Missing The World Summit On Arts & Culture

Art / Current Issues

Missing The World Summit On Arts & Culture

October 19, 2016

Our culture is more shaped by the arts and humanities than it often is by politics. —Jim Leach

charles i. letbetter - missing the world summit for arts & culture

Global discussions of arts and culture are taking place and the US is largely sitting on the sidelines

There is a conference taking place in Malta right now involving arts and culture organizations from all over the world. The World Summit On Arts And Culture includes participants from every populated continent, people dedicated wholly to preserving the future of the arts and the cultures they represent. Interestingly enough, this is one international program where the United States is sitting mostly on the sidelines. Yes, National Endowment for the Arts chairperson Jane Chu did speak this morning, but the only other American organization on the very full speaking schedule is Robert Lynch, CEO of Americans for the Arts late tomorrow. The conversation is very diverse with points of view from places whose cultures and arts have long been overlooked by the Western arts community.

From the summit’s website:

The focus of the 2016 World Summit on Arts and Culture, will be on Cultural Leadership in the 21st Century. The arts and culture can be considered to be at a crossroads – faced with many challenges and opportunities at the global, national and local level such as: the impact of new technologies on the production and distribution of cultural goods and services; threats to global security; new patterns of migration; changing contexts at the national level including austerity measures and continuous requests for reform; aspirations from artists and culture operators to extend their impact and outreach to other sectors, while also struggling to guarantee freedom of expression and ensure cultural diversity.

Relying On The Voice Of Others

I really can’t comment too terribly much beyond this point because I’M NOT THERE! Sigh. No one ever wants to send me to the fun stuff. I could volunteer to be shot at and be accepted right away, but offer to be involved in conversations about how photography factors in arts and especially non-Western cultures and nooooo, I’m still sitting here at home. Fortunately, though, those who are participating have been very active on social media, especially Twitter. There is also a discussion paper that covers many of the issues addressed today and tomorrow. The paper’s quite academic so you’ll most likely need to give it multiple reads. However, there are some gems from that document that are well worth quoting here.

… the cultural leader is an agent of change who contributes to cultural development in their country, Discussion Paper 21 Ayeta Anne Wangusa region or continent. The cultural leader does this through visioning and building relations with partners to address systemic challenges resulting from our colonial history and the current globalisation era. It is also about conserving our intangible heritage for posterity, as well analysing the underlying belief systems of Africa and their interaction with the Global North and Global South, to promote social cohesion and sustainable development. —Ayeta Anne Wangusa, Executive Director of Culture and Development East Africa (CDEA)

What is urgently needed today is leadership which promotes dialogue for new governance, collaboration and coproduction endeavors with civil society and cultural movements. —Lucina Jimenez, Director General of ConArte Internacional

Voices Not Expected

One of the areas we tend to dismiss when discussing arts and culture is the Middle East. We do so out of great ignorance. The regions where war is most commonplace are also homes to great troves of artistic and cultural importance that have influenced artists, writers, playwrights, and politicians for centuries. Many of these artifacts have been recently destroyed and preserving them seems almost impossible. I found these statements from the discussion paper most interesting.

I n Arab cultural scenes with no or overpowering art infrastructures, small and short circuit networks formulate; friendships sustain some of the bonding. Within these networks, collaborations force themselves on individuals; time is limited, shifting dramatically, and so are the identified resources, therefore sharing or teaming up allows being in and outside of a production process. There is no continuity for those who fall out of these processes. Personal, or collaborative, collections of notes, writings, ephemera, accesses, experiences and interests in miniscule histories are the sites of intervention. There is still a huge discrepancy in sustaining rights; to access, to copy, to say, to stay, to object, to reject, to exit.

…

A cultural leader is not a state, but its policy; is not an institution but its dynamic; is not a community, but its bond; is not a social (media) space, not a financial model, nor a future built by forecasts, but their logic of probabilities, that could continue to enhance our working models. —Ala Younis is an artist, trained as an architect in Amman.

Wait, There’s More

The discussion paper is quite full of perspective that should yank us from thinking exclusively about local perspectives and open our conversations more to immigrants bringing their culture and artistic perspective to us. Consider these examples:

In Asian cultures there is a long tradition of artistic creativity as communal, rather than the individual specialist called artist, and in many Asian societies there is no word for artist.

…

Lopsided emphasis on left brain thinking stunts creative imagination. It is unfortunate that many Asian countries inherited educational systems from the industrial revolution of eighteenth century.

…

Cultural leadership, especially in education and official policy, should be able to promote not only the intelligence quotient, but intuitive, creative intelligence and all other intelligences that enrich the creative imagination. —Felipe M. De Leon, Jr., Chairman and Commissioner for the Arts of the National Commission for Culture and the Arts, in the Philippines

Cultural leadership is not only the implementation of concepts and theories from the business world into the cultural sector, but – like the concepts of cultural management and cultural entrepreneurship – it has also to do with the creation of social value by artists and organisations and how to balance managerial effectiveness with artistic value for society.

…

Regardless of how and where these challenges emerge, indisputably leaders will be required for the cultural sector. The cultural sector now has little choice but to respond: the present challenges of new media, changing audiences, dwindling public funds, and a decline of historical awareness are merely the next steps in this continuing pathway. —Annick Schramme, President of ENCATC, the European Network on Cultural Management and Cultural Policy

What I’m Missing

While justing being in Malta this time of year would be nice, what I’m missing are the voices of incredibly talented and intelligent people as they discuss ways to make sure the arts and culture continue to develop throughout the century in the face of numerous obstacles. Participants posting from Twitter give us just a taste of those conversations.

You have to be an activist to become a political artist. – Chandraguptha Thenuwara on #fake political art #artsummitmalta

— Perduta Gente (@PerdutaGente) October 19, 2016

Kelli McClusky: Self-censorship happens all the time. Especially when funding is cut without reason or sedition laws enacted #artsummitmalta

— Esther Anatolitis (@_esther) October 19, 2016

Do artistic interests drive this agenda, or are arts & culture being instrumentalised to achieve other goals? #ASEFculture #artsummitmalta

— ASEF Culture360 (@culture360_asef) October 19, 2016

Yvonne Donders: I believe in the universality of human rights but not the uniformity of human rights. Dignity with diversity #artsummitmalta

— Esther Anatolitis (@_esther) October 19, 2016

“She was so poor she didn’t have anything more than money” @SergioMautone #artsummitmalta

— Lucy Hannah (@LucyHannah19) October 19, 2016

I could, of course, go on and on and on. You wouldn’t read them if I did, though. If you’re interested in more, search #artsummitmalta for current tweets coming from the summit.

We have thousands of arts organizations scattered across the US, most of which do absolutely incredible work. We need these larger conversations, though. Art and cutlture is not merely a local experience, but a global one. The questions and challenges are universal. We need to grab hold of these conversations and push them forward.

And maybe next year I can hid aboard a tramp steamer or something and actually participate.

Mythology / PotD / studio nudes

Everything Is Temporary

July 3, 2016

One can have many regrets in life, but they are temporary. There are lessons to learn from every mistake. —Jeev Milkha Singh

charles i. letbetter - everything is temporary

Everything that exists has a beginning and an end. Nothing lasts forever.

When I looked out the window a moment ago, the sky in the East was a dark, brilliant pink. Now, it is just gray. Rain is coming and while it might be problematic for those with outdoor plans it’s nature is to pass over us and be gone. My youngest son is here but only for a month. As much as I would like him to stay, his visit is temporary. He must return home in time for school.

At the center of most every major belief system is the concept that everything that exists, has existed, or will exist on this planet and throughout the universe is temporary. Things are planted, grow, and then wither. People are born, live their lives, and then die. Stars in the sky burst into being, burn bright, then implode upon themselves. Everything is temporary.

Not that everything reaches its demise within the same time frame. The 1971 James Bond movie Diamonds Are Forever works on the premise that diamonds are valuable because of their strength and permanence. However, while the erosion of a diamond may not be something observable within the span of a human lifetime, even they do eventually dissolve like Jill St. John’s career.

Being Temporary Is Good

Permanence is overrated. Some people want to live forever, but if life is not temporary then neither is the pain and suffering that accompanies it. Some people want great buildings of architectural importance preserved in perpetuity. Yet, with the crumbling or demolition of the old comes the opportunity to create new, perhaps better and more functional buildings.

When we regard something as permanent, we immediately devalue that object or idea because we assume that it will always be there. Many times, when I was younger, I stood by the grave of a deceased parent as their adult children mourned that they did not spend more time with them. “I thought they would always be there,” is the cry of many who were neglectful because they did not appreciate the temporary nature of life. We think towns and cities last forever, but they don’t. Mountains and oceans are temporary, even as they’re always changing and adapting.

The temporal nature of the universe is important because it allows us to appreciate what is here now. While we might miss certain items and aspects and people from the past, knowing that our life here is temporary provides us with some motivation. We focus our attention on those things we might lose. As we realize that everything is temporary, we appreciate more of what is around us. Even our lives earn greater respect as we consider our temporary nature.

Appreciating Life

While we inherently know that life is temporary, we don’t always realize just how short it might be. Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department (IMPD) posted the account of a tragic shooting that occurred yesterday. A large extended family had gathered to celebrate the life of a deceased loved one. As family members were standing outside a home, an apparently unrelated person walked up and started shooting. There was no apparent provocation. At this point, there’s no evidence that the shooter knew anyone in the family. He shot three people. One died on the scene. One died a couple of hours later at the hospital. A three-year-old remains in critical but stable condition from being shot in the hand. Life is just that temporary.

At the same time, though, Nobel Peace Prize winner Elie Wiesel was 87 when he died this week. While he outlived most his peers, he understood the temporary nature of life. His mother, his father, and his younger sister all died at Auschwitz. The temporal reality of their lives and others he knew motivated him to write his award-winning biography Night. That book brought the horrors of the holocaust to life and emphasized the value of all life.

Without death constantly lurking, would we appreciate the lives we have? Almost inevitably, we would take greater risks, indulge in things that are harmful, and worry less about the danger our actions might bring to others. If we had no fear of death, would we have any compassion for others at all? That life is temporary keeps us focused. Knowing our days are numbered pushes us to do things now rather than later. Our actions are kept in check and we have greater compassion for others because life is temporal.

Government Comes To An End

Earlier this morning, I was reading an article by David Van Reybrouck on “Why Elections Are Bad For Democracy.” He makes the argument that the concept of one person/one vote is flawed because not every voter is intelligent or necessarily thoughtful in the way we vote. Such a deficiency leads to harmful results, such as the Brexit, because it is falsely assumed that Britain leaving the European Union was the will of the people. He argues for something called Sortition, selecting legislators by well-managed lottery. The advantage would presumably be that those who are inherently unqualified would not be elected.

Others are willing to consider even changing our very form of government. In a Gallup survey done last year, 47% of Americans said they would consider voting for a socialist. Stil,l others would happily vote for a totalitarian who would provide hard-line consistency in government over a prolonged period.

As we celebrate our independence from British rule this weekend, now is a good time to consider that democracy as we know it is temporary. As our current system becomes increasingly dysfunctional, dramatic changes to that system become inevitable. What we celebrate now may not exist 20 years in the future.

Awareness And Contemplation

If all that exists is temporary, then how are we to respond? Do we live in fear of our inevitable demise or do we seize each day and look to make it count? Do we consider how our actions might make existence even more temporary for other lives, other economies, or other cultures? Do we contemplate anything at all?

As we become more aware of our temporal nature, we realize we must do the most with what we have. There is no time worth wasting. If we are to create, we must create now. If we are to show compassion, we must show compassion now. If we are to revel in the love of another, we must love that person now.

My late mother endured many turbulent periods during her life and not all of them were handled well. She was fond of saying, though, that, “this, too, shall pass.” She understood that nothing, even the bad days and bad circumstances were going to last forever. She embraced that which is temporary. Perhaps we should do more of the same.

Let us dance in the rain. Let us love unconditionally. Let us live the fullest of lives now.

Current Issues / PotD / science

Water That Is Safe

April 21, 2016

Rivers, ponds, lakes, and streams – they all have different names, but they all contain water. Just as religions do – they all contain truths. —Muhammad Ali

Water is the very essence of life, but is it ever safe to drink?

I was standing outside with the Tipster this morning waiting on her bus in the rain. As we stood there, huddled under my umbrella, she noticed the water running off the side. Being the silly little six-year-old that she is, she tipped her head back so that the top of her head was exposed to the rain.

“What are you doing?” I asked in a rather incredulous tone. As with many six-year-olds, getting her ready for school this morning was a trying set of circumstances and I really wasn’t in the mood for nonsense.

“I’m drinking the rain off the umbrella,” she giggled.

I pulled her back up under the umbrella with a warning, “You don’t want to do that.”

She’s six. She’s not going to let a statement like that go unchallenged. So, naturally, her response was, “Why?”

What came out of my mouth was, “Because the cats have been all over it,” which is a cop-out because the cats have been all over everything in our house. What I really meant, though, was something more like, “I have no idea what the Ph balance of the rainwater here is and given all the manufacturing on this side of town I’m not sure any of the rainwater is safe without some form of filtering.” That version would have gone right over her little head, though. Cats are much more relatable.

If you’ve driven around Indianapolis lately, you’ve probably seen the billboards and/or heard the radio ads from Citizens Energy, the company that manages and oversees the Indianapolis water supply. The ad campaign has been an attempt to garner public support and understanding for a proposed rate increase to water bills in the areas that Citizens covers. The situation, as presented by Citizens, sounds dier. Some pipes are over 100 years old and much of the original infrastructure is crumbling. Replacing all those pipes is expensive. The plan worked. Yesterday, the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (IURC) approved a rate hike that will increase the average residential water bill by $5 a month starting in May.

The rate hike doesn’t actually ensure that the water we receive through our taps is any cleaner when it leaves the treatment facility, but that it’s less likely to be contaminated between there and your home. In short, what the rate hike does is help prevent Indianapolis and the surrounding areas from experiencing a water disaster like what happened with Flint, Michigan. Clean water passing through aging pipes is about as dangerous as, well, drinking water falling off an umbrella. All manners of nasty chemicals leach into the water supply with no means of control.

As Americans, we take the quality and ubiquity of our water supply for granted. Almost everyone alive today has grown up with running water. We are accustomed to turning a knob and having the water flow at quantities and pressures we could take for granted. That’s why Flint’s water crisis was so alarming. We, as a general populace, weren’t even aware that such a disaster could happen.

Scientist and climatologists have been warning us for years, though, that our supply of drinking water is becoming increasingly unsafe. As with most matters of earth science, no one wants to listen. The stories are of gradual decline, of a slow erosion that isn’t necessarily evident every time one looks out the window. In 1990, the Acid Rain Program was created as part of the Clean Air Act, but corporate and industrial opposition to the limits established by those laws has been severe and through continued lobbying the laws have been diminished to the point they’re hardly recognizable.

Keeping our drinking water clean is neither cheap nor easy. Earlier this month, Citizens was happy to announce that, “… drinking water produced at all of the utility’s treatment plants is safe …” but that announcement didn’t come until after the Environmental Protection Agency proposed adding an area downtown to its list of superfund sites. Being on this list allows federal funds to be used in cleaning up the area. Two of Citizens’ wellfield areas, along Riverside and 16th streets, would be included in that cleanup. Until then, anything from those wellfields has to go through extra treatment before it’s ready to be consumed.

Spring is deceptive in its ability to make everything look so clean and pure. We just assume that what we drink and sprinkle over our gardens is healthy and safe. A major effort is required to keep us as safe as we think we are, though, and your Indiana state legislature isn’t helping any. Bills attempting to eliminate or significantly limit the EPA’s rules, especially those regarding groundwater, are frequently introduced and there is a vocal lobbying effort to prohibit all EPA legislation completely.

As beautiful a state as Indiana could be, you’d think we’d value our natural resources more and want to keep them clean, but apparently that’s not necessarily the case across the board. Some would rather indulge the continued dumping of raw sewage and spew horrible chemicals into the air. What may seem harmless to some, eventually impacts us all. Rain eventually falls and little girls try to drink the rain from their umbrellas.

You would think such an act would be innocent and safe. It should be.

Current Issues / Social Commentary

Time To Kill State Legislatures

April 15, 2016

The frame of mind in the local legislatures seems to be exerted to prevent the federal constitution from having any good effect. —Henry Knox

charles i. letbetter - time to kill state legislatures

We must overhaul our state governments if we hope to preserve basic human rights and prevent stupidity from running amock

Our founding fathers could never have imagined what has happened to our state legislatures. When the United States was founded, the concept of state government was that decentralization of power would prevent a totalitarian regime, such as presented by the British monarchy under King George, from taking control. From their perspective, smaller, more local governments would be better able to respond to and appropriately address the needs of the people living within the region. The concept was one that made sense and largely worked for the first 80 or so years of our existence.

The situation surrounding the Civil War demonstrated the danger in allowing states to have too much control, however, and it became obvious at that point that some restrictions were necessary to address those issues where state legislatures might pass laws contrary to the federal constitution or in violation of other federal laws. While some laws were passed, though, the concept of states rights is so deeply embedded in our political culture that anything far-reaching that would have any real impact has always been struck down.

What our founding fathers could not have imagined is a set of conditions we currently face. We now have a population that is extremely mobile. It is quite rare for anyone born in the last 60 years to not travel more than 50 miles from their birthplace. Instead, we move all over the place, from one coast to the other, on a regular basis. Our travel, whether for business or pleasure, has us moving through, or over, multiple states at a time. We now have a society where laws passed in one state not only affects their own citizenry but can have a direct and immediate effect on those living outside the state.

Unfortunately, at the same time, we also find ourselves in a position where partisanship at the state level is stronger than it has ever been and the desire on the part of state legislators to further their own political ambitions overrides the needs of their constituents. Laws are more likely to be written by lobbyist and corporate marketing departments than any legislator or anyone actually accountable to the people of the state. The result is that state legislatures are producing a plethora of bad laws that are not only a disservice to the people in their state but in many cases they have a ripple effect for the entire nation.

Space and time prohibit me from being as exhaustive as I would like, but here are just a few of the more recent examples of state legislatures going where they have no business:

Voting rights in Alabama and 22 other states are significantly more restrictive going into this year’s presidential election.
Illinois Senate President John Cullerton proposed a bill this week that would tax Illinois drivers 1.5 cents a mile for every mile driven or approximately $450 a year.
Just last month. Mississippi passed a religious freedom bill that is the worst in damaging LGBT rights.
North Carolina has not only passed a law requiring transgendered people to use the bathroom identifying with their birth gender, they also prohibited cities from adopting laws that would protect LGBT citizens.
Tennessee’s governor vetoed a bill that would have made the Bible the official state book but this week the same Tennessee legislature passed a bill that would seriously limit access to mental health care for LGBT people.
We are well aware of Indiana’s incredibly restrictive new anti-abortion bill and despite large-scale public condemnation of the law Governor Pence shows no indication of backing down as he did with last year’s RFRA law.
When it comes to attempts to discriminate against LGBT people, Oklahoma takes the cake with a record-setting 26 new bills introduced this year specifically designed to limit LGBT rights within the state.
My home state of Kansas has done such an incredibly lousy job with education financing that they had to pass an unfathomable law allowing unlicensed teachers in the classroom in order to make up for a severe teacher shortage.
Texas passed laws dramatically expanding the conditions under which a person can carry a concealed weapon, including on college classrooms, dorms, and campuses.

Mind you, this short list isn’t even the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the ridiculousness of state legislatures. They’ve done things such as prohibit even considering or researching things such as alternative power sources, mass transit options such as high-speed rail, and limitations on the dumping of chemicals into state waterways. State legislatures have literally taken food out of the mouths fo their poorest citizens with restrictions on accessibility to federal assistance programs such as food stamps. Even with the passage of federal health care laws, state legislatures have found ways to limit services and coverage for the poorest of their citizens. In all 50 states, the list of misdeeds and offensive legislation is long and sickening.

And while state governors and legislatures are quick to scream all about states rights, they certainly don’t mind exercising authoritative control over city governments. Laws passed in the past two years at state levels have prohibited cities within those states from raising or setting a minimum wage, expanding voter accessibility for city elections, protecting citizens from various forms of discrimination, and opting out of ill-conceived statewide testing for students.

We have no reason to continue supporting such a dysfunctional form of government. The condition of state legislatures across the country in no way resembles what our founding fathers intended. We need to completely overhaul the system from the very ground up and completely eliminate the opportunity for the level of legislative stupidity that has become commonplace at every state house across the union.

How might we do this, you ask? After all, it is a fool who complains without offering a solution. You should know me better than that. Here’s what I’m thinking works:

Kill off state legislatures completely. So long, good-bye. Not the actual people, mind you. We’re not advocating homicide. But the entity itself has to go.
Replace legislatures with elected committees responsible for dispersion of state and federal funds, but without any ability to pass legislation.
All state elected positions, including that of governor, are decided every two years, not four, so as to give constituents more immediate response to removing those who do not act in line with their will.
Remove matters regarding voting rights, discrimination, and all matters of human and civil rights from any form of state-level control. These are not matters states have any business controlling. Moreover, citizens should not have to worry as they travel from state to state as to whether their rights are safe.
Elected committees mentioned above would have the ability to draft potential legislation, but any state legislation would be subject first to a popular vote which could not then be vetoed by the governor or any state agency.
All state laws and policies would be subject to audit on a regular basis to ensure that they comply with all facets of the federal constitution, specifically, those related to due process and equal access.

Obviously, there are details underlying those statements that need a great deal more thought and attention than I have space here to give them. Consider this a starting point in the conversation. We cannot continue to tolerate the current idiocy of state legislatures and their current construct defies any significant change regardless of who might be elected to those positions.

We no longer live in a country where people are isolated to a specific geographic region. When one state fucks up it affects us all. The time has come for a more comprehensive and nationally cohesive approach to lawmaking. Kill state legislatures. Reform the system. Move forward.

Current Issues / PotD

Bound To Indiana

April 10, 2016

In Indiana it’s not like New York where everyone’s like, ‘We’re from New York and we’re the best’ or ‘We’re from Texas and we like things big’ it’s more like ‘We’re from Indiana and we’re gonna move.’ —Jim Gaffigan

Indiana has this way of entangling one to the point that leaving is nearly impossible

Today is my middle son’s 21st birthday. Since he’s in Japan, across the International Date Line, we conversed last night, Sunday morning his time. Somehow, the Marine Corp had let him sleep late and he was starting his day with a Corona that he had stowed away for the occasion. Just hearing that made me proud of him. He’s getting his life off to a better, freer, more honest start than I did.

Today also marks another anniversary, though, one I’m not nearly as proud to admit. I’ve now lived in Indiana, specifically Indianapolis, eleven years, the longest I’ve ever lived in any city. I won’t bore you with the story of how I got here as I’m sure I’ve already told it a sufficient number of times and thoroughly bored everyone who’s heard it. The point simply is that I never intended to make Indiana my home, but it has tied me down so thoroughly that leaving has yet to be an option I could afford to pursue.

I have to be careful here, as it is not my intention to offend everyone in this state. There are, like anywhere, some wonderful individuals that have, at the very least, made my life bearable, sometimes saved it, and sometimes even managed to make me smile. If asked, I could probably cobble together a list of about 30 people I’m not merely happy to have met but would probably, willingly, take with me on a road trip, including the college English teacher who was influential in convincing me to come here, the one gallery curator that doesn’t wince every time I walk through the door, and the Shibari master who not only made today’s pictures possible but managed to keep me alive when my continued existence was questionable.

Of coruse, it goes without saying, or should, that I wouldn’t have met Kat had I not endured living in Indiana all this time. She is the one thing that redeems this massive error in judgment. I jokingly question whether she and I share the same mental deformities that allow her to be as interested in me as I am in her. She actually likes sitting and watching me edit. We share a passion for coffee. She’s creatively expressive but doesn’t like having anyone try to put that creativity in a box or give it a limiting definition. She also dislikes the state of Indiana and wants to move, but then, she was born here, so her wanting to leave is more of a birthright given to every Hoosier.

What disappoints me most about Indiana, though, is how it devalues people, something we see in how the state chooses who governs and how that government is manifested through some of the most ridiculous laws ever imagined. The state of Indiana has prohibited even considering building a light rail system. They refuse to deal responsibly with companies millions of tons of chemicals into their streams and waterways, to the point that its entire water basin is polluted. Their infrastructure is a complete mess and their public education system is one of the worst in the country, despite being home to three of the best universities in the Midwest. I expected better. Everyone who lives here has a right to expect better. By failing to facilitate better transportation, better education, and a sustainable environment, state legislators are telling their constituents that their future does not matter, that their children’s lives are irrelevant, and they don’t give a damn if the bulk of the state lives in poverty.

Even worse, though, is how Indiana marginalizes its citizens. Last year, it was Indiana’s ridiculous Religious Freedom Restoration Act that brought public shame upon the state. This year, it is a ridiculously limiting, and probably unconstitutional, abortion law that is so horrid it has women calling the Governor’s office with details of their menstrual cycle in an effort to emphasize the degree to which the state has imposed itself upon the rights of women. Meanwhile, the state would rather see its people starve than provide food assistance. The state would rather pay corporate charter schools from out of state than invest in their own public school system. Each and every time the Governor and the state legislature makes one of these moves, they are telling people in Indiana that their lives don’t matter.

Once here, though, escaping from Indiana isn’t easy. If you’re a student, your best move might seem to be to go to school out of state. The problem with that is that there are three excellent universities here, IU, Purdue, and Notre Dame, that, depending on what one is studying, are among the best schools in the nation. So, you’re still stuck. Next option: get a good job elsewhere. Good luck with that. Employers have demonstrated a continued reluctance to hire Hoosiers from out of state. Why? Because we are perceived as being backward, overweight, lacking competitive drive, and culturally out of touch. I’m not saying no one from Indiana ever gets out, but being from Indiana means having the odds stacked against you from the very beginning.

Sure, there are other states just as bad, maybe even worse. Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, and North Carolina immediately come to mind. Indiana isn’t alone in its ability to elect some of the stupidest people on the planet who then enact some of the most ass-backward laws ever conceived. Indiana doesn’t have a corner on stupid.

Living here has gotten more challenging, though. Just this past Friday, a couple of friends had stopped by, along with their darling infant daughter. During our conversation, we noticed a considerable amount of police activity in the neighborhood. When they got ready to leave, they discovered that the neighborhood had been effectively locked down, no one being allowed in or out. They came back here and waited until almost midnight before being allowed to go home. At the same time, Kat and the kids were caught out of the neighborhood at a friends house. Even when police started letting people out of the neighborhood, they still weren’t letting anyone in. It was after 3:00 AM before Kat was able to get home and tuck her kids into their own bed. And after all that, after completely inconveniencing the more than 300 people who live in this rather secluded neighborhood, the person police were chasing got away.

Indiana has the ability to be a wonderful home. There are fantastically diverse state parks, wildlife, music, art, and top-notch advanced education opportunities. There are museums all over the place displaying the best material from around the world. There are more than enough reasons why living in Indiana should be wonderful. But it’s not. It hasn’t been the entire time I’ve lived here. And until the people of this state stop electing complete idiots to office, stop marginalizing people for stupid reasons like being gay or female, and get a handle on its crime issue, Indiana will continue to be a place that has to tie people down to keep them from leaving.

All that’s keeping us here now is waiting for Kat to finish school and her sister’s wedding. This past week, Kat was offered a position out of state at a salon with an international reputation. Whether she takes that offer or considers another, we’ll both finally be able to move. There is light at the end of our tunnel. We’re looking forward to cutting the ropes.

Indiana sucks, but it doesn’t have to. I suppose there’s a chance that they’ll one day wake up and change, but who wants to wait around for that? Opportunities are being lost every day. Cut your ropes, my friends. Move on.

Photography / PotD

I Can’t Show You That

February 17, 2016

charles i. letbetter - I can't show you taht

You have to show violence the way it is. If you don’t show it realistically, then that’s immoral and harmful. If you don’t upset people, then that’s obscenity.—Roman Polanski

charles i. letbetter - I can't show you that

The biggest problem with censorship of any kind is that it gives someone else the power to determine your morality

In a small town about 40 miles East of Indianapolis resides a woman who is convinced that everything I do is pornography. I don’t know this person at all. We’ve never met. Yet, because she doesn’t like what I do, she is of the opinion that no one else should, either, and has made lives miserable for people who disagree with her. I’ve actually not heard anything from her in a while, but I’m sure she’s still there.

Why do I care? What she’s doing doesn’t hurt me, personally. I’m okay with what I do, obviously. My friends are okay with what I do. Most importantly, the people who care about me the most, and whom I care about, consider my work quite fantastic and wonderful. Okay, so they’re a bit biased. Still, if there are people who like my work, why be bothered with those who don’t?

Because those who are like this woman enjoy imposing their morality on everyone else. We’ve seen it in every issue: women’s rights, welfare, voting rights, abortion, gay rights, healthcare, and marriage rights. There are always those people who not only are sure they know better than the rest of us, they insist they should have the power to stop us.

Now would be the point at which my closest friends ask what has me on my censorship soapbox so early this morning. The answer is an article in Business Insider about a UK initiative to force websites hosting pornography to verify user’s ages. I know, it doesn’t sound like such a harmful idea at all. In fact, pornography’s most popular website, PornHub, actually supports the measure, which I found, at the very least, interesting (in reality, I think they’re hoping it will filter out some of the competition). Protect the dear children and all that bunk, right?

I have two significant problems with what the UK is proposing.

First is the matter of who gets to decide what is pornography? No one has yet created a definition that stands up to legal scrutiny, for there are always artistic exceptions that would be deemed protected means of expression. Exactly what constitutes pornography? If sites that show belly buttons is pornography, then swimwear and fitness websites are pornographers. If sites that show nipples are pornography, then practically every major fashion magazine is guilty and one would have to be 18 to view the stream of a fashion show. If sites that detail reproductive processes are pornography, then medical and healthcare sites need to be taken down.

The article also raises the fact that elements of porn can be found just about everywhere, despite user guidelines prohibiting such. Porn can be found on Twitter. So, does everyone need to verify their age when they log onto the social media site? Porn can easily be found on Tumblr. Some of the things they show there even frighten me. But if one doesn’t follow those accounts, one doesn’t see that material, do Tumblr users need to show proof of age?

Underlying all those questions is the central fact that censorship allows someone else to determine your moral code. You may not agree with their moral code, but they insist that you abide by it. This philosophy is the kind embraced by narcissists and despots alike. They insist that they are always right and you are always wrong, therefore, they must tell you what to do. They would tell you what to eat (consider the GMO vs. non-GMO debates), what clothes to wear (school uniforms, anyone?), what church or synagogue to attend (everyone’s religion is wrong except mine), and even what vehicle to drive (those using fossil fuels are bad). People in power who embrace such a philosophy would soon enslave everyone in order to enforce compliance to their way of thinking. Most all the terrorist activity we see today is the result of exactly this type of thinking.

Second, to censor sexual acts, most of which are natural, beautiful, and necessary for the species to prosper, while not censoring violence, which is not natural, not beautiful, and would bring an end to the species, is the height of hypocrisy. If one is so terribly concerned about what children are watching, then why can any child turn on Netflix and watch Kill Bill, or Pulp Fiction, or any of hundreds of grotesquely violent films. Are you really going to try and convince me, with absolutely no scientific evidence in support of your insanity, that allowing a child to watch realistic violence is less harmful than seeing a nipple like the one that gave him/her sustenance when they were infants?

I’m not going to take the time to show all the studies that detail the dangers of viewing violence in media. I just don’t have the time and you’d grow bored at the length of the list. We have known for decades that violence, not sex, is the greatest threat to children, but we refuse to do anything to stop movies, or television shows, or anything else that feels it is somehow more truthful to show violence than censor it.

I would agree that there are some things children shouldn’t see. However, the way to handle that is through responsible parenting, not censorship. Filtering software is available for every Internet-connected device made. If you have children and allow them to use such a device, the responsibility is that of their parents, and only their parents, to lock down that content, and not only control what they see at any given age, but also how much time they spend on those devices. Studies now show connections between the amount of time a child spends online and an increase in attention deficit disorders. Even the most sanguine of programming can be dangerous in high quantities. Parents, not the government, not the UN, and certainly not any other organization, should control what their child sees and to which media and messages they are exposed.

Even well-intended censorship is still an imposition of one’s moral code over another, it is an indirect attempt to control behavior, which ultimately leads to tyranny and slavery. I don’t think we really want to go down that road. At least, I don’t. You make your own choice.

Art / PotD / Social Commentary

Love, Everyone

October 3, 2015

Welcome Home (2013)

Hatred does not cease by hatred, but only by love; this is the eternal rule.—Buddha

[one_half padding=”4px 10px 0 4px”]What’s wrong with people? I look through the news this morning and all I see is hate. Republicans hate democrats. This religion hates that religion and both hate anyone who disagrees with them. White hates black, black hates white, and they both hate brown. If I were to do a quick, informal estimation, which is exactly what I’m doing right this moment, I would say that roughly 80% of what has been tossed at me this morning ultimately contains a hateful message. Where is the love? Where is the empathy? Where is any attempt at actually wanting to get along with other people.

Here’s the great paradox of the 21st century: we’re willing to spend billions of dollars (collectively) looking for love, trying to find love, improving ourselves so that we’re more lovable, but we don’t do a damn thing toward actually loving other people. We are as selfish about love as we are everything else in our lives. We want it all to come to us, knock on our door, overwhelm us with emotional goodies, and reaffirm our sense of how valuable we are to the world. We define love not as something we feel toward other people, but by the quantity of warm fuzzies other people give to us.

In other words: we don’t have a fucking clue. For all the talk about love, we fail to realize that love is an act of giving, not an act of receiving. Love is not something that happens to you, but something you distribute to others. Love is not doing something based on what you feel, but what you feel based on what you’ve done. Love is active, not passive. Love is not something to be found, but something we create, from the center of our being, so that we might give it to someone else. Love is not narrowly limited to a familial relationship, but an over-arching sense of inclusiveness and responsibility to the greater good of humanity.

Love holds no bias, nor fear, but includes everyone.[/one_half]

[one_half_last padding=”4px 4px 0 10px”]So, we are, and have been for a while, at this point in the United States where we have had more mass shootings (where more than four people are shot), than there have been days in the year. We foolishly ask why this keeps happening. Some want bans on weapons. Some want tighter control on those with diagnosed mental disorders. Some want everything locked down and stored in a box where no one can get to it. None of those are solutions. We cannot solve with legislation what was not caused by government in the first place. There is only one reason we keep shooting ourselves: we’ve forgotten how to love.

It was a mere 45-50 years ago that we, my generation and those just older than us, were all about peace, and love, and happiness. We were sure that we could change the world with love, and ultimately we were correct, but we didn’t see it in the way we thought we would see it. We thought love would give us things, take away responsibility, make life more relaxed. What we failed to realize is that love creates responsibility and when we fail that responsibility, we fail love. Love doesn’t just chug along like a toy train circling the Christmas tree. Love requires maintenance, effort, and a completely selfless attitude.

Where is the American society failing? Don’t blame government, Republican orDemocrat. Don’t blame religions, present or absent. Don’t blame race or economics. Blame the total and complete absence of love. We’ve stopped loving, we’ve stopped teaching our children to love, and we’ve stopped letting love be the guide by which we live our lives. In a world where we’ve all but thrown love out the window, is it any wonder that society has gone to hell in a handbasket?

Love, everyone. You won’t learn how until you try.[/one_half_last]

Page 2 of 2

Missing The World Summit On Arts & Culture