Planet of the Arts Volume 7 Issue 3 chard Kanachowsk televisions, our fax machines, our radio waves, our cars, our money, et cetera. There is a paradox here: many of the products we make and consume are produced to ostensibly help us communicate, yet the net effect of using these products is more difficult communication, no communication, or indifference. So today, indifference and lack of compas- sion as practised by everybody is no longer clearly a function of the size of our society. It doesn’t matter how big our society is, it still doesn’t mean we must automati- cally ignore suffering and pain. ‘Other forces’ however, conspire to make indifference a kind of ‘survival mode’ we frequently employ. Things are being created which are able to com- municate father, faster, better, et cetera. See the incred- ible special-effects of T-2: new heights of realism in depicting violence and violently pasteurized death. Hear the 5,000 watt stereo in the Mercedes compact beside you on the road: new heights in reproducing dubious musical tastes for an entire city block. Read, in glossy four colour off-set printing realism, the unfortunate tale of a four- headed child rejected by an inferiority-complexed Oprah. Wear the latest limited-edition pair of original airware re-created especially for you and those who now look like you. Is this contextual absurdity planned or is the often unintelligible, inconsequential, or absurd content of the messages incessantly communicated. (billboards with Matlock getting you off?) through products conspiring to make meaningful exchanges between us the exception? The combination of state-of-the-art technology as ap- plied to products seems only to enable us to give and receive more stultifying and ultimately numbing com- munication: the only consolation we have is the know]- edge that we got it or received it in record time or Technicolour. This is true to a large degree even in the surfeit of conspicuous intimate coffee-houses where fashionable but vacuous conversations ensue (it’s the company I keep): the only consolation is that you know you looked good being there. There is hope amidst the glut of confusion however: It took a strange twist-of-fate for a character in a movie to realize and start to counter his indifference. It took me going out to see Gilliam’s film and relating to the charac- ters portrayed, to see this redemption. Thus, it took a film, anot-insignificant form of communication, for me to tum around and tell you about how I was shown a slice of callousness which reminded me of my own. I’m waiting for redemption but things must be OK after all. Just keep on doing your thing, don’t forget to sign your name, and I guess you can ignore all the stuff I have said.* not my full name with the article was apparently an indication of how I did not want to be held accountable for what I said in the article. This is bad form. That I don’t want to be held accountable for what I say is natural for me. I can’t, however, take the credit for cowering to potential popular dissent by the exclusion of my name: a pseudonym would have sufficed. With deference to the fact that I am an ex-Emily, I felt it appropriate to not appear to be meddling too much in the affairs of your school. This does not preclude my desire however to continue an open dialogue in a school where most of what you learn is indeed inspired by discourse. But at least | am now aware and have learnt the ‘proper form’ to submitting articles to newspapers. Lest it appear that I am continuing my avoidance of accountability, I shall include my name on everything I do and say hence forth. Honest. What I actually learned from this lesson is the disheartening knowledge that negligible digressions from accepted ‘form’ or norms can prejudice what you have to offer. However, the fact that I don’t subscribe to certain accepted rules can be equally be attributed to both my ignorance of, and exercised informed-indifference to, said rules. Thus: Don’t get pissed-off about how I say something but about what I say.* I think it is perhaps a natural tendency for departments to want advanced students to enter their departments from Foundation. Each discipline has an extraordinary amount of technique, let alone culture and dialogue, to impart upon students in so short a time as three years is. But again, to think that biasing Foundation curriculum to produce discipline-devoted ‘advanced’ students for a second year major will work, gives me the willies. I suppose it is a question of what might be more readily learnt: the process by which work might be produced and appropriately informed, or the technique by which work is competent enough to fulfill desired goals. It may ultimately prove to be a moot point which, if either, discipline might take precedence - knowing how all individuals have inherently highly different mixtures of both. But I think it is important to remember that we live in a society where it is far more important only to look like youknow something, rather than actually going through the process by which you come to know something. Money allows access to anyone into anything including knowledge, or at least FOCUS On o Foundation the appearance of. Let’s face it, it takes experience, which is a process not a product or commodity, to actually come to understand anything. But today, much akin to buying pre-ripped jeans (instant heritage.) it is easily possible to surround oneself with the accoutrements of ‘wisdom’ while actually knowing only how to maintain the facade. The risk one is taking by making a general Foundation year more specialized is potentially one where Emily Carr students will become increasingly more efficient at producing and perpetuating only the artifice of art, and not the reason(s) for art. ECCAD students will go out and make more stuff because that’s what they were shown to do. Students, like fashion, will become about as thin as piss-on-a-rock. Which is not to say of course that either fashion or pissing is not fun but...* @ Planet ofthe Arts Volume 7 Issue 3 Richard Kanachowsk televisions, ou fax machines, our radio waves, our ears, ‘our money, etcetera. “Thereis aparadox here: many ofthe products we make and consume are produced to ostensibly help us communicate yetthenet effectof using these producsis, ‘more difficult communication, no communication, or indifference, So today, indifference and lack of compas- sion as practised by everybody is no longer clearly a function of the size of our society. It doesn't matter how bigoursocetyis,itstilldoesn't mean we must automat cally ignore suffering and pain ‘Other forces’ however, ‘conspire to make indifference a kind of ‘survival mode we frequently employ. "Things are being created which are able to com smunicate father, faster, beer, etcetera. See the incred ible special-ffecs of T-2: new heights of realism in depicting violence and violently pasteurized death. Hear the 5,000 wattstereoin the Mercedes compactbeside you ‘onthe road: new heights in reproducing dubious musical tases foran entre city block. Read, n glossy fourcolour headed childrejected by aninferority-complexed Oprah ‘Wear the lates limited-edition pir of original airware re-created especially for you and those who now look ike you. Is this contextual absurdity planned or isthe often ‘mintlligible, inconsequential, or absurd content ofthe messages incessanily communicated (billboards with Matlock geting youof?) through products conspiring to ‘make meaningful exchanges between us the exception? ‘The combination of state-of-the-art technology as ap plied to products seems only to enable us to give and receive more stlifying and ulimately numbing com ‘munication: the only consolation we have isthe know cage that we got itor received it in record time or ‘Technicolour. Tis is true to a large degre even inthe surfeit of conspicuous intimate coffee-houses where fashionable but vacuous conversations ensue (i's the ‘company I ep): the only consolation is that you know yu Tooked good being there "There is hope amidst the glut of confusion however: It took a strange tvis-of fate fora character in a movie to realize and sat to counter his indifference. I ook me {going outto se Gilliam’s film andelatng tothe charac tersportrayed,toseethisredemption. Thus, ittookatfilm, anol insignificant formof communication, formetotum ‘round and tell you about how I was shown a slice of callousness which reminded me of iy own. I'm waiting forredemption bu things must be OK aftr all. Just keep ‘ondoing your thing, don’t forget wo sign your name, and [guess you can ignore all the stuff I have said.* ‘off-set printing realism, the unfortunate tae of a four- e not my fall name with the article was apparently an indication of how I did not want to be held accountable for what I said in the article. This is bad form. ‘That I don’t want to be held accountable for what I say is natural for me. 1 can’t, however, take the eredit for cowering to potential popular dissent by the ‘exclusion of my name: a peoudonym would have sufficed. With deference to the fact that I am an ex-Emily, [ felt it appropriate to not appear to be meddling too much in the affairs of your school. This does not preclude my desire however to continue an open dialogue in a school where most of what you learn is indeed inspired by discourse. But at least [ am now aware and have learnt the ‘proper form’ to submitting articles to newspapers. Lest it appear that I am continuing my avoidance of ‘accountability, I shall include my name on everything I do and say hence forth. Honest, What I actually learned from this lesson isthe disheartening knowledge that negligible digressions from accepted ‘form’ or norms can prejudice what you have to offer. However, the fact that I don’t subscribe to certain accepted rules can be equally be attributed 10 both my ignorance of, and exercised informed-indifference 10, said rules. Thus: Don't get pissed-off about hove I say ‘something but about what I say.* | think itis perhaps a natural tendency for departments to want advanced students to enter their departments from Foundation. Each discipline has an ‘extraordinary amount of technique, let alone culture and dialogue, to impart "upon students in so shortatimeas three yearsis. Butagain, to think that biasing Foundation curriculum to produce discipline-devoted ‘advanced’ students for ‘a second year major will work, gives me the willes. I suppose i isa question ‘of what might be more readily learnt: the process by which work might be Produced and appropriately informed, or the technique by which work is ‘competent enough to fulfill desired goals. Ttmay ultimately prove to be a moot point which, if either, discipline might take precedence - knowing how all individuals have inherently highly different mixtures ofboth. But Ithinkitisimportantto remember that we live inasociety where itsfarmore important only to fook lie you know something rather than actually going through the process by which you come to know something. Money allows access to anyone into anything including knowledge, orat least Focus on 6 Foundation the appearance of. Let's face it, it takes experience, which is a process not a product or commodity, to actually come to understand anything. But today, much akin to buying pre-ripped jeans (instant heritage.) itis easily possible 1 surround oneself withthe accoutrements of ‘wisdom’ while actually knowing ‘only how to maintain the facade. ‘The risk one is taking by making a general Foundation year more specialized is potentially one where Emily Carr students will become increasingly more efficient at producing and perpetuating only the artifice of art, and not the reason(s) for art. ECCAD students will go out and make more stuff because that’s what they were shown to do. Students, like fashion, will become about as thin as piss-on-a-rock. Which is not to say of course that either fashion or pissing is not fun but