A Work Progressing

What is it when we are not looking for something, and then we find it? It’s hard to be thoughtless in the literal sense, which is somehow different than the emotional uncaring sense. The pure thoughtless is almost like the zen state of quieting the mind. I’ve been there several times, but never by choice.

And I’m not sure that thinking has ceased completely, because my body still takes directions. I get up out of the chair, and I take a few hesitant steps. Invariably I head into the kitchen, I’m aware of this because I return to the thinking state soon after I am staring into the refrigerator, wondering why I am staring into the refrigerator?

Facebook movie clips are similar. Often I’m scrolling through the clips looking for something. I’m not aware of what I’m looking for, but I continue to scroll. I have a vague awareness that, at times, Facebook presents videos that are targeted to me individually. For some reason an algorithm led Facebook to present Chinese sniper movies, fighting the Japanese during WWII. I stopped to watch a few, and that led to more Chinese sniper movies. I stopped watching them.

Then the algorithm changed and suddenly there were dozens of talk shows clips. Viewing any of them brought even more. It was a little like the land of the Lotus Flower eaters. An unending stream of whatever knowledge I was seeking. Except I didn’t know what I was looking for. I was just looking unthoughtfully.

Another set of clips started to flow. Clips from the BBC, talk shows, game shows, blogs from British bloggers. I stopped at a few. Even more showed up. And then I saw something that generated a thought. Very similar to waking up in front of the open refrigerator.

It was a clip interviewing Stephen Fry. He was relating that in school he wasn’t particularly good at anything, not science, not math, not sports. What he loved was reading mythology. To him it was like videos games, or Marvel comics. The characters he read about seemed heroic and thoughtful. They tried to explain and give reasons for things that were all around him.

One in particular he remembered. Hercules was a hero, legends galore. He was a Demi-god, fathered by Zeus. Well, it seems that his Greek name was Heracules, in part because Zeus wanted to appease his wife Hera. Hera wanted nothing to do with the child of Zeus and some human woman.

In an attempt to create a bond with the baby Heracules, the god Mercury (directed by Zeus) picked up the baby and placed it on Hera’s nursing breast while she slept. After a time, Heracules’ strong suckling woke the sleeping Hera. In a rage, she leapt from the bed, spraying a circle of breast milk in the air all around her.

Milk in Greek is gala, breast milk circle is galaxias kyklos. The Romans called it via lactate. We call it The Milky Way.

Tangential knowledge.

Some of our students just returned from a week at our nation’s capitol. Can you imagined what they must have learned? What a perfect opportunity to witness history, to actually see the government in action, to hear live presentations from current leaders in their professions. It was quite the field trip! And so much more.

Many departments have been able to send groups of students to Europe in study aboard situations, to enable students to experience the world. As academic leaders we have recognized that it is good to have a range from local field trips to statewide conferences. It is good because the students are changed for the good.

How much better is it when our students are also challenged for their abilities? Only a few departments know how this feels. Certainly in sports, speech, music, in fact any department that spends the time to find organizations where their students can be showcased. Of course there are issues. What if we lose? How will our students feel? How will I feel if my teaching seems less than it should? Most of us don’t try to compete. Even when there are organizations where our students can be showcased.

This week I am hoping that there will be returning teams from some district in the Midwest, where they got several Honorables and maybe a fourth place in the nation. The team will be welcomed with a lunch at the district office and will be honored by everyone at their college because the team is owned by the administration and the staff. They were their students. It was their community. They put their training and expertise on the line, and risked their competence. And they won and carried away the prize.

In ancient Rome, a victory in some distant part of the empire would receive a Triumph, a celebratory parade in Rome. Thousands would fill the streets to give honor, and partly to own the victory for themselves.

This week Contra Costa College came back with two National Pacemaker Awards from the Associated Collegiate Press (ACP) it is the largest and oldest national membership organization for college student media in the United States. It awards the newspaper, magazine, and online National Pacemaker Awards, which are considered the highest honors a student publication can receive.

It is an amazing story that continues a long line of successful stories. The college has won many Pacemakers over the years. Perhaps because of this, the college has often ignored the accomplishment. Maybe it was thought that it was a conference of a couple of dozen friends who come together for a good time and give “attaboys”? Do the research. This is a big deal. The college has never won two Pacemakers in the same year. Will that make a difference? I think not.

The college, various departments, certainly the district, and even some faculty have distanced themselves. They don’t see it as “our’ journalism department. They don’t even see it as our students. What does that mean to the community?

Is it possible that we are committing far more energy to our plan to educate for greatness, instead of recognizing the greatness that is current? Our college has never received the respect an honor that it deserves. Our students are remarkable!

It occurred to me that perhaps some at the college, and certainly some at the district are reluctant to give honor to the journalists at the college because of some article that was published. I have only this to say, if reporters found an error, then the first thing you do is to be proud that they have been taught to do the research, and have the courage to report the truth.

Or more simply, if you don’t want to look like an idiot in print, don’t do idiotic things.

I am so honored to be even remotely connected to The Advocate. You deserve a triumphal arch erected in the Quad.

I have recently been intrigued by the classic black and white headshots of the 1940s. I’m not familiar with any names of the photographers, but I am admiring their work. Wikipedia sometimes gets the actual names of the actors wrong, and sometimes I am unfamiliar enough to not notice.

In order to learn a bit more about color, I have taken on a study to colorized a few of the classic photos. It’s been very instructive, and I’ve created a new drop menu on the menu called Hollywood Art for the finished projects. I’ve changed backgrounds on some, redrawn the eyes and mouths on others, and experimented with color shading on all. Generally each photo goes through a process of blending about ten different layers, merged finally into one.

Here are a few samples…

I once saw a man with a tattoo of a watch on his wrist.

Periodically, it had the correct time—at least twice a day.

Theoretically, if he had more tattoos, he could increase the ratio of accuracy.

If his arm were long enough, and he knew exactly where to look,

his tattooed watch would be perfect.

No moving parts. No power. Eternal precision.

That’s the problem with time.

We’re trying to measure something from the fourth dimension

using third-dimensional technology.

It sucks.

Lately, I’ve been pondering the concept of now.

I can see it coming.

I can see that it just passed.

But I can’t freeze the instant in between.

“Now” is elusive.

Not quite a place. Not quite a point.

There’s supposedly a clock called The Clock of the Long Now.

Actually, it exists. And there’s a museum.

Also known as the 10,000 Year Clock,

one version is being built inside a mountain in Nevada—

powered by the temperature difference between the top of the mountain and the base.

Stewart Brand (yes, Whole Earth Catalog Stewart Brand)

is on the board of the Long Now Foundation.

So is Brian Eno.

They’ve also built a café/museum/curiosity cabinet in San Francisco

called The Interval—a place to discuss “deep time”

and sip slow-roasted thought.

I haven’t been.

But maybe I should go.

Maybe redefining “now” as the “long now”

would make it less slippery.

Then again, maybe a trip to the city

with coffee and a bagel

will do just as well.

I am inspired by his work

www.youtube.com/watch

In the simplest terms: I make art.

It is art because I say so—

not because I’ve mastered any particular medium.

It’s art because, in the act of making,

the image crosses a threshold.

For me.

There are hundreds of mediums for making art—

from the raw edges of found objects

to the layered complexity of screen printing.

I’ve sampled a few.

I’ve “mastered” very few.

I’m pretty good at sketching.

Not bad at sculpture.

Color portraits? A struggle.

Watercolor? Monstrous.

Oil paint terrifies me.

Acrylics paralyze me.

None of that stops me.

I keep making.

Even the hideous attempts.

So—where am I comfortable?

I like working from photographs.

I like digital filters.

But I’m never satisfied with just one.

I layer them, remix them, draw into them.

Sometimes I use hand-drawn elements, sometimes none at all.

I don’t set rules about what percentage must be “mine.”

The final image is what matters.

For me, there’s no distinction between

100% hand-drawn

and 100% digital filter.

If someone else sees a difference, that’s fine.

It doesn’t change the way I see it.

I fell in love with digital in 1985.

Still am.

When I taught art appreciation,

I’d show students abstract modern art.

Some didn’t connect with it.

But if I showed realistic work by the same artist,

suddenly they understood.

“If they can paint realism,” they said,

“then the abstraction must be a choice.”

I get that.

But skill isn’t a requirement for legitimacy.

Too many potential artists disappear because they believe

they aren’t qualified.

That’s tragic.

It’s like saying you can’t be a photographer

because you don’t understand how a camera works.

The photography is in the vision.

The camera comes later.

Finding the right medium is a lifelong process.

You might stay with what’s comfortable, refining it.

You might step into discomfort and explore something new.

There’s value in both.

I used to tell my photography students:

Every great photo you admire

was probably taken by an uncomfortable photographer.

I can’t prove it.

But I believe it.

Looking at my own path, I see a deep connection to three dimensions.

That’s why sculpture has always pulled me.

But even landscapes and portraits feel dimensional—

layered, textured, full of depth.

What I love about digital is the undo.

The speed of variation.

The capacity for transformation.

I’ve made tribute works—redrawing, remixing, channeling.

Sometimes, in the process,

I learn something new from the artist I’m echoing.

I’m not done with my versions.

And if I had one piece of advice, it would be this:

Follow Duchamp.

Artists make art.

That’s it.

A good friend posted an article by Dennis Prager and suggested I read it.

I’m good with that. I’ve read several of his books and enjoyed his writing.

No red flags there.

Well—maybe one.

Prager has many books, a radio show, numerous speaking engagements.

He also founded Prager University.

I dunno.

A small red flag waves when someone names a university after themselves.

I mean, there are billions of possible names—some brilliant, some horrible.

Settling on your own name feels… iffy.

Maybe he named it after his parents?

Still, we all make choices.

Some might be mistakes.

In the article, Prager presents a kind of moral equation:

Good Intentions – Wisdom = Evil

It’s an interesting formula, but to me, it misses the mark.

It’s too simplistic.

The threshold for evil is, I think, quite a bit higher.

That equation works better for describing a mistake

—or a serious error in judgment.

But to label it evil?

That feels harsh.

Yes, it can be a step toward evil,

but it’s still early enough on the road to change direction.

Not every mistake becomes a turning point.

I’ve known plenty of people who recognize their error

and continue making it every day—for years.

Still…

That doesn’t necessarily make it evil.

Now I’m about to make some of you uncomfortable.

The basic definition of sin is “missing the mark.”

Like an arrow that doesn’t hit the bullseye.

But in religious circles, sin has taken on more dramatic weight.

Fire. Judgment. Condemnation.

I find that unfortunate.

We should have a word that describes failure—

a word that’s stronger than mistake,

but not as final as damnation.

That original definition of sin—as a miss, a misalignment—feels right to me.

Maybe that’s why it’s so unpopular.

Is sin evil?

Possibly.

But I don’t think they’re interchangeable.

Sin is an action that causes the spirit to be grieved.

Sometimes we plow ahead, assuming it’ll resolve itself.

Usually, it doesn’t.

When we analyze it enough to see that our action benefits us

at the direct expense of others—

that’s when it crosses into evil.

Small evils.

Larger evils.

But evil nonetheless.

Prager contends that embracing communism was evil.

I believe it was a mistake—often a tragic one.

And yes, many leaders embraced it for the sake of power,

justifying horrible acts with appeals to the “greater good.”

That tiptoes into evil.

“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

Thank you, Lord Acton.

(Most people ignore the “tends to.”)

But it would be a moral mistake to classify millions of people

who once believed in communism as evildoers.

When we sin, we have the option of redemption.

Some of us reach for that quickly.

Some don’t.

The same may be said of true evildoers—

but for them, the road is longer.

It’s not just about knowledge.

It’s a deeper-rooted fracture in the way they think.

A shift in personality.

A hardening.

Evil is pernicious.

Sin is unfortunate—but change is possible.

Encouragement can be found in a vast mountain lake.

A reservoir filled to the brim—more encouragement than we could ever absorb in a lifetime.

And yet, for most of us, it remains untapped.

This is stored encouragement—

the “frozen-in-time” encouragement found in books, in songs, in scripture, and sometimes even in physical places.

It’s available 24/7.

It’s free.

It’s honest and true.

And still—we ignore it.

Or worse, we forget it’s there.

Why?

Because we’ve confused the source.

We believe the most important encouragement comes from people—

from their words, their approval, their timing.

But the deepest encouragement often comes from sources that don’t change.

Static encouragement is powerful because it doesn’t shift with someone’s mood.

It doesn’t require performance.

It waits patiently—whether we’re ready or not.

Yet discouragement—usually from others—acts as a gate.

It blocks access to the wellspring.

“I feel discouraged.”

“Why don’t you read the Bible?”

“I don’t feel like it.”

“Why not?”

“Because Bill and I had an argument.”

This is the tragedy: a passing human conflict can disconnect us from eternal comfort.

The gate is small—but effective.

And the saddest part is, it’s easy to open… if we remember it’s there.

Sometimes it isn’t people that discourage us—it’s the world.

Your car won’t start.

You can’t find your glasses.

The traffic lights are all against you.

You switch lanes five times and still end up in the slowest one.

The world sends discouragement, too.

But here’s the key: you have a choice in how you see the world.

Gravity holds you down.

Fire burns.

Skunks smell.

But almost everything else is subjective.

The more clearly we see that, the less the world can discourage us.

People, however, are different.

They matter more.

Their words land deeper.

And they often unknowingly block our path to static encouragement.

A cruel word is bad.

But a cruel word that disables access to hope?

That’s doubly destructive.

So how do we respond?

We could shut people out.

“I will ignore you. I will no longer hear your words.”

But that comes at a cost: disconnection.

Instead, I suggest something else:

Change the ratio.

Most discouragement is patterned.

It’s not always mean-spirited.

It’s often careless, unthinking.

But intentional encouragement?

That’s different.

It ripples outward.

Encouragement is reflective.

It is viral.

When someone speaks hope, it helps others access their own store of encouragement.

More encouragement creates more encouragement.

The ratio shifts.

The world becomes better for it.

So take back the gate.

Reclaim your access.

Let the encouragement flow.