'll use that instead.

blip 02

2008-06-05T01:43:00.001+03:00

blip 02 -

blip01

2008-06-02T02:12:00.005+03:00

blip 01 -

blip 00

2008-05-29T23:54:00.003+03:00

I hope you shall see more of these in the near future. Experiments are experiments and music is music. Back to experiments for me ... blip 00 -

Where do you fit?

2008-05-25T23:48:00.001+03:00

Now is the time for another post. Since, basically, no one bothered telling me anything that's wrong with me (Allan's bad jokes don't count, they never do :) ) I'm just going to assume I'm perfect. Flawless. Like a diamond, or some other precious stone of your choice. Gee, thanks! However, in case you've missed out on that question, please see the previous post. Now in order to begin this one, let me spit out a few nouns in pseudo-stream of consciousness fashion: yuppie, punker, father, computer programmer, cinephile, , nerd, professor, businessman, bookworm. Simply put, my consideration is as follows: if you can be described using only one word as the above, giving people a very accurate description of who you are, it's bad. Terribly so, in fact. Initially i wanted to tell you guys why, but I'm not going to insult your intelligence. You know the answer to that question well enough. In fact, if someone wants to formulate the answer to that in an interesting way in a reply, I'd be very glad. Consider it a challenge, in fact. Now, since that gives me a bit more room to engage more topics, I figure it would be a moment to throw an example. If you're living in the US (as some of my readers are) this might seem a bit passe, but around here it seems to be the "thing of the moment". Let's talk emos. I really wonder what it's like to be an emo kid. I go to sleep at night thinking about that because I really can't process the thing. Not to say that I don't understand what happens inside an emo's mind. In fact, bluntly put, I'm convinced I have it figured out a lot better than any of them do. No, when I say "I don't understand" I don't mean it like that. No, it's more like the "What on earth are they thinking?" kind of lack of comprehension. You imitate a strange haircut. You listen to a whole lot of bands which sound pretty much the same. You wear clothes that are supposed to make you stand out. You talk like you want to stand out. You walk like you want to stand out. You think li... No, that doesn't really apply, does it? Can't any of these clowns see that they've taken the stance of "being different" and turned it into a cliche. When millions of kids are "unique" in an identical way, that breaks the whole point. It becomes a fashion statement. A flick. You can't really be different in an original way so you just clone someone else's approach to that. Wow, that's clever. Now, don't feel too bad if you're an emo. It's not hard to break out of that habit. All you need to do is obtain that thing between being born and dying. It really is that simple. End this day (or start the next) by asking yourself the following questions.

Who am I?
Who do I want to be?
What do I love in life (and beyond)?

If you think long enough about these three, you stand a pretty good chance of becoming an individuality. After that happens, projecting yourself as one becomes simple. You're just being natural (unfake, if you will). Trying to look different while being a stereotype is like walking with a gimp for the compassion. Oh, and on the topic, since when do you kids get to call yourselves emotional? Since when does a word become abducted like that for the purpose of describing cliques. You can't call yourself emotional unless you ... welll ... I don't know ... emote? You know, from sublime joy to utter pain. If you're just miserable or apathetic most of the time you don't emote. You're just a human raincloud.

Now, enough emo talk. Let me extrapolate, because it applies to a lot of categories. Don't let yourself fit on a business card. You should strive to be as rich of an individual as possible. Here, take a hint from this guy

Beware of the Fake

2008-05-19T00:19:00.001+03:00

Welcome back. Today I want to talk a bit about something which we're all surrounded by, constantly: fakery. And there's a certain kind I have in mind. I want to share a few thoughts on the presence of falsity in human relations. Thee words: run like crazy

If you ever find yourself in such an environment, anywhere from Siberia to Mars is a good place to be turning your head towards. Now, if the people around you sometimes manifest anger and hate towards you, that's somewhat OK. That shows that they have the courage to tell you their opinions, and perhaps they even think their thoughts might have some effect on you, change you in some way. Even if it's neither of these, at least you know what to expect, right? But if you happen to be encircled by people who manifest themselves as fake in the relationship to you, telling you things are fine when they aren't, getting all paradoxical based on your presence in the same room they're in, it's all going downhill from there. I, for one, have always been very blessed when it comes to this, so this post is more of an observation of some things around me then something personal. But it's just something I wanted to share. The people around you are your filter, they keep your head attached to your body. When they start lying to you you're in big trouble But how do you know when you're in the fake? I'm not really sure, but here's what I'm finding to be a good guideline: when nobody tells you things you know are true but don't want to hear, you might want to raise your awareness level. Communism (since I spoke a bit about that the last time, and it seems to be way too prevalent in Romanian pop-culture recently, is the ultimate level of that. You build a society around people that lie to each other, and feed themselves on making the truth a relative thing and see what happens. Academia and the arts are the around the opposite pole. When someone writes some scientific paper, or makes paintings, photos, music, a book, a film, you name it, they're getting their behind ready for some serious spanking. They know it, they accept it, they're free to choose to ignore it but it servers at least as a guideline that they're doing something right. I'm always open to that. So if you know me, and you know something wrong about me that you'd want changed, now is as good a time as any. Write your comments below (or email me). Anonymous cowards are welcome (though not encouraged). Bonus joke: The five rules of communism (via Marius). 1) Don't think 2) If you think, don't say it 3) If you think and say it, don't write it 4) If you think, say and write it, don't sign it 5) If you think, say, write and sign it, don't be surprised ...

Meditations over ruins

2008-05-12T02:21:00.001+03:00

Yet another exercise in trying to understand how music is supposed to be made. A few of my quirks have managed to find themselves present together on this one. This was clearly the most fun to make of them all, because I got to use my voice a lot and improvise (pretty much all the vocals are improvised, one take and all). Oh, and I know you can't understand the lyrics. There are good reasons for it I won't go into, but here's the lyrics to help you out: Those walls were looking at me like victims Like victims, like victims of a finished war But the irony behind it all Is that the battles have just begun, oh no Take me, take me, to the place where it ends To the halcyon dismemberment of hate As the sun shined over the dirt and the debree And everything looking like burned and the Ashes and branches of all of the trees With their arms open, trying to grab me I see And here's the link

Have you read 1984? Are you sure?

2008-05-09T21:15:00.001+03:00

I want to approach a common misconception I've found present in many an educated man's mind. I think it's erroneous and I'll to prove, in this short post, why I believe that is (what are the reasons for it being a misconception and why does it appear). This is about George Orwell's 1984, more precisely this about the dystopia this book describes. Most people look at it like this: here's a horrible regime that is bent total control over its population. It controls what people think by inseminating ideas in their minds through constant repetition of propagandistic material. It controls the past by altering any existing records over what happened, effectively destroying the notion of history in the process. They torture and brainwash any existing opposition until they give in. Communism, right? Well, no. When I tell someone that, if they do reconsider, their response might be something similar to: OK, not necessarily communism. Any form of a totalitarian regime. Wouldn't you say? Well, not really. Let me insist a bit upon what a key element in the paragraph about what the regime does, that I just wrote. They modify records of what happened in the past. All of them. Stop. Think for a minute. Are you, by any chance getting a strange feeling of familiarity? Well, you should because this is exactly what the Internet makes possible. Now let's take the thought a bit further. That bit about constant repetition and inseminating of notions does seem awfully familiar as well, doesn't it? Yes, I'm sure it does: Advertising. Now I'm not saying we're living in "1984". We obviously are not. But just consider for a moment, how horrifyingly simple that would be. As books and newspaper are turning electronic all around us, furthermore, as local copies of files are giving way to keeping everything online, as we become more more and more dependent on Google and less so on memory, let's stop for a moment and think. By giving all of that away, there's that gargantuan risk that we might be losing our conscience. Are you sure you've read 1984? Because that's what it's really about, I think: conscience, and lack thereof.

This might seem seem a little strange but ...

2008-05-06T10:41:00.001+03:00

Don't freak out, please. I promise you there's a very good explanation for all this. Just bare with me. First of all I'd like you to close anything that could distract you from reading this. Take 15 minutes away from the world and give them back to yourself. It might even be worth it. Now about the picture. Of course, if you don't speak Romanian (or can't quite make it out) the first question is: what's that writing there? Well, let me tell you: "What I am, you shall be, too. What you are, I have been myself." Let's mull over that for a few seconds, shall we? This is from the ossuary of the Prodromu monastery, on the Holy Mount of Athos. I believe this phrase is just about the deepest evaluation of time and meaning I have ever had a chance to read. Now let me explain that. A great Romanian actor, Dan Puric, once said something along the lines of "He, modern man, pedals without purpose in a perpetual present. Living with your being in only one dimension of time [...] brings the slow death of identity." While I agree to the first sentence in the statement above, I always had my doubts if the kind of attitude of the second sentence is right. And now I think I know: it isn't. The past and the future are, to a great extent, irrelevant. Both are completely outside our dominion, and quite frankly, outside our understanding as well. And we don't live in either: not in what was, nor in what shall be. We are, continuously, parts of the present. Time is akin to a series of dots we draw in the fourth dimension. What we have not drawn yet, we shall draw ("What I am, you shall be too"). What we've already drawn is now behind our hand ("What you are, I have been, myself"). Why do I think most of our contemporaries are unhappy? Because they either live in the past (We, Romanians, have an incredible history / I'll never forget what he did to me that day etc.) or the future (I need to buy that ... / Soon, I'll quit smoking etc.). Looking from a standstill, both the past and the future are ultimately lies. I'm not telling you "Carpe Diem" because I strongly disagree with some interpretations of that statement. You must not forget what has happened and you mustn't ignore future events either. You must be aware of both. But only because they shall let you choose how you live at this moment, that's it. In every second, minute, hour, your draw a sketch of yourself in time. If you can learn to hold a steady hand while you're doing that, it might turn out to be a masterpiece. Keep that picture in mind, that is our past and our future. I hope it stays with you for the rest of your life, and I mean that in the best of ways. Here's a couple of links The Holy Mount of Athos A little show Dan Puric put on TV Have a great day!

More music from the amateur department

2008-05-04T19:53:00.001+03:00

Here's another track. This one is called Lost, due to lack of time and inspiration. Thankfully, it has nothing to do with the series. Feedback is welcome, especially if you could compare it to the previous one. Thanks and I hope you enjoy at least marginally.

An indie future?

2008-04-30T23:37:00.004+03:00

Over the last few days, I've had been through a very "quiet patch of time" that has gotten my energy levels back to where they should be. Not that I overwork myself or anything, but you do sort of need these escapes every now and then to sort of put things into perspective. Anyway, as I was doing that, I've been thinking quite a bit about the entire "indie attitude" thing. I've been noticing that the world seems to be seeing an avalanche of (mostly young) people with "little islands" of creativity and originality that amount to quite an abundance of choice. But this is getting kind of old, isn't it? Surely, indie's been around for over 25 years now. Why should today be any different than the day before? The answer to that is a bit more difficult, it seems that while "indieness" has been around for quite some time, the approach people are taking towards creating things, and towards promoting what they've done finally seems to be giving credit to the amazing power of independency. Let me throw that your way again, in laymen's terms: more people than ever seem to be coming to the conclusion that the mainstream wants to destroy any form of soul humanity might have left. (Applause, claps, cheers, laughter, etc. etc. etc.). Maybe I'm just stepping out from a cave, but all of the sudden every artist, band and their mother has a myspace profile, a blog, a facebook page, a blog. Some people are doing webcasts, podcasts, putting video blogs on youtube, giving albums away over the web and on and on and on. And as if that wasn't enugh to rejoice about, I'm even happier since the Internet seems to have become sort of a "mainstream murderer". Hopefully, I'll get to see the day when only a few people will be using radios. I can hear your hands rubbing along with mine in anticipation. And this isn't just happening in the arts. All sorts of people are kissing indie like a beautiful girlfriend they haven't seen for five years while they've been at war. So I'm optimistic. I'm going to maintain this line of thought. I think the Internet may be pushing us towards a more sane way of leading our lives (but I'll talk more about that in a future post). Of course, we might all go the way of the apes. PS: It seems comment moderation may have eaten a few of your kind remarks (or vicious attacks) alive. I'm dreadfully sorry about that. This blog has now become a jungle where you can post whatever your hearts desire.

While strolling along an abnormally green park in a spring morning

2008-04-19T18:48:00.004+03:00

Nough talking without doing. Here's a little song I created this week. I'm calling it "While strolling along an abnormally green park in a spring morning". Give it a listen. Don't think too much of it. It's just an experiment. Do tell me what you think, though. Extra credit is granted for constructive criticism. Enjoy

Aren't you getting a bit ahead of yourself?

2008-04-17T03:44:00.005+03:00

I don't know about most people, but I make it sort of a personal credo to always be one step ahead. One step ahead of what I was yesterday, one step ahead of what most people are, one step ahead of the rainbow, one step ahead of a speeding bullet. You get the idea. As you create things, you definitely want to be advancing beyond what is being done at the moment. But there's an intrinsic danger in striving to be in front: your lead might just get enormous. What you're making can be so ahead of its time that it isn't understood by your contemporaries. While that hasn't stopped some people one should be wary of doing such things. Such cases, I think, are exceptions. If you won't be understood, what you lose is the ability to change people. If you look at any misunderstood artist or creator in general, his work only got "recognized" for what it was after other people generally drove the "mainstream" in his direction, incidentally or not. I guess it boils down to what you want to do, but I stronlgy believe you can make a difference without doing radical things. No new paradigms, no new ways of seeing things. If the first words that come out of your mouth when trying to describe it is "extremely experimental" you should see a peril sign. At least for me, experimental works are only useful as exercises. You make them, you learn this or that and then you move on. If you aim to change the world in a single shot with something never before seen, please reconsider. Perhaps you want to try to alter lives in smaller chunks.

Be careful about believing

2008-04-08T03:34:00.003+03:00

I just got into an argument tonight, with a good friend who had done me no wrong. In thinking about it afterwards, I find that she was right in a lot of the things she said. Drawing upon these thoughts in my head, I'm going to draw upon her main idea, which, I've ruminated over, in the course of the last few hours. Don't believe anything up to the point where you never, under any circumstance, doubt it. If you go down that path, your contact with other human beings might occasionally run off into very weird, unwated, directions. Think about it, for a second. If your belief is right, it will indeed hold to any arguments or contrary opinions you might encounter. But what if you're wrong? (Woah, is that even possible?). Yes, you might be wrong. You might be terribly wrong. In fact, you might be so bloody wrong they get to define right in antithesis to what you are now. Then you might talk about your conviction with someone else. And during the course of that discussion, you might become what some people would call a jick. And here's what you'll probably do, during that conversation. 1. You will not make your points understood This is often because you're so passionate about your argument that you can't afford the time to think your answers through. It's also, sometimes, a sign that you haven't thought about the subject at hand enough to have your arguments in your head before the conversation even began. In fact sometimes you will not have a point at all: you will just say whatever comes to the back of your mind. And during that interval 2. You will not listen to the other person. At all Why will you do something like that? Well, because ... 3. You will get into that shitty defensive state where you feel the need to be right about everything As you do that, one of the most evil, unreal things that would normally appall you tremendously will happen ... 4. You will not accept your mistakes And do you know what happens after that? Well, it basically boils down to the next three things: 5. You will hurt people 6. You will hurt people 7. You will hurt people And after you're done with that, maybe, just maybe you'll start to think about what you were actually talking about. Heavens to Beatsy, you might even come to the conclusion you were wrong. So help you God. And if that happens, just glance, for a few moments on the seven points above. I've made it easier for you, they have a bold font. After realizing that stuff and accepting, there's only one thing you can do: 8. You will apologize, like an idiot, for behaving like an idiot. The reason I say that, is that if you would have stuck to what I was talking about in the first place, you wouldn't have to do this. Follow me? But if you were wrong, you have to apologize. Please. Pretty please. So this is sort of what I'm doing. I'm apologizing. If, by some chance you get to read this before I say it to you personally somehow, know that I'm sorry. That I've thought about some of the things you said, and that at least this much got through. So, thank you!

I don't want to do it!

2008-04-04T11:02:00.011+03:00

It's been a few days since I started thinking about picking up a blog again, and having another stab at it. And during this time, even though procrastination is my middle name (yes, I know Eugen Procrastination Minciu has a strange sound to it), something occurred to me. A lot of the pain in creating anything, be it a book, a song, a film, a drawing, software or whatnot, comes in that moment of letting go. Releasing your work seems to be something that some creators shun for various ranges of time, ranging from the considerate to the outright obscene. For example, Brian Wilson took 38 years to do it! Some people were born and had children during the time it took this guy to release one album. Anyway, in thinking about why we do that, I'm starting to consider an idea: When you "release" something it is no longer yours. People are going to look at it, evaluate and interpret it in some of the most unimaginable ways. You'll probably wish some of those ways would have remained unimaginable. You can be afraid of that, and constantly avoid putting yourself on a platter for other people to see, or you can use that knowledge in what you create. If you look at artists ranging from Jean Renoir to Thomas Pynchon, you'll notice that they embed a good deal of uncertainty in what they do. Not only do they lack the knowledge of how their work is going to be seen, but they go to great lengths not to make any assumptions about it. There is no "great message" they're trying to submit to their audience. Instead, they pretty much encourage you to explore the subject matter in new ways, only laying a foundation for you to base your thoughts upon. If you're trying to shoot very accurately, you're bound to take a long time to aim. However, if you're shooting at mass of people, you can fire much more quickly. What I'm trying to say is that if you're finding yourself constantly postponing ending some of your work, a bit of blurring out what you're trying to achieve along the way might be a good mean of preventing such endings. I think there is a lot of untapped power in ambiguity. What are your thoughts?