Life Highlights: Writing Update

Went back to Caffe Reggio today to take advantage of an excellent cuppa and free Wi-Fi

No long post today, as I've gotten "on fire" [hint hint] for a new Bowie essay! This one is a doozy, and since I want it to be a good addition, I'm going to be working on writing a longer piece over tomorrow and potentially Monday.

First day off this week and I decided to go down to SoHo in order to apply for a few career-based jobs before heading back (it was too cold to do anything extensive!).  Then when I came back I ended up accidentally taking a (much needed) nap while watching Friends before cooking dinner.  Now it's all about writing my piece for Bowie and celebrating the fact that Ike updated me on the fact that he is going to listen to my all-time favourite Bowie album today!

David Bowie: ANCIANT Box Set Review

★★★★ (4/5)

The new compilation box set A New Career In A New Town (1977-1982) came out today and of course I had to listen to it!! Bowie's iconic Berlin Period is legendary. His experimental sound and vision pushed the boundaries of rock music forever, and although celebrated, at the same time this period of creation remains stubbornly "uncommercial" and rather mysterious. Rolling Stones gave a great review about it all here.

For my part, I agree with the nitpicks of the review. Although all the music is superb (as always), the track listing could've been increased with other songs from the era - if not with "new" previously unreleased songs, then it could have at least consolidated all the previously released and scattered tracks together. For instance, one of my personal favourites from the period, "Some Are", still doesn't appear on the compliation even though it was chosen by Bowie as one of his favourite tracks on his 2008 compilation album iSelect. Of course most of this critique is from the fact that I am a completionist who also wants as much Bowie as possible.

I do want to note, however, that I greatly appreciate "The Jean Genie" and "Suffragette City" being added to the (unfortunately still) incomplete Stage album (from his 1978 ISOLAR II Tour). And that they included his bizarrely endearing Christmas duet with Bing Crosby of "Peace on Earth/Little Drummer Boy" that he only did because his mother was a huge fan of Crosby's. But most importantly I love that they added the earlier version of "Cat People (Putting Out Fire), which is truly a chillingly seductive piece and some of Bowie's finest vocal work. I much prefer it to the album version on Let's Dance (1983).

Meanwhile, Visconti's remix of the much under-rated Lodger was fun to listen to. I'm glad he chose to focus on revamping a hidden gem rather than attempting to change the behemoth albums of the era which stand fine on their own. And having Bowie himself give his blessing to most of the remix before his death definitely didn't hurt. However, I personally still didn't like it as much as the original version.

The echo on the lead vocals didn't lend much to the work other than on "Yassassin (Turkish for: Long Live)", and even though I appreciated the instrumental work, I felt like the increased drums, bass, etc. overpowered rather than complimented Bowie's vocal work (although to be fair the original mix doesn't let the nuanced musical work shine through as clearly). The only track I preferred in the new mix was "Move On" due to the fact that the louder underlying beat allowed me to hear more of the ingenius "All the Young Dudes" (of which "Move On" is essentially sung over, but played backwards). Yet despite all of this, I am still happy to have an alternate, Bowie Approved version of a great album that seldom gets the spotlight.

The best part of the compilation by far is the general "remastering" the entire Bowie team did. Each track sounds great - fresh and clean - as if it was just made yesterday. I loved hearing more musical nuances and subtle thematic work in Low than in previous releases, and the screaming art rock of my fifth favourite Bowie album Scary Monsters (And Super Creeps) absolutely shines with the long overdue remaster (seriously, since 1999!) - definitely cementing it in my Top Five forever.

In conclusion, although this compilation set still doesn't top the original Five Years (1969-1973) box set release from 2015 (with a lot of new content as well as being a good resource for Bowie's early formative years), it's still better than the Who Can I Be Now [1974-1976] compilation from 2016 (which featured some excellent Gouster alternatives to the superb Young Americans tracks, but the lack of new content from Station to Station - like my favourite bootlegged performance of "Sister Midnight" from the ISOLAR I 1976 tour - was unfortunate. And the fact that they failed to include bonus songs like "Alternative Candidate" from the Diamond Dogs 30th Anniversary Release. Not to mention that they also chose to remaster David Live instead of breathing a new vitality into it like they did on their separate album release earlier this year of Cracked Actor (Live, Los Angeles '74). And the cover. Why did they decide to do a different, incongruous design for the cover of a three-set compilation series?).

So a solid 4/5 Blackstars for A New Career In A New Town (1977-1982). It does a great job of showcasing some of Bowie's finest work by allowing the listener to hear every nuance of an incredible era while also providing a fun new take on an old classic, and it also brings a few buried tracks back to the light once more. 

Creative Writing: Drabble #1

I don't know.  Today is Thursday.  Tomorrow is FriYAY.  Day four of working at the new restaurant.  Five days until my sister comes to visit me.  I want to write something more extensive, but I'm too tired.  The train was delayed this morning.  And this afternoon.  I was almost late to work.  I arrived late at home.  Then I made some dinner.

Current Contemplations: Career Goals

"Somebody asked me the dumbest question, but my God it was hard to answer. They said, ‘Why do you do what you do?’ I thought, ‘Woah, that is an awful question to answer.' And I really had to think about that." - David Bowie

Today I officially made a list of what I want in my career and what I want to give to my career.  This idea was inspired by conversations I've had with my mom and Ike after feeling conflicted and distraught over working at a restaurant again.

I was surprised and pleased to find that the general goal of "why I want to do the thing" hasn't changed all that much, although the specifics have been refined somewhat over the past five years (what a surprise).  The three categories I chose were: 1) Things I Want in a Job 2) Things I Want to Give a Job (inspired by my mom asking what I was willing to give) and 3) "Bowie Goals" (inspired by Ike suggesting that I compare career points/highlights in Bowie's life that I want to emulate).  However, since I'm rather old-fashioned I did it all by hand.  Below is a photograph of what I came up with:

Current Contemplation: Kindness

One of the first things that I was told by Los Angelenos when I moved was to be prepared for that "Rude New Yorker" encounter.  You know the type - it's the one that's portrayed in every film and talked about bemusedly by every tourist (and local).  However, since coming here I was pleasantly surprised to find that I had more "rude" encounters with people in Los Angeles in comparison to New York.  Almost everyone here has been extremely warm and welcoming and helpful.  For example this evening I had my hands full with a parcel and groceries, and I had two different people hold open the front door for me and help me in the elevator.  Of course, it's still a city - you can't help but cross paths with those few crazy and rude individuals here and there, but on the whole, it's been an extremely positive experience.  This, unsurprisingly, changed today.

Today was my second day at the restaurant.  It was not as soul-draining as the first day, but it was still rather dismal.  This was (and is) predominately because the people at the restaurant remind me of all my spiritual failings and professional insecurities.  Going into detail on that is for another post - what I really wanted to highlight is that my managers all seem to emphasize being aggressive to guests.

Not insofar as asking them to leave (they're all in the hospitality industry after all), but if a guest is particularly demanding or deemed unreasonable the managers all have a firm line.  I don't mind having a backbone, but I do think most of my coworkers are a touch "rude-er" and more bitter than I would like.  I know that Disney customer service is rather ridiculous after working there for two years, but after being there and going anywhere else it's actually unsettling.  My idea of polite customer service is now seen as weakness and too much charity - and this blows my mind.

It also made me sad to think that as part of adapting to the new culture I'm in that I may become just as aggressive and unyielding.  I used to be that way in my personal life, and I have worked for years to try and be more compassionate and empathetic to others.  So to hear that what I perceive to be kindness is seen as little more than weakness makes my soul ache for those who don't know what to do with a kind word.

It also makes me realise that the empathy culture we have created (as much as millennial Christians want to rebel against it), was made for a reason.  In the world today the act of true kindness, caring, and compassion ("empathy") is rare to find - especially in a big city (where the media centres of the world are located).  I understand not wanting empathy to be confused with Christian charity, but I think that articles which want to banish the idea of empathy as being a legitimate means of relating with others is too extreme.  Clearly, the authors of these articles have an overabundance of people in their life who are willing to take the time to empathize and commiserate, and they do not realise how fortunate they are to have someone who wants to do that in their life.

However, I did feel vindicated today when a guest came up to me before he left.  He and his friend came at the worst possible time.  I had three other guests come up to me simultaneously and I was the only host on the floor.  I could tell they wanted to grab a table, but I had to deal with the other customer issues before theirs.  Thus, they took it upon themselves to sit at an open table.  Although miffed, the main reason I was concerned was that the table they chose was in a closed section.  I also knew they were upset that I didn't handle their concern first.

Before I went over to them I had just been told by a manager to be a "passive-aggressive bitch" when it comes to dealing with customers.  I am the first line of defence as a host, and I shouldn't go to them over every little problem with someone.  Although I completely agree (and I can be a "passive-aggressive bitch" if I have to be), I also didn't agree with the method suggested.  Instead, I used a little "Disney magic" as it were, and politely asked the guest in a friendly manner to move tables.  And before he left, the guest came up to me and complimented me on how I handled their move.  He said that the way I asked him was too nice to stay mad and that he was impressed with my professionalism.  I know how hard it is to work in restaurants, but in that one moment, I was also reminded of how the one or two guest compliments that brighten your day really do in fact make the job better.

Thus, I felt vindicated on the whole about my method of using empathy as a tool.  True kindness is clearly not common, and although I hope to soak up the art and culture of New York, I do hope to leave the "rude-ness" out.

David Bowie: What I Listen to When I Feel "Low"

Bowie during his 1978 ISOLAR II Tour

I once read an amusing Tweet that was a response to the question: "What's your unhealthiest coping mechanism"? and the response was: "listening to depressing songs when I'm depressed to increase my depression".  However, I don't think that any of Bowie's work can ever be labelled as truly depressing.  There's too much warmth and vitality and hope imbued and infused within his music to be so one-dimensional.  As such, whenever I feel "low", I often find myself listening to his seminal 1977 album Low.  And since I was feeling "low" today after my first day at work, I decided to read my Bible and listen to Low (it's always my go-to when I'm feeling down due to its marvellous thematic work).

Low, like all of Bowie's excellent work, offers a message of understanding and encouragement.  Indeed, understanding the relationship between failure and encouragement is not something I thought I would be discovering this year.  However, I am finding that where ever I seek one, the other isn't far behind - along with a healthy dose of faith.  Who knew that praying for such a thing like failure would be so spiritually rewarding (and draining and dangerous and generally full of growth)? And Bowie's album epitomizes the complex relationship between these three things along with where a sense of isolation and doubt fit in the picture.

Moreover, the fact that Low engages in a more instrumental sound symbolizes how our souls groan for something which we do not know how to put into words - without understanding what it is we desire.  Yet like our ability to understand what Bowie is conveying through his "pure music", the Spirit understands what we yearn for that we are unable to put into words.  The album showcases a perfect balance between vocal and instrumental work in the same way we as humans are a balance between our vocal and rational side with our raw, unspoken emotional side.

Here, I look to Bowie's fantastic performance of the entirety of Low (albeit in a different order than on the album) at the Montreux Jazz Festival in 2002 (which is thankfully posted in full on YouTube).

The conveyance of the grandeur of the spiritual can clearly be seen in "Warsawa" - easily one of the best Bowie works ever made (it's my favourite on the album and he frequently used it as a concert opener).  Majestic, cinematic, and unapologetically divine, the song not only shows the desolation of Poland but Bowie's own sense of desolation on his spiritual landscape.  The song brilliantly relates the majesty of one's own inner life against the backdrop of a stern spiritual reality also rooted outside oneself.  However, the type of reality it conveys is clearly alienated from any sense of companionship.

Another excellent track that develops this is "Subterraneans", the finale of the album which offers both an extremely cinematic and intensely personal sound.  The song would not be out of place during a pivotal scene for a film's protagonist as he undergoes a deep period of meditation and reflection.  It's at once as desolate and foreboding as it is yearning and beautiful.  It perfectly represents the "twilight zone" that Bowie attempted to create in his lyrics:

It has, again, that night-time quality where the real meets the unreal, and that’s an aspect of writing I’ve always admired in a lot of authors and pop writers is the ability to keep things on a surreal and real level so they have feet on earth and heads in heaven sort of thing. It’s a twilight state, I think, that one goes for.

These feelings of isolation and loneliness are rife throughout Low and interspersed between periods of divine solace and crushing depression.  Interestingly, being patient for Christ seems to be intimately linked with the sensation of isolation.  For instance, in "Sound and Vision" (a lovely euphemism I take to mean the inspiration and purpose to a creation [the vision] as well as the "nitty gritty" aspects of life [the sound]), Bowie interweaves these two concepts.  He is isolated in his "blue blue electric blue" room with "nothing to do", but it is revealed that his isolation is not purposeless or unconstructive.  Instead, he "sings" as he "waits" for "the gift of sound and vision".  Thus, isolation and introspection ("drifting into my solitude") are linked with constructive work and obedience to God ("singing") as faith and patience are simultaneously practised ("waiting for the gift of sound and vision").

However, true to form, Bowie examines isolation through a variety of lenses, including the sensation of longing for companionship.  In "Be My Wife" Bowie invokes the larger idea of what a wife symbolizes.  Perhaps one of the most straight-forwardly relatable songs on the album, he yearns for faithful companionship ("Share my life/Stay with me/Be my wife") to share his experiences with as he travels the world ("I've lived all over the world").  This symbolism can further be extrapolated if we consider the Biblical view of marriage, which is a union before God that offers some of us greater understanding and participation in Christ's unconditional and self-sacrificial love for us.  Thus, by Bowie pleading "be my wife", he further conveys our intense desire to be able to more fully realise and experience Christ's love for us.

This is also evidenced in "What in the World", which offers a sense of unapologetic isolation and paralysis from the sensation.  However, the one thing which stops the speaker from total paralysis is his desire for love ("I'm in the mood for your love").  It is this love that can be seen as both the girl's affections and God's love for us.  This is because the speaker desires love while in the midst of trying to make sense of "the real [him]".  The lack of positive identity outside his desire for love thus wonderfully maps onto our lack of self outside of Love (as in Christ), while the groaning at the end of the song symbolizes the angst of this spiritual growth.

The predecessor may not be as "hopeful" as "Heroes", but it certainly offers one of the most striking images of deeply felt personal failure and professional doubt.  It was made in the middle of one man struggling to get out of a terrible drug habit, a failed marriage, and attempting to retain custody of (as well as be a better father to) his son in the midst of a bitter and messy divorce.  This can be seen in "Speed of Life" and "Breaking Glass" (which the first track bleeds into).  At once a fast-paced track that immediately sets the tone of the work, "Speed of Life" is a fantastic instrumental piece that coveys a sense of bewilderment at the passing of time.  It offers the sensation of life moving on (whether he likes it or not) and Bowie trying to make cobble together a sense of self in the midst of wondering how life has passed him by.  This then beautifully leads into the steelier sense of perseverance in the midst of it all in "Breaking Glass", which offers a response to the bewilderment of the first piece.  The harsh lines "You're such a wonderful person/But you got problems oh-oh-oh-oh/I'll never touch you" offer a vitality of life that is simultaneously disillusioned from past relationships and about a broken heart in search of healing.  This line is particularly relatable to the Biblical imagery of a hardened heart and protecting oneself against the world.

Moreover, Bowie offers in Low a raw depiction of the extreme lack of confidence and despondence he felt over his past work.  He doubted at the time that he had made anything worthwhile, and felt like a failure as an artist (keep in mind the albums he's doubting were all made in the entirety of 1969-1977: David Bowie (1969), The Man Who Sold the World, Hunky Dory, The Rise and Fall of Ziggy Stardust, Aladdin Sane, Diamond Dogs, Young Americans, and Station to Station).  This can most clearly be seen in "Art Decade", which offers an eerie instrumental piece that feels uneasy and doubtful.  It's as if the song itself is questioning the creation of art itself while being a work of art.

Yet it is precisely because of this keen sense of failure and doubt that as an audience we are more than ever able to relate with Bowie on a spiritual level.  We all fall short of honouring God the way we ought.  We are spiritual failures at not giving Him the proper Glory and obedience that He's due, and hence Christ came so that we could be free from condemnation under the Law and saved through Grace via His Sacrifice for us.  Moreover, we understand Bowie's sense of doubt because we all doubt our purpose - if we have one, but more specifically, we wonder what form our purpose will manifest itself in.

Therefore, if we hold our spiritual failure and doubt to be true, we yearn to find solace in something to get out of our self-destructive cycle and start anew.  This cycle can most clearly be evidenced in the superb "Always Crashing in the Same Car" - a truly remarkable song about frustration and the resulting despondence in feeling like you're just going "round and round" to a destination you'll never arrive at that's purposeless and meaningless.  However, "A New Career in a New Town" is the perfect answer to this self-defeating cycle.  Purely instrumental, the meaning of the song is revealed nearly four decades later with Bowie's "I Can't Give Everything Away" on ★.  The song, which speaks of prodigal songs, heavily samples from the Low track.  Clearly, the idea of renewal, which is strong in both pieces, has its foundational roots in coming "back" to Christ (or home).  Indeed, on even a practical level the "Berlin Era" of Bowie was viewed by the man himself as a long-awaited homecoming back to Europe (to get away from his toxic life in America).  Thus, on Low the song symbolizes the concept of renewal through homecoming and ★ furthers this idea by connecting homecoming to the parable of the prodigal son (turning back to God).

Therefore, if taken as a whole*, Low is one of Bowie's most encouraging albums (if not the most encouraging) during times of intense isolation, self-doubt, spiritual failure.  Despite the fact Low is all about isolation, it offers one of Bowie's most communal works as the audience is able to bond with him over the sensation of loneliness.  It may be an album that yearns for connection with another, but the work itself, in fact, provides said connection for both audience to artist and audience to audience.  Additionally, the themes of doubt and failure (both on a grand and humble scale) would later be transformed into the ultimate triumph.  Low is considered by critics and fans alike to be one of the best works Bowie ever made and it would go on to change the face of music forever.  Thus, the extremely spiritually-relatable work made during Bowie's "low"est period can be seen as the ultimate encouragement as it is in itself a testimony to the positive spiritual growth and transformative power faith has when paired with isolation, self-doubt, and spiritual failure have on the soul.

Life Highlights: New Project

Shh - My new project is a secret!

Although I have been excited about many "projects" these past three weeks, none of them have been completed.  I found myself distracted or unmotivated to continue or finish any of them, and as a result I was despondent and dispassionate about my work.

However, I am excited to say I've officially recommitted myself to a new project.  One that I've been excited about before, but after considering my time here the past few weeks, the one I am officially going to try to write a little bit of every day.  As a result these blog posts may be short or partial entries to my ultimate project since I will be writing for my book while going to work.

In the meantime I will also be attempting to write a script for a children's movie (or at least a proof of concept) so that I can have something in my back pocket to pitch if the opportunity arises.  Tomorrow is my first day at my new job, so I'm going to relax and prepare for my first "Monday" on an actual Monday in years.

David Bowie: "Heroes" 40th Anniversary

The iconic album cover photo for "Heroes" taken by the brilliant Masayoshi Sukita.  This cover would later be repurposed for his brilliant comeback on The Next Day in 2013.

In honour of the 40th anniversary of Bowie's iconic "'Heroes'", I wanted to consider the fan reactions to the recently released Filburt and Klax remixes, the spirit of Bowie, and my personal favourite version(s) of the song.  For more historical information about the creation, his official website offers this excellent post.

On Facebook, the reactions to the remixes were less than impressed, to say the least.  Here's a sampling of just a few of the comments:

Who on earth allowed this? I've just listened to it, it's awful! It's like allowing someone to draw a moustache on the Mona Lisa! Absolute sacrilege! Even without the Bowie vox, the music is very average. It really makes me stop and wonder who is now navigating Bowie's ship.

David Bowie’s music should be left alone, like The Beatles music is. Remixes of David Bowie’s music shouldn’t be allowed.

They're both shit. I often love remixes, but there is a critical difference between a "remix" and a totally unrelated piece of techno - with a different key, a different time signature, different melody, and different instrumentation - which just happens to have a Bowie vocal sample thrown randomly onto the top at the last minute. Both of these belong decisively in the latter category.

I'm not against remixes, infact some of the new T-Rex remixes are quite good, but these are absolute garbage... Why does anyone with a drum machine think they are instantly a musician / artist? These tracks don't bring anything interesting to the song or enhance it in any way... they're quite boring - now I need to go play the Bowie version just to clear my head !

Take your fingers off Bowie, never try to change, remix or what ever in his name!! His work shouldn't be allowed to be touched!!

I don't wanna even listen! Heroes is better on it's original version!

These violently opposed responses surprised me, to say the least because Bowie himself is no stranger to remixing his own work.  Just look to the various remixes he did for the Day-In Day-Out EP from Never Let Me Down from 1987 which features three different versions of the song (not including the differing album and single version release).  Or better yet, look at the Black Tie White Noise Extras album from 1993.

There are three different remixes of the one song "Jump They Say" from the original album Black Tie White Noise, (of which he also remixed almost every song from the album).  In particular, the "Dub Oddity" version is so different from the original piece that to play them side-by-side you'd hardly know it was the same song.  The remix is almost entirely instrumental and is a fun, techno dance beat perfect for any '90s club while the original is a more "traditional" song with lyrics, a bridge, so on and so forth.  This isn't even to mentioned the "Expanded Edition" albums Bowie did for the rest of the 1990s, each one featuring a handful of varying remixes that include the Pet Shop Boys remix of "Hallo Spaceboy", which is one of the most well known.

This leads into my next point, which is that Bowie loved collaborating with fresh, innovative artists young and old.  In particular, his remixes featured some of the best talent of the day like his 2013 remix of "Love is Lost" by James Murphy from LCD Soundsystem.  Moreover, it was actually this version that Bowie chose to write, shoot, and create a music video for featuring himself (and it is also my favourite incarnation of the song).  So to say that allowing fresh talent to have a "crack" at one of his songs, so to speak, is actually adhering more to the spirit of Bowie and his take on his work rather than letting it be "preserved" in its original state.  This can best be proven by Bowie's short-lived TAO Jones Index version of "V-2 Schneider", which takes another classic song from the same album as "'Heroes'", but puts an extremely "techno" spin on it.  He clearly wasn't opposed to "bringing his music up to date", as it were, as well as honouring the spirit of the original work.

That being said, I listened to both versions and enjoyed the Klax version the best out of the two.  However, my favourite version of "Heroes" is actually not sung by Bowie at all.  My favourite version is from his final musical Lazarus.

Although used as an anthem for many different heroic "acts" and moments over the decades, the fact remains that "Heroes" origins are extremely humble.  The original song is famously about two lovers who Bowie observed would meet by the Berlin Wall to be together outside his studio.  This was later to be his producer, Visconti, and one of Bowie's backup singers (Bowie protected their identities due to the fact that Visconti was married at the time).  When I first listened to the song, although I enjoyed it well enough, I wasn't particularly moved.  I recognized that the quotes around the title were ironic - a fantastic device to undercut an otherwise simplistic message about the heroism of love.  To me, the song was (and is) about the heroic act of choosing to love another despite and because of the fact that life is fleeting/humanity is frail.  However, the quotes offer a sly commentary on this message - is it truly heroic? Or should we choose to do this anyways, unconditionally? To choose love is not an act of heroism, but of moral obligation.

Anyways, that aside, the stripped down, toned down version of the song that Bowie approved for his musical took my breath away.  The finale to his epic swansong, "Heroes" is rearranged to be a beautiful duet between Hall and Caruso.  Although other reviews have called it empty because it lacks the "rock anthem" spirit of the original, I do not believe this is the case.  The first time I heard this version I broke down crying because I heard the love of the Lord behind it.

First of all, the piano is chilling, the voices somber, and the overall musical arrangement is a work of brilliance.  The sheer, raw emotion that the actors imbued into the lyrics was shocking.  I had never heard someone sing about unconditional love and longing with such conviction.  It spoke to my soul about a longing for Spiritual Truth, a desire for human connection, and above all the self-sacrificial love humanity needs (from God).

This viewpoint of the song is reflected in the plot, as the actual act of self-sacrificial love is a major point in the musical, and by Walsh's own memories of writing the musical with Bowie.  He wrote:

We talked about the characters and the themes of the book.  On isolation and madness and drug abuse and alcoholism and the torment of immortality.  And there was a lot of talk about the beauty of unconditional love and goodness.  We talked about characters finding themselves out of control - about the story sliding into a murky sadness and quick violence - about characters having drab conversations about television snacks - the everyday bending quickly and becoming Greek tragedy.  The celestial and the shitty pavement. [x]

Once I was able to move past the brilliance of the new piece, I realised this version of the song was much shorter.  Intrigued, I investigated further and realised that the lyrics were edited down from the original.  I was so distracted by the music that I hadn't even realised the lyrics were modified, which I have transcribed below:

Newton:
I, I will be king
And you, you will be queen
Though nothing can drive them away
We can beat them, just for one day
Oh, We can be Heroes,
Just for one day

Marley: And you, you can be mean
Newton: And I, I drink all the time

Both:
'Cause we're free now, and that is a fact
Yes we're free now, and that is that

Newton:
I, I wish I could swim
Like dolphins, like dolphins can swim
Though nothing,
nothing will keep us together
We can beat them, for ever and ever
Oh we can be Heroes,
just for one day

Newton:
I, I will be king
And you, you will be queen
We're nothing,
And nothing can help us
Maybe we're lying,
then you better not stay
But we could be safer,
just for one day

Both:
We can be Heroes
We can be Heroes
We can be Heroes
We can be Heroes

Newton:
Just for one day

This new re-working was absolute genius.  It eliminated what I perceived to be the "temporal constraints" of the song (ie the part about the Wall - clearly linked to late 1970s Berlin) in order to allow the more transcendental themes to shine through (the part about unconditional love).  I also loved that the lines "'Cause we're lovers, and that is a fact/Yes we're lovers, and that is that" are subtly changed.  Instead of "lovers" the word is replaced with "free now" - completely adding a richer spiritual undertone to the piece.

To have absolute freedom from this world is described Biblically as what Christ has given us (see: Romans 6-8).  Due to His ultimate sacrifice for us, Christ has given us the freedom to choose righteousness, to be absolved from condemnation under the Law and to be saved instead under Grace.  It is His unconditional, self-sacrificial love for us that therefore gave us the ultimate freedom, and this song reflects that in its change of lyrics and new arrangement.

However, if I am "forced" to choose a version which Bowie himself sings, I have always loved his "Stage' album version of the song.  His vocals are the most impressive on that particular take, although his appearance on Top of the Pops also gives that version a run for its money.  In fact, I think that particular performance is better than the official music video for Bowie's singing prowess, although visually the promotional short is clearly superior.  Therefore, this anniversary is excellent timing with the release next week of the A New Career In A New Town box set which covers Bowie's work from 1977-1982 (which I am eagerly awaiting).

So if you haven't already, go ahead and give "'Heroes'" another listen.  Here's my Spotify playlist which rounds up all the versions (available on the platform) in one place:

Life Highlights: A Good Friday

My pictures from Chinatown today

It's already super late on the east coast, so just a brief overview of my day today!

Went to Chinatown this morning to snoop around - not even five minutes off the subway and I had an old Asian woman yell at me in Chinese.  I took out my headphones (of course playing "China Girl") and I said, "I'm sorry I don't speak Chinese".  To which she switched over to broken English and asked for directions to which I replied, "I'm sorry I don't live here".  Basically, two fails in one go (really my appearance is false advertising - I might as well look like one of the Caucasian tourists with NY hats and backpacks taking pictures on digital cameras from the mid-2000s that I saw today for all the "help" or "true Asian" that I am).

However, most of my day was delightfully taken up by conversing with my new acquaintance ("park guy" from a few weeks ago), and an old friend (who will always be in my heart "freshman Anna").

I ended up talking with "park guy" for another three hours over coffee.  To have real interaction with another person after weeks of only virtual conversation was like lifeblood to my drained soul.  We talked about anything and everything from art and philosophy to religion and politics to our families and generally what was going on in our lives.  He's an excellent conversation partner, and I was extremely pleased to see our initial meeting a few weeks ago was not a "one-off" encounter.  He even agreed when we parted that meeting strangers usually does not work out as well as our new acquaintanceship has.  I have good vibes about this one, guys.

Then after getting home I chatted with Anna about what has happened this past week (we're officially making "Fridays" our thing).  Of course when we talk it usually ends up being a lot of present-a-problem-solution-oh-wait-now-this-has-morphed-into-talking-about-five-thousand-different-subjects-and-thoughts-and-wow-God-is-pretty-neat-o (which is just how I like it).  So we discussed my recent adventures with "park guy", her school projects, my future career, our relationships with God, and when she's going to come out and visit.  All equally excellent things for my soul (which has been doing a lot of introspective thinking, but not a lot of bouncing ideas off of another person).  Truly she's a gem - excellent feedback (witty and kind - a rare combination) with a deep passion for pursuing God (only the best film-Torrey majors have this kind of quality).

Tomorrow I have a full day of spending money ahead of me! I am going on a hunt for a new wardrobe for my new job and future job (business casual and interview ready).

Current Contemplations: Waiting for the Gift of Sound and Vision

Don't you wonder sometimes
'Bout sound and vision

Blue, blue, electric blue
That's the color of my room where I will live
Blue, blue

Pale blinds, drawn all day
Nothing to be, nothing to say
Blue, blue

I will sit right down
Waiting for the gift of sound and vision

And I will sing
Waiting for the gift of sound and vision

Drifting into my solitude
Over my head
Don't you wonder sometimes
'Bout sound and vision

Today I went into an interview for a host position at a restaurant in SoHo. The decor was fashionable, the menu trendy, and the waitstaff appropriately attractive.  I had applied for the position online, and was emailed about an "open call" that took place today.  Immediately I went to go and sniff it out.  The worst thing I would lose today was an hour out of my day, and I had opted not to go to an open call yesterday.  And although I felt like I interviewed poorly, apparently God was with me since they told me to come back for orientation on Wednesday.

Immediately I was elated - to quote "Star", "I could do with the money/I'm so wiped out with things as they are".  Without a set career, clear purpose, or a general source of income I definitely needed a "pick me up" so to speak.  I didn't realise how difficult it would be to make friends as an adult outside of a set environment like school, church, or (of course) a job.  So from a community standpoint (as well as a monetary one), this is an excellent opportunity.  Plus it is located in my favourite neighbourhood in Manhattan.

However, once I started thinking about my new job from a career perspective, I felt an immediate drop in my mood.  Was I moving backwards? I left Los Angeles to seek a job in my field (Art, ostensibly).  Not to mention that although overall I loved my co-workers at Disney, the job itself gave me a mental and emotional breakdown every few months (seriously).  I began to have every artist's slippery slope - what if my "part-time" job becomes "full-time" and I never work in what I'm passionate about? What if this is me compromising on my dreams for the future? What if I never achieve what I want to do? Hell - what do I even want to do?

As I felt my mood sour, I began to think back on my conversation with Ike last night.  I talked with him about feeling a lack of vision in my life.  I know (and love) how to research, how to take steps to realise an idea, how to generally offer my own support a collaboration to a piece.  But I don't particularly have my own artistic "visions" in the same way.  I find it much easier (and more enjoyable) to build on a pre-existing idea.  And without Ike (or another favourite collaborator) on hand, I find myself adrift.  I don't know exactly what I want to do other than "work in the arts" and "not be living paycheque to paycheque".  In Bowie's words, "I'm waiting for the gift of sound and vision".

Part of this problem I actually already attempted to solve by going to New York.  I wanted to see what type of affect the city would have on my art (and so far it's been fabulous for my writing - I've had hundreds of ideas come up and scribbled down in my notebook).  However, at the same time, I've had problems finishing anything I've started.  That anyone ever creates a song, nevertheless a movie or a book is remarkable in and of itself.  I have about a dozen Bowie essays started, but that remain unfinished.  I'm currently in the middle of three different books.  I'm beginning to catch up on all the Netflix I didn't watch in college.  In short, I feel like I'm wandering aimlessly.  I have a bunch of ideas, but no one to work with.  I know I want to work in the arts, but I don't know which one to pursue.  I've officially decided on "children's media and programming", but I'm still open to a lot of different things.

Maybe, above all, the fear I hold is that I'm, to use Jim Moriarty's word, ordinary.  Maybe I am not "chosen" or "destined" to make something Great.  Perhaps I am not "talented" or "determined" enough to be an earthly Success.  Of course, this line of thinking is incorrect (both in the way it views predetermination/free will and in the fact that it gives me too much agency in general - it really isn't "all about me" [and thank God it isn't, because it's all about Christ which is honestly 1000x better]).

A while ago I posted the wise words of Dr. Wright regarding our desires - to assume that we know our own hearts better than God is a mistake.  The Creator knows His creation better than itself.  Period.  And this is still true.  I love the wording of Bowie's lyrics for "Sound and Vision" in pairing the term with "gift".  It assumes that "sound and vision" (a lovely euphemism I take to mean the inspiration and purpose to a creation [the vision] as well as the "nitty gritty" aspects of the craft [the sound]) are not something that is done purely by an individual.  It is something that is "given" through a mix of God, time, collaborating with others, etc. etc.  Moreover, the idea of "waiting" is not idle.  Sure, the lyrics state that the speaker is in his room all day with "nothing to do", which at first appears lazy.  However, it's soon revealed that as he waits, he "sings".  Waiting does not imply idleness, but a type of disciplined patience.  And unfortunately, I have never been particularly patient.

Therefore, what this indicates to me that I should be constructive while I wait (faith and works and all that).  A job at a restaurant where I can pour into others and invest in that community (while making minimum wage) isn't a bad place to be.  Especially since part of the reason I moved to New York, as previously stated, was to get more inspiration for my art (through gaining more life experience and meeting new people - I'm only twenty-two years old, after all).

However, I am still worried that this isn't the best experience I could have or use.  I feel like I should be focusing on making more art to have a backlog when I go to whatever media job interview I hope to have.  As one of my favourite articles regarding Bowie put it:

And all the failures and the frustrations gave him the impetus and time to explore back streets and alleyways pop artists don't usually go down. Allowed Bowie to develop something fully worked out. By the time he finally got a platform he knew exactly what he wanted to say and exactly how he wanted to say it. He was like a lottery winner who'd spent every day of the previous decade planning how he'd spend the loot if he were ever to get his hands on it. [x]

At the very least, I think that I should be going into a type of commercial avenue for my field.  Even Bowie worked in advertising at the beginning of his career (even if it only lasted a few months).  Perhaps I should've given more thought to being a personal assistant or another entry-level position in my industry.  This isn't to say that I can't still apply for these jobs, but every time I think about it I feel filled with a different kind of dread.  The kind that says I'm still waiting for my sound and vision and I don't want to be stuck as an assistant.  And the cycle repeats itself here too (it's these sort of troublesome, cyclical thought problems that make being a lonely artist so problematic).

Not to mention my absolutely contrary self that has lamented for the past three weeks about being out of work, starts to bemoan going back to work as soon as I find a stable source of income.  Which then, naturally, the rather irrational fear of "having no free time" has begun to consume me.  It gnaws at the back of my brain, shouting rather loudly at me that by working full-time I'll only have room for my art part-time.  Yet this is absurd.  If you care about something, you find time for it.  Although I disregard most "motivational Facebook posts", this one has stuck with me over the years:

"Instead of saying "I don't have time" try saying "it's not a priority," and see how that feels. Often, that's a perfectly adequate explanation. I have time to iron my sheets, I just don't want to. But other things are harder. Try it: .... "I don't go to the doctor because my health is not a priority." If these phrases don't sit well, that's the point. Changing our language reminds us that time is a choice. If we don't like how we're spending an hour, we can choose differently". -Laura Vanderkam

Indeed, by not having a job I have had a surplus of time to work on my art and to apply to media jobs.  However, I don't feel like I am doing quality, ground-breaking work every day (it's often more of a practice of discipline), and on top of that I only have enough on my own to work on for a few hours before I'm done.  So an abundance (or lack) of time, although helpful, is not the sole factor in determining what type and quality of art one will make.

Yet despite all these rational assertions, I can't help but feel anxious ("it ain't easy" being an artist and a recovering perfectionist/workaholic).  Therefore, I have made a pact with myself.  I will only keep this job at the maximum of one year.  If by the end of the year I have not been able to find a job related to my field, or to have a solid vision and finished piece of artistic work then I will quit and seriously pursue only a career in the arts for the next few months.  As Bowie put it:

“…once upon a time you really moved into rock because the whole idea of it was exciting, there were girls, there was, you know, a lot of fun times, and you could make some statements about something or other - and you'd think of something or other to make a statement about.”

Most of all I feel like this is a satisfactory compromise for all the facets of myself (after all, a year really isn't that long).  Now all that's left to do is wait and see what God has in store for me.  Because although I have made a fairly tidy timeline for myself, I often find that His timeline looks nothing like mine (even though it's always better).

Bonus: Here's a playlist I made on Spotify rounding up some key Bowie songs about isolation and doubt.

Current Contemplations: Empathy is Not Charity

A frame from Scorsese's Silence which inspired the original article

Recently on Facebook this article has been circulating amongst my beloved Christian friends.  The most troubling thing to me was that I both agreed and disagreed with the argument.  And the parts I disagreed with were invalidated insofar as they could be written off as someone who has "bought in", as it were, to the culture of modern empathy the article denounces.

To make matters worse, the audience this is written to is muddled at best.  Is it to the modern Christian? Or someone who is considering wondering about what this "Jesus Thing" is all about? These audiences, and the consequent goal of the article further than "I'm just highlighting a problem", are vastly different.  So, after reading this lovely piece over my cup of tea in the morning, I've been mulling it over all day and these are my thoughts are portions of the article:

"But the truth about Ferreira’s and Chiara’s actual apostasy is straightforward. They were tortured, and they broke. They denied Christ not because of a manipulated, unbearable pity for the sufferings of others, but because of their own unbearable suffering.  What this means is that the deeply disturbing, polarizing drama at the heart of Silence is an anachronism. It is a projection of the modern mind, a hallucination of an anxious, confused, and codependent imagination....not the language of seventeenth-century Jesuits, but the language of Thomas Altizer and William Hamilton, twentieth-century Death of God theologians who believed that not only Christ but Christianity must die, that it is not finally Christian to be Christian, and that in the name of Christian charity, Christians must reject Christian truths."

To point out the modern philosophy leaking into the movie is a helpful starting point.  However, without further insight into the "Death of God" theologians the author is referring to, I can not offer more insight into the truthfulness of this interpretation.  I understand the concept of "Christian charity" being to, in this framework, reject Christian truths.  However, does this imply that the Death of God theology holds Christian charity as the highest virtue? Or, more accurately, does it confuse Christian charity with Christian love (in the largest sense of the term)? And as such, how does the idea that to be a Christian means to reject Christian truths due to supposed "charity" connect with the desire to stop the suffering of others in comparison to the desire to stop the suffering of ourselves?

Here, I'm attempting to highlight the crossed wires of the theology and the article concerning what it looks like to have a healthy Christian relationship with others (ie friendship/discipleship/etc are not contingent solely upon Christian charity) and within oneself and God.  The article later goes on to define its views about what it thinks the "correct" relationships should be, however, I do not think that it elaborates with enough Scriptural support.  Additionally, although the problem is outlined, a prescription for a solution is vague at best.

"In 1937, in Germany, near the end of a vanishing age, Romano Guardini wrote in The Lord:
Man’s desire to share in the life and the destiny of another certainly exists, but even the profoundest union stops short at one barrier: the fact that I am I and he is he. Love knows that complete union, complete exchange is impossible—cannot even be seriously hoped for. The human ‘we’ capable of breaking the bonds of the ego simply does not exist. . . . My every act begins in me, who am alone responsible for it.
Guardini goes on to describe the economy of the Triune God, and the way the Holy Spirit, mediating the relationship of the Father and the Son, makes possible a life characterized by both individuality and union. Only by the mediation of the same Spirit, he argues, can man’s longings for selfhood and intimacy be realized. Only with the help of God’s Spirit can his needs for both autonomy and community be met.
There is wonderful writing in the late chapters of The Lord, and wisdom for the ages, but by asserting as a given that, apart from God’s Spirit, man’s intractable separateness can never be overcome, Guardini failed to anticipate all the ways man would attempt to overcome it nevertheless. He failed to imagine the astonishing lengths to which man would go, and all the means he would employ—political, ideological, juridical, surgical—to try to break the barriers that separate him from other people, and to achieve, apart from God’s Spirit, the happiness for which he was created."

An excellent point regarding the blurred lines between individuality and unity that we have created for ourselves, but I fail to see how placing God at the centre for our need of autonomy and community completely invalidates the idea of finding meaning in and meaningful relationships with other people.  If anything, it gives the meaning of our relationships with others a corrected context.  That our need for community is met in Christ does not mean that it can not exhibit itself in our relationships with others.  I do not tolerate my relationship with my sister (a non-Christian) solely in the hope that she too will one day become a Christian.  I cherish my relationship with her because loving others well is part of the joy I receive as a Christian.

Moreover, I believe that to say that one can find all the solace the soul needs in a relationship with Christ is too simplistic.  Perhaps it's due to my extreme isolation on the other side of the country, but the pure knowledge that I have a connection with Christ still fails to fulfil my desire for emotional intimacy with other people.  Wanting to have friends in a new city does not invalidate the fact that I am fulfilled in Christ and vis versa.

"Transgender experiments are only the tip of an iceberg. Underlying them is a widespread, largely unexamined assumption that has been gathering strength for some time: a conviction that we should be experiencing the feelings of others (which in practice turns out to mean their sufferings rather than their joys) as if they were our own, that this exercise is now morally obligatory."

The article's example to illustrate its point about the lengths man will go to break barriers is to discuss a couple from the early 20th century who undertook transgender identities and generally practised gender-fluidity.  But I don't think this is a good example.  If anyone truly knows someone (or is someone) who identifies as Trans*, then they know that it is not a simple matter of "experimentation" and "choice".  Although I am not familiar with the couple who engaged in the study, for the article assume that a person's real (and often psychologically, emotionally, and spiritually taxing) struggle with understanding their gender identity is a mere "choice" like what breakfast cereal to eat (or a scientific study to partake in) is grossly mistaken.  Thus, the connection with the struggles of the Trans* community to that of a desire to experience the feelings of "others" appears to me to be a non-sequitur.

Additionally, although I do not believe it is a moral obligation to "experience" the suffering (and joy) of others, I can not help but see no other way to connect with an individual.  Perhaps I am too much a product of this modern empathetic culture the article decries, but I think that a part of what it means "to know" another is to be able to empathize with them (to a certain extent).  For instance, when I express my sorrow to my best friend, he can not help but also participate in it to some degree.  And I think there is Biblical precedent for a sharing of emotion in the way that Paul expresses his longing and yearning for seeing other churches thriving and company on his journey.

"In a world without God, the new commandment of empathy might have been foreseen. Once God has been pronounced dead and the loyalty we owe him void, the question of what we owe to others and what we can expect from them becomes urgent. Unable to locate our life’s meaning in God and his eternity, we seek it in our relationships with other people. This is the eventuality the Death of God theologians anticipated: a horizontal, desacralized world that has broken down every barrier to inclusion, a world in which, undistracted by an outgrown God, we can finally give our full attention to one another.
Empathy, in this secular kingdom, does not mean simple kindness, consideration, or compassion. It means actually feeling what you believe someone else is feeling at any given moment. If I am sorry that you are suffering, I am compassionate, but if I am suffering what you are suffering, I am empathic..."

Here, I appreciate that the author has outlined their meaning regarding "empathy".  It's a state of emotion which is later outlined as separate from, "a proportionate, constructive pity and a pity that we merely suffer, [it is] a Passion (Lewis’s word)...that impairs our judgment and destroys our peace, and may persuade us to concede what we would not otherwise concede."  However, I dislike that it later goes on to state:

"For many years now, we have been living in what Frans de Waal called an age of empathy, an age not of reason but of overflowing emotion, as if the sea, that great universal symbol of ungoverned passion and seething affective life, had burst the bounds God laid down for it in the beginning (“so far and no further”) and covered the whole earth with its waves."

To pit reason against empathy, or emotion, is one of the most frustrating dichotomies I've found in contemporary Christian writing.  Perhaps I am reading too much of my own bias in the choice of phrasing rather than the defined terms as per the article.  But the article later goes on to say, "Indeed, given a choice between reason and emotion, or sense and sensibility, as a culture we incline to emotion and sensibility more and more, and we are proud of our choice, as if it were evidence of our evolving humanity."  Therefore, the alignment of empathy with emotion seems justified per the other uses in the argument.  Moreover, Reason here is assumed to be defined as something that it is related to absolute truth and morality, impeccable judgement, and an inner peace at knowing the difference between right and wrong.  It is something to be sought after and desired since it relates closer to the ideal Christian life.

Yet, to tell an individual to only aspire to reason without emotion is a failure to recognize the complexity of both the individual and the impossibility of such a request.  Of course, this article specifically calls out the empathy it earlier defined as one that goes beyond "simple kindness, consideration, or compassion" to one that is the enemy against Reason.  However, the connotation of the language leaves little room for question that emotion and "un-reasonable passion" is seen as a negative.

Additionally, the statement about emotion and sensibility also fails to give validity to any type of emotion (pity or otherwise).  To tell a person in the midst of suffering to "choose reason" is clearly not the best course of action.  Of course, it will "get better", (or more accurately, we can look to the greater glory that will be revealed to us as per Romans 8:18 that the article cites) but the fact that it hurts now does not invalidate either the present or future reality of Christ's Glory - even Jesus wept (John 11:35).

"Sadly, it turns out to be an exhausting, counterproductive business, this business of trying to participate in the sufferings of other people. In his recent book Against Empathy: The Case for Rational Compassion, Yale psychologist Paul Bloom summarizes the experimental evidence and concludes that empathy, strictly defined, “[corrodes] personal relationships; it exhausts the spirit and can diminish the force of kindness and love.” Far from being kinder and more supportive of others, overly empathic individuals are so overwhelmed by the sufferings of others that they are finally helpless to help them, and may even actively avoid them."

The link between attempting to be more empathetic and our constant state of anxiety is a good point.  However, it is here that I believe the article fails to offer a helpful solution as it goes on to say:

"This ability to take the long view [Romans 8:18], this far-seeing eye that fills the whole body with light, is a distinguishing mark of the saint. The saint is not empathic; he is charitable, which means that he always wills the ultimate good of his neighbor. Because the saint’s emotions are ordered to faith and to reason, he is neither particularly manipulable nor unduly afraid of suffering, his own or anyone else’s."

All of this uses excellent, Christian language (and terms), but what does this LOOK like? What does it practically mean to have Christian charity - to "will the ultimate good" of someone? What if what I believe to be the ultimate good of someone disagrees with their own idea of it? Here I think of my secular friends who believe an ultimate good for them involves seeking happiness in ways that I believe are not their ultimate good (ie going out and getting wasted every night - specifically looking at the abuse of alcohol rather than the substance itself).  This is not to say that an objective good doesn't exist, but how do I discuss that ultimate good with

Moreover, I would appreciate more Biblical evidence for this claim other than Romans 8:18.  The author should have more examples for such a large claim, even if it seems reasonable and true.

"Christianity is not a cult. Its stated goal is not to control others but to set them free, even from the person evangelizing them....Christianity’s ideal method is to preach to others a word that has the power to put them in touch with the Source. Its goal is to introduce others to the God who alone has the power to confer identity and individuality on human beings.
Our age’s obsession with individuality is expressive of a crisis of individuality; it is symptomatic of a deficit rather than a surfeit. People today are no more selfish or egotistical than previous generations; rather, their selfhood is more genuinely imperilled. Unacquainted with the Holy Spirit, which introduces into human relationships the same kind of spacious, identity-enhancing intimacy that characterizes the Trinity itself, and far from the Church, whose sacraments, the Eucharist especially, “[enable] us to break our disordered attachments to creatures and root ourselves in [Christ],” too many people fall into binary, diminishing relationships; thievish relationships in which, in Guardini’s words, “always the one must live at the cost of the other”; mutually destructive relationships from which people eventually withdraw in dismay.
Put another way, in a world without God, man attributes too much agency to himself. This may exhilarate him for a time, but in the end, he cannot bear so much responsibility. There is a reaction, and, across the culture, a collective retreat, as unprecedented numbers of people lick their wounds in solitude, or seek comfort in drugs, legal or illegal, or in pornography, or in the soothing, impersonal ministrations of electronic devices."

I fail to see how this point links with the larger idea of empathy not equally charity.  I agree that one's idenity is found in Christ and that as a society we have attributed too much agency to ourselves.  However, I don't understand what this has to do with reordering our relationships with others through Christ first.  Perhaps this is my own failing as the audience, but I would like a clearer link established between individual identity found in Christ and its relationship TO our relationships with others (ie proper Christian charity of "willing ultimate good").

"In an age of empathy, the more pedestrian temptation is to become faux Christs ourselves, false messiahs who promise more than we can deliver. Thinking along these lines, we can understand, finally, why empathy is preoccupied with the sufferings of other people, rather than with their joys. In the spiritual economy of modernity, the place that remains vacant is the place that belongs by right to Christ alone: “Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows.” Our culturally sanctioned practice of empathy is an attempt to fill Christ’s shoes; it is a reiteration of the sin of Eden in a fresh guise. In place of Christ’s fearless, definitive Passion, we offer others our problematic, uneasy pity, a passion from which no one rises incorrupt."

Again, perhaps my biggest problem with this article is that it offers no practical insight for what to do in regards to the "day-to-day", as it were, relationships and life of Christian (and non-Christian) people.  This may be an excellent insight into the problem with empathy as we conceive of it today, but if we overthrow it, what is our next step? To dismiss the value of the statement "I feel your pain" means that we need to find another way to express that we have compassion for our fellow humans.

Not to mention that the pain others feel cannot simply be solved by saying "glory later".  Christ also has glory (to spare, even) for the now, and if it does not take the form of empathy what should it look like? Alt-right conservative Christian culture today is not shown in the kindest light.  Although the question of if the people "truly are" Christians may come up, the fact of the matter is that Christians can't afford to brush off what the media says about them.  This is not to say that the media should be the ultimate informer to the conduct and standards of the Church, but the perception of the world says that the Church lacks compassion.  And how can you say it doesn't to your friends of marginalized groups that the Church has failed to help? (Here I think of my LGBTQIA+ friends, my Middle Eastern friends, my Mexican friends, etc. etc. etc.)

In short, I think my biggest problem with the article is not the idea that modern empathy is not Christian charity.  But rather, if it is not, then what should we do moving forward? Does this mean we should throw out empathy (that darn, useful "tool" of compassion and kindness) altogether? And if so, then in what way/how are we going to access our desire to be charitable? Perhaps this article isn't exactly a "call to action" in the problem/solution variety, but merely outlining the problem isn't as satisfying to myself as a reader.

Current Contemplation: Encouragement

Excellent Twitter thread about Bowie encouraging the career of Arcade Fire and his constant generosity to welcoming bright, new creators into the fold

Encouragement is defined in the dictionary as: 1) The action of giving someone support, confidence, or hope 2) Persuasion to do or to continue something 3) The act of trying to stimulate the development of an activity, state, or belief

Lately, this concept has been at the forefront of my mind.  Predominately because being isolated from everyone I know in New York could be seen as a disheartening situation.  This is especially true because I am slow to introduce myself to new people and situations, so it has been hard to go out and push myself to meet other people.  On top of this, as a reluctant morning person, I rarely (ie never) go out to clubs or bars to socialise with people in my age group.  Therefore, although I have met many interesting people of different ages, most of them are significantly older than me.  Don't get me wrong - I am a huge supporter of having friends of multiple generations, ethnicities, etc. (it was particularly annoying to only meet people and have friends my age when I was in college).  However, to be so quickly taken out of that context again is just as unnerving as being thrust into it.

Biblically, there are numerous references to the need for encouragement.  Specifically, the encouragement of the heart via Christ is seen as a critical part of building and maintaining faith, hope, and love in Him which then leads to comfort in times of suffering/trials while accomplishing great works.  I don't mean for that statement to sound formulaic (I think that the way these elements play out, in reality, is messy and overlap and backtrack every which way).  However, the crux of the idea that encouragement for the heart is needed for comforting our spirits is something I've been meditating on today.

Specifically, I was at a book and coffee shop today where I met a man named Eric.  He had numerous backpacks, books, and notebooks scattered around his table, and I originally believed he was a homeless individual.  However, whether or not he was, he was one of the most friendly and talkative people I've ever met.  I watched him go around and greet the staff and other patrons at the various tables.  At each one he was engaging - asking them about their lives, their hopes, their dreams, while also pointing out helpful references to different books or how to work the tricky bathroom lock.  Clearly, he was a well-known patron of the establishment.  However, not only that but he was genuinely welcoming - encouraging to every one regarding their hopes and dreams.

So before he left I went up and introduced myself to him because I wanted to encourage the encourager.  I believe that people who encourage others rarely get their own spirits raised without their prompting someone to respond in kind (out of common courtesy).  And moreover, I think that these people are precisely the ones who need and deserve encouragement just as much (if not more so) than the rest of us.  Mutual affirmation and validation of the spirit in these troubling times can not be undersold (especially if it's done in Christ).

In return to my overtures, he talked with me about following the little voice inside myself ("The Universe" is what he called it), and also gave me great reference sources for getting a start in the film industry out in New York.  Whether or not he was homeless, I don't know, but he clearly had a rich inner life.

Although I wouldn't call "that little voice" the "Universe", exactly, I do think he was in tune with the idea of The Spirit who Dwells in us.  Indeed, what struck me most of all was how fearless he was to go up and converse with everyone and anyone, and how everyone he spoke to had a smile on their face afterwards.  He was truly showing people that he cared about their opinions and wanted to exchange his own with them.  What I saw in him was real encouragement - the kind that I believe as a Christian we should be doing every day.  (The seeking out others and listening and conversing with them kind).

And on one last note, I received some excellent encouragement today in the form of Twitter as well regarding this blog (connecting back to my opening picture)! Proof that there ARE people in the world interested in God and David Bowie (my little niche corner of the Internetsphere).  This made me so excited that I think tomorrow I will do a long-overdue essay on Bowie.

Current Contemplations: Instagram Photography

"I don't do it for the 'Gram" - ELEMENT. Kendrick Lamar

A topic that has been at the forefront of my mind lately has been photography - specifically the idea of Instagram photography and its ramifications on Art.

Today I saw a post from someone that featured a few people smiling in the outdoors.  Like any typical Instagram photographer, most of the colours were soft, muted, pastels - and because it was from the PNW, all of the pictures heavily featured cool tones, degrees of beige and cream, and pops of yellow as a complementary colour.  All of the lighting was suitably soft and bright, and the subjects were all arranged in similar positions and compositions (ie center or just off center of the frame, smiling, laughing, or having a contemplative look on their face).  All of the objects in frame were either suitably symmetrical or ever so lightly asymmetrical.  Everything posted was suitable "Instagram Beautiful", or "Instagram Art" worthy.

Indeed, because I can conjure up such an image in your mind without you seeing the post is indicative of the fact that Instagram has conditioned us to think a certain type of homogenized photographic content is "art".  Sure, you're no longer restricted to a 1:1 aspect ratio anymore, but the majority of Instagram posts still value clean ratios like 1:1 or 3:4 - maybe 16:9 on occasion, but never anything else (to imagine a 2.35 in a post is laughable).  And all of the "beautiful" photography and photographs need to adhere to the aforementioned standards.

Sure, there is a modicum of variation.  Pick a genre like a "fashion" Instagram (all predominately vertical photographs, a similar full-body pose to show the appropriate pieces, the flat, softer lighting remains favoured, a colour palette is chosen) or a "travel" Instagram (all done with similar compositions for the landscape whether it features buildings or trees, everything fairly saturated, occasionally there are people in the frame, usually the larger focus is on a suitably "breath-taking" location), but on the whole within each niche and subgenre there is still a "standard" Instagram aesthetic that we deem appropriate.  And the Instagram accounts that can churn out this standardized beauty and do it better than all the others (even trendier outfits, even more impossibly fantastical looking landscapes) then they garner the most followers.

Thus it's interesting to me that despite the fact that "anyone can be a photographer", that the technology to do so has been taken out of the elite few who had to invest serious time, money, and energy to develop their craft, what we as the public have chosen to do is instead homogenize our own art.

Of course, this is assuming that you consider amateur photography posted on Instagram as the only credentials needed to be considered a professional photographer - which, to make myself clear, I do not.  I believe that professional photographers can have Instagram accounts, but to have an Instagram account one does not need to be (or indeed usually are) a photographer.  Here, I want to consciously make the distinction between a photographer as a professional who has invested time, money, and energy into developing their craft (the art of photography) versus someone who enjoys taking pictures as a hobby and sharing them with others.

Not only that, but I also want to highlight the difference between a photographer and a person who takes photos as a singularly monetary concern.  A photographer has developed their skills sufficiently to ask for reasonable compensation for their craft.  And how could you refuse if you truly see what the art of a professional photographer looks like? Their images are their intellectual and artistic property, and you cannot repurpose or resell their image for your own gain.  Of course, the Instagram version of this would be to garner enough followers to make companies want to pay you to take pictures for them (essentially a freelance advertising gig), or to use your Instagram as a place for you to put your portfolio so that other companies, bloggers, artists, etc. can see your work in order to hire you.

All of this seems obvious, you might say to yourself, nodding along as I essentially describe a profession versus a hobby.  However, Instagram has begun to blur these lines.  Consequently, I find it frustrating when I see my peers right and left calling themselves a "photographer" and assuming they can start a business just because they are in possession of an Instagram account.  No.  You are not a photographer, but you are someone who takes photos.

And this does not have to be seen as a negative thing.  I myself am someone who casually takes and shares photos with my friends and family because I personally enjoy to do so (it's my "Travel/Life Scrapbook").  However, my sister uses her Instagram as her business (she is in fashion and uses her account for PR and branding purposes).  Here, there is a distinctive difference in the purpose we use our accounts for as well as the amount of time and energy we have both taken to "cultivate" our Instagrams.

She has invested considerable time and energy in making her account into a portfolio and a means for her profession.  She has also invested money in improving her outfits as well as her knowledge of fashion and other social media outlets.  Granted, she may not be a "photographer" insofar as knowing the technical side of camerawork, but she does know what she wants her image to look like and how to brand it.  I, however, enjoy sharing my photographs for personal pleasure.  I went to film school so I generally know how to compose a shot, but I do not expect to make my money as a cinematographer or a photographer.

These short musings, of course, are only part of a larger question about the role of media in moulding our current expectations and perception of Art, but this short little musing was inspired today by the fact that I do have friends who I think are genuinely talented photographers who want to use their Instagram to take their work to the next professional level.  In particular, I want to highlight my high school bestie Annaliese (check out her Instagram @annaliesehenry) because I think she is extremely talented and dedicated to learning more about her craft (not a #sponsor).

David Bowie: Glass Spider Tour

Bowie performing during the Glass Spider tour of 1987

Spent a relaxing Sunday in after church watching movies and taking a two hour nap.

Of import was that I finished watching Bowie's Glass Spider tour from 1987 (the entire thing is on YouTube). This is the third Bowie concert I've watched in its entirety after of course Ziggy Stardust and Diamond Dogs (what footage is left from "Cracked Actor"). Although universally accepted as his worst concert and erase by critics and fans alike (one comment I read said that someone actually walked out of the concert when they attended it live years ago), I think that the title is woefully misplaced.

Glass Spider may be unashamedly "80s" in both sound and style (just look at that hair for a start), but the theatricality, choreography, style, and general production value both in the concert itself and the concert film are quite modern. Concerts today have their origins and thanks to tours like Bowie's for what they are (even though he himself didn't look favourably on the era years later).

One day I plan on writing a larger piece defending the era to fans, critics, and Bowie himself, but for now here's one of the best articles I've had the pleasure of reading about the charm of the era (which is in my Top 5 Bowie Eras).

Life Highlights: A Fortnight On

Wandering around Greenwich Village

"I think really and truly an artist wants to keep finding an even more direct and interesting way of expressing himself, I think, and as long as he ever has that passion, and has an interest in life, I don't think that's ever diminished. I think the passion for working never really diminishes. Look at so many great artists who've worked all the way through to their deaths. And I suspect that I won't be stopping until I drop, probably. In some form or other I'll always be working, for sure." - David Bowie

I've officially been in New York City for TWO FULL WEEKS now, and here's the skinny:

I've been out of work now for 18 days and I can't stand it.  Don't get me wrong, I'm not upset in terms of the job itself (food & beverage and close interactions with the public are only so rewarding), but with the community I had at both of my jobs.  I miss having co-workers to laugh with, commiserate with, and share in the experience of life with.

I also, in a more philosophical sense, miss working in terms of having inspiration for creating something.  Since moving to New York I've been writing every day (I have quite a lot stored up that has not been posted on this blog).  However, most of it are drabbles, bits and bobs, odds and ends of pieces of writing whether they're half-formed arguments or book ideas or musings on life itself.  I would really love to finish one solid piece again on something related to philosophy or art or Bowie (who is both).  It's not like I don't have the time.  Perhaps that will be what I do tomorrow.  Although, I'd rather explore without having to research on my laptop.  Being glued to my laptop is for snowy days in the winter - not beautiful days at the end of summer (with the caveat of today - 90% humidity for a west coast girl is no joke, and I am pretty sure I died walking around today even though I hid in Rockefeller Center for a lot of it).

Currently, I'm depressed about two things: 1) The slow-going process of making friends and meeting people (of which I've officially met and talked with 2 people and gone to 1 church service in the past two weeks) and 2) Wanting to go and explore the city, but realising most of the things I want to do involve a "disposable income" (looking at YOU all the delicious eateries located in East Village/NoHo/SoHo/Greenwich Village area)

I wish that my friends from the west coast were here with me.  But at the same time, I know that I definitely can't move back yet.  I sense that this is exactly where I need to be (for whatever reason) and that this is only the beginning of my east coast transition.

Unrelated to my more gloomy thoughts, if you're ever obsessed with an artist I seriously encourage you to "date" them.  I thought that I was beginning to know Bowie after reading his favourite books, listening to his favourite music, watching his favourite movies, and analysing his own art, but moving to his city has been next-level stuff.  Walking around Greenwich Village today I had yet another crucial insight to his album "The Next Day" (my second favourite of all time).

The song "(You Will) Set the World On Fire" opens with the lines: "Midnight in the village/Seeger lights the candles/From Bitter End to Gaslight/Baez leaves the stage".  Seeger and Baez most likely refers to Pete Seeger and Joan Baez, American folk singers from Greenwich Village and the Beat Generation (and Baez has additional fame being a previous lover of Bob Dylan's).  Therefore, it's clear that the "village" being referred to here is the neighbourhood of Greenwich Village in New York City.  This is further reinforced with the allusion to "Bitter End" and "Gaslight".  Both venues have had various famous musicians (particularly folk musicians - notably Bob Dylan again [yet another reinforcement of Bowie's use of Bob Dylan as a character and symbol in his work - see: "Song for Bob Dylan"]) and are located in Greenwich Village.  Although the coffee shop Gaslight closed in 1971, Bitter End is still around as a popular music venue and club with live music every night.

Today I wandered around Greenwich Village (and yes, I moseyed on down past the Bitter End) and I was fascinated by the area.  To think so much music history happened on the same roads I walked - and that Bowie himself was equally (if not infinitely more) enamoured with the same culture (both of the past and the present) was beyond anything I can express.  I felt an even deeper connection to him and his work, and I gained even more insight into the influences and meanings of his pieces than I could've if I had never visited.  (As a side note, I also saw "The Friends Apartment" while I was there since I was in the area and I really wanted to scream at the top of my lungs "IIIIII'LLLLLLLLLL BE THERE FOR YOUUUUUUUUU").

And finally, I bought a candle today at Target.  I wish I could've bought a cool one at a fancy little boutique in NoHo, but I'm too cheap and broke to be able to justify spending money on such a frivolous thing.  Although, I have to admit, having my own candle to brighten my room has been pretty nice this evening even though it has a ridiculous name (how does one arrive at "Reflection + Clarity" from the scent of "sea salt sage"?)