I hate so much... about the things... you choose to be...

Well not exactly. These are just a list of things I hate that I've been thinking about lately. As IF you don't do the same!!!

Pointy shoes. I don't get the appeal. Sorry people. They look like witch shoes that make your feet seem about three inches longer than they really are. I prefer the rounded toe ones, because they make my feet look tiny and sweet, and they're a butt-load more comfortable. I prefer flats, too, although heeled shoes do have a certain allure to them. But not enough to make me wear them more than 10% of the time.



Those Bolero shrug jacket things. I can't explain it. They just wax ugly to me. Even though successful in adding modesty, they just look painfully awkward. They just add yuck.



Cowboy boots-unless they're on my favorite chunky two year old in my nursery class, cowboy boots don't look good, sorry!--the more traditional, the worse it gets. Sick--heels on guys? It just doesn't work. And GOSH, the red boots Ariel wears in Footloose to rebel against her dad? I threw up a little in my mouth. Choose your battles, Ariel! This is not one you can win by, um, winning! One of my old roommates loved to go country-dancing, and would always wear her boots. Every Saturday, I died a little inside.


THESE slip-on shoes. On boys or girls. I don't care what designs are on them. If they're plain, striped or polka dotted. I don't like shoes with nothing going on around the toe, and where all the action is more near your ankle. Ugly ugly ugly. when I wear jeans, I like to be able to see more than just a smooth (even if painted!) surface when I look at my feet. I've never liked shoes like these. I guess over the years I have been warming up to them A LITTLE, but not much.


Pseudo-intellectualism--smug patting oneself on the back doesn't win you any favors with me. In my 2D art class, my teacher was going off on an anti-elitist/academic rampage, and while I agreed with most of what he said, I didn't appreciate his smug tone, especially as he coddled everyone who vocally agreed with him in class (classmate: you're totally right! I hate crappy art! I hate art critics that canonize artists one moment and utterly reject them the next! teacher: oh, you think *smug smile*). Yes, craftsmanship and skill in art are downplayed and negated a lot more in the 20th Century than in the past--message/shock value over talent (think crucifix in a cup of urine. Or GOSH, that print of the Mona Lisa with scribbles and graffiti all over her face)--but you're not doing yourself any favors by your holier-than-your coworkers/field attitude. Being a snob against the snobs instantly defeats your purpose.

If you look at the history of art, it basically follows (not starting from the very beginning, sorry!): traditional (renaissance)/objection to the traditional(impressionism)/return to the traditional(realism)/defiance of the traditional(pop-art)/retro-traditional & a variety of everything all at the same time. It's a freaking cycle, people. Many of these "changes" were in response to war and other movements of the time period. Understandable, but not necessarily valid. At least to me!

And it's annoying when people think they're being fresh and new when they're just part of that system, and are actually supporting the system with their so-called rebellion or contempt. This being the case more in the last fifty years than any time period previous.

Yes, I do think most, if not all art is extremely over-priced and over-valued. I think many artists do play the system with contrived messages designed to shock and make money while putting little to no actual talent or time into their work. I love and hate the fact that several decades ago, a man turned a toilet on its side and called it art, and it was shown at a museum as such, while in fact he did this to essentially poke fun at the art establishment for taking itself and even its own irony too seriously. How productive was this exercise, though? It brought more attention to the intellectuals who consciously produced crap over those who tirelessly worked to create beauty and depth in the strokes of their paintbrushes or in the curves of their sculptures. Just because it wasn't new and shocking didn't invalidate it any more than the fact that something that was new and did shock did make it valid.

There seems to be more value over the finished work than the time one took to make it. I love art that demonstrates talent and time. I love art that supports a message rather than conveys a message (think illustrations--like the ones in the HFAC--over a lot of the art in the moa right now. Really? a huge canvas with a bunch of painted diagonals?) I don't appreciate being told to value something that may have a message but obviously took no time to make or that anybody could have made it. And then being told I'm unintelligent or I obviously "don't get it," if I derail or question its intrinsic worth. I refuse to assign worth to something where there is no worth to be found. Often crusades in the art field are destined to go nowhere. Except perhaps back to the beginning where it ultimately attacks itself.

A lot of students whined about our digital tech class where we drew houses on the computer and watched the teacher do a bunch of technical tricks on the big screen. While he might not be teaching us the most effective way possible to use Adobe Photoshop or Illustration, I resented the idea that doing dumb projects to learn these skills is ineffective. Get over yourselves, students! I didn't consider altering a picture of Steve Martin to be busy work, because I was feeling my way through the program with trial and error. Until we finally received the assignment to make a book cover of any book we've read, 2D was my least favorite class because I viewed it ALL as busy work designed to fill up my weekends with nothing but repetitive sludge (I have to make FIVE boxes as an exercise in design and value? And this accomplishes...?). At least THAT much has changed. For now.

I hate how I resent people who share the same tastes/hobbies/interests as me, and resent people who don't. You just can't win with me!!

I hate being judged by my clothes and appearance, and how I judge others by theirs. I don't like it when people in different fields have to look the part. Why does an artist have to LOOK like an artist? Doesn't that kind of do the work for other people? I like making people work to get to know me. None of this instant dismissal based on my dyed hair or black clothes. Besides, black looks TERRIBLE on me. Maybe I wasn't meant to pursue art.

I hate the term "artist." I refuse upon graduation telling people, "I'm an artist." *shudders* I guess this is for the same reason why I hesitate to call anything art right away. It's a bit presumptuous!

I hate it when people buy clothes with the company or designer's name written blatantly across it. No, I will not pay money to solicit a company for them. They should be paying ME. My only exemptions are for the bands I like. Yes, I will support you in your musical endeavors as long as your music pleases me. That's about it.

Not-being-self-conscious (can't think of a better term for it!)--do you REALLY not get how you come across? Are you even LISTENING to yourself? Thankfully most, if not all of my closest friends and family are painfully self-conscious. And that's how I like it.

I hate most knitting patterns--no, I do not, in fact, want to wear a shapeless knitted box.

Glitter--it took getting out of junior high to make me understand why glitter DOES, in fact, make you look like a whore. I nearly corked a gut when I went to EFY at 16 and saw girls in skimpy clothes slather their chests with glitter. Really?! Is this your way of trying to be taken seriously?

Profanity-MOST of the time--exceptions include: my boss--a RELIEF SOCIETY PRESIDENT, cussing up a storm over a student or situation, or the former clinical psych director doing the same over anything and everything. They swear worse than sailors, and it's amazing how much more manageable work becomes when they let off a few. On the other hand, I've seen movies and plays where they sprinkle the f-word like gravy on brussel sprouts (trust me, you need a LOT to make those little guys taste good). If you can't get the idea across sans profanity, it must not be a very decent message to begin with. Even if it is, chances are I won't notice it throughout all the cursings. The F word ruined the play, "Proof" for me. Which would've been awesome without it.

Skinny pants--unless they're on girls, and the bottoms are folded up while they wear sandals. I wish I could pull off that look, but I can't. I also hate super baggy pants on guys (and girls!). Dudes, contrary to popular belief, I do not like crack. Of any kind. So belt it or change!

People who laugh at their own joke. Or expect you wholeheartedly to laugh at theirs. GOSH!

Text-messaging or Instant messaging or even speaking using acronyms/initials. Ever since I read 1984 in junior high, any attempts at shortening words or phrases gives me the creeps and freaks me out. Or just sounds dumb. Lol, imho... it hurts, it hurts! Doubleplusungood, indeed.

I've read books on almost all sides of the political spectrum: Liberal, Independent, Libertarian, Conservative. I do get a kick out of Michael Moore while simultaneously rejecting most of his views or claims. The same with Ann Coulter, although I do agree with a lot of what she has to say, just definitely NOT how she says it. Same with Bill O'Reilly, John Stossel, and Sean Hannity. It's when they stop yelling that you can get a better feel of what they truly think about the issues. Hence me really liking to read their books. Downsize This! is genius, although Moore seems to have major issues drawing the line between propaganda and truth (I'm suspicious over "An Inconvenient Truth" for the same reasons. While the world can do LOADS better to protect the earth, I do think there is some exaggeration over how much influence we've had and have concerning global warming. Infiltrating children's animated movies does more to hurt your cause than help it, at least for me, O liberal hollywoodians. It was the only reason why I was a little resentful of Wall-E. And Ferngully for that matter). ANYWAY, Michael Moore much prefers (mis)representation of ideas over the cold hard facts. Although, admittedly I would watch, "TV Nation" every week when it was on TV. Seeing a chunky sloppily dressed guy approach top CEOs to verbally attack their policies will never get old. The one person I truly categorically trust and admire is Thomas Sowell, an African-American economist (although I DO have a major crush on George F. Will. When I can understand him. Talk about verbose! Plus he wears a bow-tie, and pulls it off. Dang!). Sowell is one of the few people that can argue his ideas nonargumentatively. As in he doesn't rely on insults or the volume of his voice (but see, it goes up to eleven!) to get his ideas across. He uses logic and examples and analogies to explain his ideas. He's one of the few people that doesn't make me go "grrrerrrmmm..." every two seconds. He doesn't even rely on sarcasm! Irony, just a little bit.

Talking of politics, these are my opinions thus far. I really like both Obama and McCain as people. Being an elitist-intellectual (counter to my earlier arguments, I KNOW! But political elitism does differ SLIGHTLY from artistic elitism) shouldn't be a bad word in the political arena. Biden seems decent, and I've got very mixed feelings about Palin. I think McCain has the experience, Obama has the drive, Biden the experience, and Palin has... well... besides being female, I'm not getting it. She's not experienced, and in her interviews she doesn't strike me as being incredibly intellectual either. She seems like a cute multi-tasking soccer mom that happens to be interested in politics. She may be motivated, but wanting something really badly won't get my vote alone. It feels like McCain chose her for all the wrong reasons--it seems like a political kneejerk reaction--if Obama is vying to be the first African American President, then we need the first female Veep, too as a counterattack. While it's good that Palin is much more conservative than McCain, it scares me to think that she's one step away from being President if they're voted in. I'm not sure that's a risk I'm willing to take. I definitely do not think she's ready for it, regardless of how cute I think she looks! And how annoying Katie Couric was when she interviewed her. It was sooooo obvious how Couric felt towards Obama versus her feelings towards Palin. Unbiased my left cheek. It's funny, I think of all the candidates, Hillary Clinton was probably the smartest, or at least near the top. She just happened to be a bit smarmy, too. I didn't trust her. Smirking while the President talks doesn't get my vote, either, Hillary!! If it were up to me, posturing would be on its way out. Maybe during the next presidential race... Hey, one could hope!

I hate how these senators/governors/candidates are held responsible for decisions and votes they made sometimes over 20 years ago. If I were expected to hold the same opinions as I did even five years ago, we'd all be in a world of hurt. It should be a LACK of change that should be a concern, not the evidence of maturing. Flip-flopping is one thing, growth is completely different. I don't appreciate pandering, politic stunts or finger-pointing. There should be a greater emphasis on what one could do to help, not what the other person is doing wrong. Humorous in execution or not (I still think it's fantastic that Obama rejected Lindsay's offer to help with his candidacy. Ouch!).

Although a bit of humor never hurt anybody! Did anybody besides Shawn read the Superman article? Wasn't it great! Nobody even cares if Shawn didn't appreciate it.

Disclaimer: I realize my arguments and ideas have been very generalized. This post is aimed to express my feelings, not necessarily to defend and back them up. So I don't care to hear your reasonings behind why the bolero shrug is an acceptable piece of clothing. You will never convince me. No, it's not a challenge, so don't try! STOP!!!!!!!