Still Lost

Yes, my re-purposing paper is due tomorrow and I am still lost. Partially because I am struggling to stick to a topic and partially because I am now not only considering a completely new audience, but also the different types of audiences. The paper I have chosen to repurpose was a commentary on the difference between fame and success. As an aspiring actor I wrote this paper trying to explain why success to an actor is not success to a business man. And who this view of success has changed (how the industry is changing). So in a particularly pessimistic state, I decided I had enough insight on the life of an actor to give perspective BFA students a perspective. By this I essentially mean to say I am going to chastise them and tell them “Life dead end: Don’t be an actor. Turn back.”

Just kidding (but really am I?). No just kidding.

However my repurpose could come off this way, which is not what I intend. Though I seem to be talking at this audience because they do not have the same capacity of experience and POV that I have at my ripe age of 21, I want to talk at them in a way that I may invite them to participate in my conversation. So I want to talk at them and to them. I mean after all they are just as insane as I am for even considering a BFA in acting so there is room for an implied dialogue. Oddly, I think the people I am actually talking to are people in my acting class of 2016. People who are in the same experience level as I am and though they may agree they can fully engage in my indulging in my opinion. The people I am talking to may not be my intended audience though, which comes across sort of backwards.

My topic in my original paper is about fame vs. success to an actor, and I intend to take that topic to a new level by attempting to allow potential actors to fully understand that difference before they encounter it for themselves. Even though someone may be told something a million times, often times they cannot fully understand until they are there. This is like falling in love for the first time. How can anyone fully know it without ever having known it for themselves? I am going to attempt to make this as open of a dialogue for any audience member who may encounter it.

But if I am talking at you I will just trick you into thinking I’m not.

 

Arguably I Agree to Disagree

When I think back to arguments that I have engaged in or even observed, I get an immediate feeling of frustration because if I am involved in an argument that means I am most likely attempting to get other people to think in the terms that I am thinking while being attacked by an opposing side of the argument. On the other hand if I am observing an argument this most likely means I am frustrated that I do not feel that I have the means to contribute to the topic being discussed. Recently I was in a debate with a friend  (which she was clearly winning because of her deeper knowledge of the subject) and as we were heading on our ways she added “This could go in circles for hours,” which seems to be the frustrating truth of most arguments. You can argue anything. All arguments are valid because even our most basic truths we rely on in everyday affairs and society are simply theories. Yes we have proved the theory of gravity and of evolution and climate change and how babies are made, yes we have facts, but even those facts came from opinions and made up words and constructed ideas that are forever subject to interpretation. So are there instances when an argument is a mistake? Yes, for short-term reasons, but in the grand scheme all arguments are a contribution to history and the way people learn to continue having arguments. Are there arguments we need to have? I believe so, but I believe this is easier said than done when looking in hindsight. It is easy to say we need to argue about saving the world after it is already ending. There are arguments that are both of these things, yet we cannot know for certain until after the argument has been made.

In Rebecca Solnit’s article “By the Way, Your Home Is On Fire,” she compares climate change to a house on fire, and her solution to get out of this is divestment. Considering her solution, this metaphor does not apply to the real situation at hand, mainly because there is no way out of that situation. As a solution I propose the metaphor of an abusive relationship. An abusive relationship where the abuser is humans and the Earth is the abused. An abuser may have learned from history, instances where they have been abused, to abuse themselves. Humans have learned from our history to continue living how we do and advancing technology the way we have in the past. An abuser has the power to stop abusing; leaving the abused with some emotional/mental scarring that can hopefully be fixed if nixed in time. If they continue however, it will be too late for the one abused. If they stop when enough damage has already been done, it is still too late.