Arts Revies: Lianspeak and Desperate Housewives

Review 2 along with a few other issues on- The archetypical Ah Lian description of herself, the example being discussed as displayed below...

_[[0nce up0n a tym..
_[[iin a haut3ed h0use..
_[[live a pwiink sk3elet0n pwincess..

On the outset we would all obviously denounce this as absurdity to the extreme, typed by a hopelessly bimbotic...no to be bimbotic implies that the person has at least some looks to be proud of. Pehaps like my sources said you may call her a "Asia Living Dead Doll", and immediately proceed to denounce her as being desperately in need of the cleansing fire of "intellectualism", and proceed to sanctify her as she has already been done. I'm currently not interested in lengthy moral debates asking whether such a process is right or not but to look at her, or rather such, writing. Is it Art? Immediate answer is obviously no. BUT is there any reason as to why it might be considered Art? A breakthrough from the dull monotonies of the English Language? An ingenious idea to replace letters with numbers? Neat comparison of herself to a "skeleton princess", implying not just how she feels deadened by her boring life, but also how strong the bond of love between herself and her "prince" is that it could survive even in the after life-just like Antony and Cleopatra in Shakespeare!?!?!?!

I'll first clarify that I'm not going to start trying to convince everyone that nestled within the Ah Bengs and Ah Lians of Singapore are a few budding William Shakespeares. No it should go without saying, but probably goes better with saying that she was just riding on the current trends and following her teenage instincts. Thinking of her love for horror movies caused her to use the word "skeleton", being typically girly to the point of nausea made her use "pink", and absurd visions of grandeur made her call herself "princess". Besides, SHE was definitely not the one to invent the letter-number writing style AKA leet speak. Neither is it likely that she was thinking of such complex associations when writing that.

Value is attributed by the person who is doing the valuing. And the fact that the person who created this did not have such interpretations in mind when she wrote this does not make the possibility that the passage may be Art any more remote. Like John Carey also said, it is impossible for an author's intentions to be used as part of our judgment of whether something is Art. Do the Art Galleries in the world all display along with their pictures descriptions of the author's intentions? Do we know what Shakespeare thought of his plays when he wrote them as we study them? All that exists is some hazy mental picture of the artists being awfully Literary people-simply because we hear everyone else saying they are. Similarly, all we have of this girl is the preconceived notion that because she types like that she is retarded and anything that she craps out is thus likely to be equally so. Yet we have already seen that it is possible for one to drag something out of it, and on such grounds, declare it a work of Art!!! I know, the association of yourself as being a "pink skeleton princess" sounds just plain stupid to me as well, but remember that I am going to avoid emotions in my judgments because each person's emotions are coloured by what they have seen and heard. Imagine an intelligent being discovering this sentence 500 years in the future. It's novel, probably totally unlike anything they're used to. True, it's stupid, but it sure gives a lot of laughs! (It certainly did for me.) The person who wrote it must have been a good comedian! Not to mention that something Literary can be found in it. Indeed a true gem-IT IS THUS A WORK OF ART!!! With this absurd but nevertheless plausible possibility in mind, we are confronted some very interesting issues.

First, recall the net-name of the guy behind the delightful Intellectum Vaide Amat. Fr057m0un3- aha I FINALLY GOT IT. I digress. Its leet speak for those who haven't noticed yet-a point I'd like to elaborate further on here. Furthermore. we all know about how Leet Speak is very commonly used by the so-called retards of Singapore. Yet I doubt that anyone is running away calling Fr0 a retard for his use of Leet Speak in his nickname. No, obviously, the difference between the use of Leet Speak in Fr0 and in Beng/Lian Friendster Profiles is the fact that the former is actually able to use it sensibly and properly. Yet the Fr057m0urn3s in this world are outnumbered by the Bengs/Lians 10 to 1. The result is hence that Leet Speak has earned for itself a reputation of a quintessential component of retard vocabulary even though it is indeed a pretty ingenious and inventive way of typing. Purists of Leet Speak may even go so far as to accuse the Bengs/Lians for desecration of the language.

It is, however, in Singlish where this effect of desecration may be even more pronounced and subtle. Many, me included, cherish it as a quintessential component of Singaporean vocabulary. Yet it is seen as the language of Coffee Shop Assistants and people who've not half a brain to learn proper English. Yet it can be used to interesting effects-and not just needlessly and incessantly in Phua Chu Kang. Check out Rockson's blog-perhaps not the best of examples, or any other blog that liberally uses the language in good humour for that matter. No, neither Leet Speak nor Singlish deserve the reputations that they have. Rather, it's the effect of exposure to the masses, and especially to the masses that ABUSE it that is responsible. Indeed, French novelist Gustave Flaubert once said "Equality is slavery-that is why I love Art". Schopenhauer, I hear, also once said that "the most excellent works of every art, the most notable productions of genius must always remain sealed books to the wide majority of men, inaccessible to them, separated from them by a wide gulf, just as the society of princes is inaccessible to the common people." Is this why they made these statements, lest these noble works of Art would have their style copied and desecrated by the masses?

The UK may not be the best place to say this, but I never really thought that monarchy or the idea of nobility was a very good ruling system to have. To become superior just because of your blood? Ridiculous. Neither do I agree with the rest of what Schopenhauer says actually. What's wrong with sharing a good work of Art with everyone else? What is the use of locking it up in a dusty cabinet until it grows mould? Indeed, I think they were "masturbating their own egos" when they said this, the usual superiority complex that one gets because he, unlike most of the rest of his lesser fellow human beings, can appreciate "true" Art. But even if Art is desecrated to this extent-should people, even the "retards", not be able to appreciate the Art along with everyone else? Indeed, I see no point in one spending his effort creating something and yet not see it spread. Heck, if Singlish and Leet Speak were NOT used with the magnitude that they are now, I think they'dve been forgotten LONG ago! Spread the good news, and help Art abolish, in Capek's words, "boredom, anxiety and the greyness of existence"!

The second issue the Lian description being called Art raises is the fact that just about ANYTHING can then be called Art, because ANYTHING can have SOMETHING drawn out of it!!! Hence, this review on whether something should be called Art is effectively meaningless because ANYTHING can be called it! Even, as we have seen above, something that is simply crass and stupid which someone spun off at the top of her head. Like I had earlier demonstrated in my first review of Harry Potter (And having finished the 6th book be sure that I shall come back to it!), all that is left to do is bring in emotions. But the thing is, as you would have seen, there are many different angles that one may view something as, any of which may not be as clear-not to mention that we forget to look. All I can do to stop this calling of everything Art would be to judge by MY standards. Inevitably emotions will at some point be brought in but oh wells, I don't think that can be helped.

Thus my final answer as to whether I will consider this Art? Well, not like there are THAT many things to delve into. Entertaining concept it indeed is, but I think there are so many other things out there that are much more so. Though by my standards there is indeed something to talk about in this, that really is all there is to it. It's frankly not much to shout about. Hence, sorry Miss (or Mrs?) Pink Skeleton Princess, you were interesting to look at, but no.

Review 3 on: Desperate Housewives, in honour of Julian's request.

This was aired on public TV here when I still had school. Hence I missed many episodes because I was too occupied, not to mention they changed the time it was being shown and left me lost for quite a while. But I watched and remember enough of it to be able to talk about it. Oh and on a side note, I actually mulled over the possibility of giving the material below as some kind of comedic presentation as a substitute for playing the piano on the last day of term, but ditched it on the grounds that only Lit students would possibly find the idea of relating it to our Lit text funny. It is good to know the idea as not been wasted though.

First thing about Desperate Housewives is the fact that it is entertaining-and entertaining enough for me and it seems a lot of other people. It was a nicely woven story that was able to link at least 4 plotlines together, ad finally merge them in the last few episodes to form the dramatic conclusion that the viewers had all been waiting with growing impatience for. Indeed, I think this is the epitome of good serial TV popular culture that I had been trying to find 2 entries back. It is the type that requires viewers to religiously follow the story and be able to recall specific bits of the plot anytime in order to truly understand it. Indeed, with my lack of information on it I was often hopelessly lost. Yet it was still by and large suspenseful, delightful to follow and an overall joy to watch. Unfortunately I cannot elaborate much more on this aspect because of lack on information, but I think if we made high entertainment value one criterion for everything trying to claim the title "Work of Art" from me, I think this one makes the cut.
The second and perhaps more interesting thing is that it is a nice representation of many of today's things. I've already mentioned it as belonging to the upper cut of Popular Culture, but also the many ways female attitudes are being represented here. I am in fact reminded strongly of Return of the Native (Again!). Off the top of my head I can think of 3 similarities between the two.

-Both Serialized when released to the public.
-Both talk about Love in terms of what it was like the stories were written.
-Both paint a reasonably accurate picture of the general perception of women at the time.

Particularly notable are the last 2. Contrast both together and you can have quite a bit to talk about. For those who haven't read ROTN, conventional women were portrayed as being submissive creatures, the best of which were commonsensical and didn't care much about passionate love, just as long as their husband doesn't cheat on them. In contrast Desperate Housewives (DH) has women who are more Eustacian (unconventional) than Thomasin-like (conventional). The opposite of everything is in fact true. Love and sex to them forms a sizable chunk of all their lives and hence the show. They now have more authority in marriage than before, and play a much bigger role. Furthermore, lines of so-called conventionality are no longer clear and you can't single out anyone as being wholly conventional OR unconventional here. It is another representation of how diverse women’s' roles have become, and the fact that their stress has actually been prominently acknowledged in the programme has shown how they have in fact gained much more of a say in the family. Their roles are also neatly summed up in each lady-the one whom Teri Hatcher plays (forgot her name) being the part that is still stuck in passionate teenage love dreamland, Lynette being the one who is going mad because of the kids and her husband's possible affairs elsewhere, Bree being the one a bit excessively chastised by her husband but still straining to remain rational amidst the chaos, and so on. Every single facet of life that women have to go through has been magnified and represents a slice-albeit exaggerated for dramatic effect-of a modern woman's life, of what they supposedly think they go through everyday.

You might at this point reasonably object that all I have done is written a paragraph that could continue rambling about women then and now. And well, the thing is, I think it is the fact that they have captured all of this so neatly in show form, chucked that into a blender along with a nice storyline, turned that blender on and not have ended up producing a big mess quite an admirable feat. For is it not this fact that makes certain works of Literature appealing-the fact that the author stays so true to his/her emotions? I think I have seen pretty much enough of other soaps here like "Neighbours" and "Home and Away" to know that not every show has done it as effectively as this, as they end up sounding unoriginal and boring. Desperate Housewives, I may even go so far as to claim, has by taking the thrills of a drama and the typical "average person and love"-ishness of soap operas ended up being what I would consider to be the defining programme of popular culture. Admittedly enough if you are actually looking for the Literary value of Shakespeare, I advice you to go and watch one of his plays instead. Desperate Housewives does not relay on this to on its claim for a Work of Art. It comes up triumphant in other areas, and by virtue of these other areas I would pretty much believe that it is worthy of the term.

That's all I can do for today. Goodness I've been at the computer for the whole darn night! Nevertheless I do think this a much more effective way of spending time. Oh wells, comments and suggestions please!

PS: Julian, Inuyasha 1-9 is now with me. Reviews will follow when I can think of something.

The First in the Reviews of Art

The exams are over and you would all probably have been, because of my horrendous infrequence in updating, entertaining either the possibility that I got messed up by the recent bombings in the London Underground or that I have broken totally new grounds in a human being's current state of mental atrophy. It's actually the latter, even though I did start the holidays in high spirits, especially since I had given a performance of my abilities on the piano (or lack thereof) which seemed to be quite a hit with everyone present. Yet it's been more than 2 weeks since the exams ended, and more than 2 weeks of playing the same 3 songs can get a bit boring. And neither the inaccessibility of the computer to me due to it being under near constant use by others nor being a night owl is helping much. And if there's one thing I can't do, it's the mastery of my emotions. Often this leads to a great zest for doing a many things, yet equally often transforms me into a serious sop-so it was that boredom settled in and for some most annoying reasons just doesn't seem to want to leave. But I'm sure we all know the above idle banter are all but excuses. So let's continue with this entry proper.

In the first chapter of John Carey's book "What Good are the Arts", the author attempts to define what exactly is a work of art. He eventually comes up with the answer that anything that anyone chooses to call a work of art is a work of art. Interesting definition, by and large, and one that I would like to try and discuss in this entry.

The question on what exactly a work of art is a philosophical question. Many other philosophical questions also ask for the definition of some elusive subject; life and consciousness being some of the most popular ones being asked. And from what I've been seeing definition questions are the dodgiest ones of them all. Consider the question "What is a Chair"-which I hear YJC Lit teacher Mr Steven Sim once tried out on his students...

A: So what is a chair?
B: Why, a chair is something that you sit on, of course!
A (sits down on floor) : So am I sitting on a chair?
B: Oh-no-ok, a chair is...a wooden structure that you sit on, comprised of 4 legs and...
A (sits on wooden table) : Like this?
B: No! OK well, it's got a back rest along with it's 4 legs...
A: But the so-called chairs in lecture theatres all stand only on a single beam of iron and don't have legs! Is it then wrong to call them chairs?
B: Fine! So a chair doesn't need to have legs! It should have a back-rest though....
A: Sofas have back-rests. What differentiates chairs from them?
B: Well...material! Sofas are more comfortable, because they have something stuffed in them which makes them softer.
A: But the seat at my computer has cushion stuffed into it, and I think it's quite comfortable. Yet I am told it is called a chair!
B: !?
A: And the things in airplaines most people sit on...stuffed full of soft things...doesn't sound right to call them chairs though does it? Seats, maybe? Aircraft seats?
B: !??!?!??!?!??
A: All that you are mentioning are but antithetitcal properties of a chair, you see...

The conversation could go on for ages. The final supposedly "correct" answer, if my memory serves me correctly, is that a chair is what mankind has, since the birth of the word "chair", defined as being one. Sounds alot like the definition Carey came up with doesn't it? Brilliant. Nothing could have being any less clearer! Furthermore, what we are trying to define here isn't even a term like "The Arts" whose definition has being the point of contention for quite some time, but a simple everyday object like a chair-and everyone is supposed to know what a chair is! Of course there is no need to come up with such a precise definition of what EXACTLY a chair is, and whether we call those thingies in airplanes chairs, seats or even sofas is of little relevance. To define the term "Work of Art", however, is a much more pertinent and difficult question, yet we are faced not only with this problem of precision but also a problem of vastly differing opinions. You see, as Carey said, although few would contest Hamlet or Beethoven Symphonies as being "Works of Art", many other things are being termed "Works of Art" even though their appearance hardly suggests it. The Tate Modern bought a can of the Italian artist Piero Manzoni's excretement, for example, and the Tate Modern is a distinguished London art gallery which though I have visited, have yet to catch sight of excretement lying in any place outside the toilets. Actually I didn't visit their toilet bowls either, but that's beside the point.

I did attempt to come up with my own answer, creating the following before I saw Carey's own. A work of Art, I expostulated, is anything anyone can clearly explain why exactly the said object is and should be considered a work of Art. Reasons for this may vary immensely, though the best works of Art, it seems, seem to arouse heightened emotions in their viewers.

That last bit on emotion was added because the quotes at the beginning of the book did indeed suggest it. They are "sacred", "breathe spiritual dispositions into us", "the visible appearance of God's kingdom on earth". It was interesting to note that I somewhat agreed with Carey, mine being a somewhat more precise version. I'll try to explain my specifics though. Anyone who is able to call something "a work of art" probably aleady has some aesthetic inkling in him/her to be able to understand and use the term in the first place, I'd think, and is thus probably able to justify his choice. Yet even though I added this bit so that the term "Art" wouldn't be misused, I suspect there will still be much contention on what is and isn't worthy of the term, considering how our emotions are the one thing on earth that is most susceptible to change. For me, I shall stick to my definition. But Carey's version has reminded me that "every man is entitled to his own opinion" could never be truer anywhere else, and if anyone's arguement strays into the world of emotions, as it inevitably will considering the nature of the topic, I will accept the person's decision as his/hers even if I don't agree-even if he calls that pile of...brown in front of us a splendid towering spiral shaped like a majestic pagoda, emitting scents that smell better than any of the spices or perfumes of the earth, tempting him to eat it more than that of the most fragarant dish that he has ever smelt or tasted...

Hence welcome, dear readers, to the absurd realm of relativity. For myself, however, whenever I come across some things I feel may be worth cosdiering for artistic value (and maybe even the ones that blatantly do not), I shall use the space on this blog to pen my thoughts regarding it. Here, I will be on the lookout for tastefully and stylishly-created works that do not need to use cheap run-on-the-mill material to gain popularity. The material should also prefarably be thought-provoking and an be an overall joy to read or watch. I shall try to base my decisions on these criteria where possible, and try my best to avoid straying into the realm of the emotional. Let us hence without further ado start our discussion on Harry Potter-my old Literary flame. Indeed, I once termed it another piece of Aliternative Literature, and the Harry in my online alias was inspired from it. Though my passions were nearly destroyed from the 5th book, I decided to give Rowling another chance with the arrival of the 6th. At present I have finished the first 14 chapters, but will try to base my discussions on my general knowledge of the series.

The storyline is so far enchanting, posessing much of the magnetic holding power that has defined the rest of the series. Indeed, much of this probably is probably owed to the creation of a world that feels amost as real as oursa main highlight of the book and definitely not an easy feat, no? I was unable to discern any Literary value in the book, however, until I looked at some past exam questions from a Literature set text The Return of the Native(ROTN). "Harry is potrayed as being an evolving character who, although fictional, is, like any typical person in the real world, plagued by as many pressures with the most notable stemming from his growing up." There-but I'm not making this a list of possible exam questions on Harry Potter. Indeed, I am beginning to think that many things out there that posess substantial Literary value. Admittedly for each that does there probably is one that posesses none, but I think all we need to do in many cases is simply look.

Admittedly enough a story cannot be perfect, and a gripe I have against this is the content about Harry's direct reactions to Ginny's flirtations with Dean. To some they probably spice up the story even more, and I suppose well...on the grounds that he is growing up it is explainable. But unlike the issue on how the family was annoyed with Fleur's imminent marriage to the extent that it initiated jokes, this to me felt forced in. I am prepared to bet that Rowling's primary motivavion to include this was the countless fanfictions up on the net that narrated a love story between their favourite couple. Indeed, correct me if I am wrong but this is but a side story which the story could have pretty much done without. It takes up valuable storytelling space that does not involve the main plot, should be removed, and is one part of the story, that being crass and superficial commercialism, is not Art.

It is altogether possible, however, that one questions the wisdom of my decision. Why is love singled out and not, for example, the humour? Heck, the whole story is a commercialised ploy if you say it that way! Furthermore, ROTN's ending was addled precisely because the readers wrote in to request for a happy ending was it not? Should you then not be calling ROTN a work of art? Well, even the author of ROTN himself admitted to such an act, and directly stated that "those with a more austere artistic code can assume the more consistent conclusion to be the correct one." Hence I suppose i, with my "austere artistic code" I would indeed have liked to see Hardy's original ending. As for the bit on commercialism, that is indeed a relevant accusation-that most "works of art", when it all boils down to it, is done to help earn the person money. To stay true to one's instincts and write with a flavour that is uniquely hers, however, is something that I do doubt Rowling did. Her flavour, as demonstrated in the first 3 books, is to create a gripping tale of suspense and mystery for Harry Potter in a uniquely-crafted world. It is not to write a romance novel. Of course, a fan of this part of the story may even and ask why I think the love is crass. This is where the problems of the world of relativity start coming in. Perhaps it is my fault, but I do not believe words will avail me to come up with a satisfactory arguement outright. It is likely that that fan will be unable to come up with a satisfactory arugement as to why love should not be termed crass however, and the only answer I can then find is because it is down to our irrational mental preferences. In which case, as I have earlier said, that neither is wrong. If, however, I am wrong, you are welcome to post your views.

It thus seems logical that a definition of Art is relative-because we are all made differently, with different preferences. I stand with what I have said about Harry Potter for now, however, and summarize my decision. For the most part, it is indeed Art. But for a small bit, it, to me, is not.

Thus completes the first of my writings on the arts. Now, my faithful readers, who have not give up on me even after a more than 3-week-long absence, I want you all to tell me which thing you want me to look at next!
-The TV Serial Desperate Housewives.
-The Animes One Piece and Bleach.
-The one that without which this blog would have probably not have born at all-Card Captor Sakura. (Ha! Thought I'd leave this one out did you?)
-Assorted works of "Art" that I saw during my visit to the Tate Modern.

The tagboard is open as usual. Responses will be answered more quickly than this entry took to come out, considering my brother proves less stubborn like he's been recently. Besides, writing this and reading HP6 is not exactly promoting any more atropy. Anyways, it's really late-or maybe you'd consider it early-see when words start screwing around with you!-it's 4.40am here-there! Nice and simple. Time for bed!