The question of authorship

Duchamp made a very salient point about the "Fountain" - namely, using a ready-made urinal, inverting it and painting R MUTT to sign-off. No part of it was original. Duchamp didn't invent the porcelain that went into the making of the urinal, neither did he invent the concept/construction of the object in question. He was accredited the authorship because he has simply taken the bold step to place a banal object in the esteemed location of a contemporary art museum.

Of course, he subsequently was associated with this (in)famous "art" piece due to the controversy made.

I was reading an article on Realism, critical realism to be exact. Before philosophy scares you away from this blog, please be rest assured that I intend to write something rather lay.

At the end of the article, the author thanked a list of people who helped shape his ideas, and he even credited a point to a colleague during the review. In academia, it is very much a paradox, where there such pressures are put on individuals to produce brilliant works to publish, and yet, work in editorial teams to peer-review, critique. We have meetings and seminars where we share (or more commonly, attack) with each other. We formulate ideas by cross-pollination. So why is the credit still individually award?

It's same throughout really, in most cases, people work in teams and create synthesis (or disynthesis?). No one's ideas are really their own and the assemblage of ideas can happen by chance or even by circumstances. It can be reduced to being in the right place at the right time, the interplay of being part of the right institution and you exercising a choice that simply fits into that structure. It can even be random. I must admit, I had this idea because I was reading Sayer's article on Critical Realism for Geography and Dyck/Kearn's book chapter for on Gidden's theory of Structuration. The most unlikely of connections and possibly by sheer SHEER chance...did I write this blog post? Most certainly. Did I author it? I would say there are roads that motivated me to write, and the assemblage of ideas came from me...I willed it to happen. However, I hesitate to claim true authorship.

It is our ego that drives us to claim credit for our work. Clearly in Duchamp's case, he was credited because his name created a locus of discussion. We tend to associate with the person when we're trying to understand motives - "Why did he chose a urinal as a sculpture?". This is because only people can have will - conscious choices. However, my point is that that's not all there is to it, because there are also other random circumstances that can take part. Duchamp owes as much credit, as the curator who permitted his work to be displayed. Someone must have sold the urinal to this insane dude.

The key here is really simply. Authorship, like Duchamp's signage of "R MUTT" is simply an act of claim. Whilst none of the words I used were invented by you (English is not invented by a sole person), Blogger.com wasn't a website I set up, and neither references were created by me. I u claim these ideas as my choices. It is my individual will that underpins the end assemblage displayed for all to see.

It doesn't matter if my choices were random (spur of insanity) or calculated (deeply analysed, researched before writing). The event itself justifies my authorship. I claim therefore it is.

Charity: Are you a lazy giver?

Students from most secondary schools have filled the last 2 saturdays to ask the public to give back to the community. Holding tin cans and "flag" stickers, they bear the symbols of Singaporean charitable attitude. I read somewhere before, that Singaporeans have the highest rate of giving. I've always passed the chance to buy tissue, buy "flags", give my change to passing musicians (unless they are really good) etc. Some might call me Mrs Scrooge and hurl eggs for my miser attitudes.

I have always held the view that anyone and everyone can perform charitable acts like dropping change in a tin can, or help out an old man selling tissue papers. As much as these little gestures matter, and they might temporarily help the demise of those less fortunate, I much prefer to engage in long term sustainable charitable causes. Such charity depends largely on mass numbers and runs along the theory that while you have a small part to play, it is enough if everyone also does it. However, it's my money, and I sometimes really wonder how much of that really goes into the organisations, and how much goes into the less fortunate. Charity is pity, and you give because you pity those less fortunate than you. It is a condescending attitude. Contrary, were I the less fortunate, I would prefer to earn my own living than live on the hand that might one day retract due to a decline in "altruistic" attitudes.

Furthermore, there are frauds everywhere.

Does it mean to withdraw your giving hand altogether? I guess it depends. Someone I respected once told me to "play to your strengths" and another person I don't really respect once chided me for "not being able to take the opportunities". So putting two and two together, I've decided that every time I want to do something selfish, it must have some sort of spill over effects that will benefit others as well. To use a term in arbitration, it's best to engage in integrative negotation (where the negotiation is based on interests, rather than position and authority). So for instance, for this master's project, I'm applying to use public money, to help the local start-up theatre performers/playwrights gain their portfolio by teaching/staging a play acted by youths for youths. I benefit by overseeing the play project and using valuable data to advance young people's scholarship, the public "donates" the excess wealth from economic growth to help a group of struggling artists and at the same time, the little ones have fun.

It's a lot of work, and it's not easy. But geez, we're talking about thousands of dollars here. Cents in a tin can? Singapore, we can do so much better if only we stop taking the easier way out. Charity involves effort and dedication - so what have you done today?

Radical Ideas for 6.9 million in 2030.

So many numbers are floating around these days. From by-election percentages, to a professor's confession on the cost of pre-school and now the all elusive population figures.

6.9 million in 2030. I don't know how my friends in URA and PMO are reacting (or are defending). I find that number slightly hard to swallow. On a day-to-day basis, it seems almost ludicrous that Singapore can meet with a population of 5.4 million. The infrastructure almost seems on the brink of breaking down. An empirical case is the length of queues at the NUS Arts Canteen. So since this is such a radical proposal, I think it deserves some radical solutions as well.

So let's look at some -

1. Outsourcing Singapore: Why not buy up land in other countries and create a colony there? This increases spaces and we can totally copy-and-paste Singapore. They can be called Singalah. I think New Zealand has more sheep than people right? So go there lah! Can create "domestic" tourism somemore, increase GDP even more!

You'll be surprised to note that the Vatican was sort of created like that - well, maybe we can rehash history and do it too.

2. Make it a law that every couple must have at least 1 child: We can then set up a huge factory of children where they can be "nurtured" - the government pays 80%, and the tax income of the "parents" goes into the other 20%. People in the top 20% income tier need to have at least 2 children.

(we can always outsource wombs as well since IVF is so much cheaper now)

Some parents these days need as much disciplining as their children. Sometimes, outsourcing is really the better option.

3. Build highways that connect the surrounding islands: We have Pulau this and that. I think we can just build highways to connect them together.

We have flyovers, expressways, 4 tiered road system. What else is not possible?

4. Make some people work at night, and some people in the day: Why must everyone start work at 8am and end at 6pm? Why must students start school at 7:30am? Let's start school at 12pm-11pm, and parents can start at 8pm - 3am. So awesome right? Then now they can meet for lunch and spend quality time. Disperse the flows of people.

Students think better at night anyway. 

See with just a bit of divergent thinking, we can solve the problem.

If you can't understand the satire, then I really think you deserve to feel morally outraged.

By-election Punggol-East

This by-election has, in all honesty, escaped me because I was more concerned with a play than what happens in parliament. After the election dust have settled and votes accounted for, I thought I might mark this day with a commentary. Yet, I know very little to begin with and being a non-resident of Punggol, I'm hardly in the right geographical area to speak of. However that doesn't mean it's not simultaneously a national issue. 

So...instead, I'll let others do the talking and from their voices...

"RE: Is this the calibre of our scholar rulers and planners?
YES. Pretty bad isn’t it?

This is because when people are seen as economic digits, instead of as people, you look at them only in terms of how much $$$$ you can get from them.

You don’t consider they need somewhere to stay, methods of travelling, places for medical treatment, institutions to study at, jobs that pay enough, space, time to adapt to major changes like 2 million foreigners being brought in in 18 years and of which half of don’t speak English. Just the basic things of life…

It doesn’t take rocket science to figure this out. Neither does one need to be a scholar. But the ability to think and to see people as human beings is essential."

- Gingerbarker, Forum Post on TheTemasekReview

Mr Speaker: Mr Low Thia Khiang.

Mr Low Thia Khiang (Aljunied): Supplementary question, Sir. I am pleased to note that the Prime Minister has said that he has decided to call a by-election. That settles all the hypothetical speculation outside the House. He said that he would consider all factors before deciding when a by-election should be called. I would like to ask whether or not, after considering all the factors, would he be able to indicate a period in which a by-election would be called.

Mr Lee Hsien Loong: Certainly, Mr Speaker, I will do so as soon as I have finished considering all the factors.

Mr Speaker: Mr Low.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Would the Prime Minister be able to indicate how soon and how much time he would need to consider all the factors and settle his urgent agenda?

Mr Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I have said what I intend to say. And I shall announce when I have decided to call a by-election as soon as I have decided to do so.

Mr Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.

Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, Sir, two supplementary questions for the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister not agree that with the Hougang SMC being vacant, there is actually an under-representation of the Hougang voters in this House? And second clarification is, he mentioned that there would be factors that he would consider in deciding when to call the by-election. In this particular instance, can he specify what are the matters which would delay calling the Hougang by-election?

Mr Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, on the first question of whether there is an under-representation of the interest of the voters of Hougang as a result of this, I do not know that. If that is an issue, I would have thought it is something which the Workers’ Party would have considered before deciding to expel Mr Yaw Shin Leong. Because the Constitution is clear. The rules are clear. How by-elections are called or not called is also completely clear. We debated this in the House. If we are in this situation today, it is because the Workers’ Party has caused this situation to happen, knowing the consequences. As for the second question, I have already answered Mr Low three times, and I think my answer stands.

- Transcript of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's reply in Parliament on calling a by-election in Hougang SMC

"We will not oppose for the sake of opposing when policies are sound and in the interests of the nation. But we will not hesitate to confront the government when policies are not in the interests of the people." 

- LTK WP 22 Jan Punggol East By-Election

"Well, like this mutually suspicious politics of hatred that we've been talking about it. I know it's hard, but you've got to put it behind you, rise above it. It's no good me saying 'don't reduce politics to a slanging match' and you replying 'well, your lot started it'....I think politics is more fun when there's 2 strong sides squaring up, no quarter asked or given, and respect on both sides. Because if you don't respect your opponent, you're not respecting the game, and that means you're not respecting our parliament." 

- Christopher Brookmyre, Country of the Blind

"I do, like many of you, appreciate the comforts of every day routine- the security of the familiar, the tranquility of repetition. I enjoy them as much as any bloke. But in the spirit of commemoration, thereby those important events of the past usually associated with someone's death or the end of some awful bloody struggle, a celebration of a nice holiday, I thought we could mark this November the 5th, a day that is sadly no longer remembered, by taking some time out of our daily lives to sit down and have a little chat. There are of course those who do not want us to speak. I suspect even now, orders are being shouted into telephones, and men with guns will soon be on their way. Why? Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. I know why you did it. I know you were afraid. Who wouldn't be?"

- V for Vendetta, V

The slightly insidious side to being a Director

I am extremely grateful to NUS Stage for giving me the opportunity to direct a dramatised reading. As the week winds down to the last performance held today, I can't help but think that this process has been surreal.

Directing has been something that I thought I wouldn't be able to do. It's akin to watching an Olympic gymnast and telling yourself that it's impossible you'll be that person on TV. Being a very technical person, someone who thinks in terms of cues, markings and timing, artistic direction has alluded my sphere of experience. Yet this opportunity has sparked something that had been dormant.

I used to write fiction - letting my mind wander to alternate realities. Almost all the stories I write are based in reality, because stories are just more convincing when you can imagine them to be real. This experience escaped me after 21 Dec 2008, when I brutally learnt that reality can be more painful and more fantastical than fiction. When you really can only write about pain when you have felt it. Ever since, my senses deaden because it is simply easier not to feel especially when all you feel is just pain. I shut the doors of my imagination.

Directing has most leisurely drawn that side back. Well firstly, Shiv said something that I've been grappling to put words to: Directors act the most. We act in front of our actors. Taking criticisms and molding into alluring encouragements that will prod the actors to perform in a certain way. I find myself  crafting "pathways", creating illusions of choice to seduce my cast into coming to their own conclusions when it's really my own. It is seditious, scheming. Being this director, I transform into a  mastermind of story-tellers. We have to tell a story to our cast, and through them, to reach out to our audience. It's slightly insidious and no wonder "the Scottish play" is not spoken during performance night. With so much yarns of lies, tales and Machiavellian plots running afoot - the web is ready to spring upon the audience and actors to create the intended atmosphere.

"Politicians lie to hide the truth, artists tell lies to reveal it"

- V from V for Vendetta

The Issue with Whining and Ranting

Firstly, I have no qualms about people complaining. It is after all a healthy outlet for what may be a temporary problem, or perhaps it is a way to gather up energy for the overcoming a small obstacle. However, I do have people who whine about their work and rant about how difficult it is to write a literature review, or how fantastically tedious this term paper is etc.

It is not a measure of arrogance when I denounce such "whinery". I draw from my personal experience and offer warning and caution to those who dramatise their private problems to a public audience. This may offend most people's sensibilities, but think about it: What you say reveals more about you, than the thing you are whining about. 

Allow me to illustrate.

You have this really difficult term paper, or group project. Your professor or lecturer has given nothing for you to go on. Heck, you don't even know what Baye's Rule is or how to go about finding obscure LDC maps of coastal regions without being a member of some elite academic society. You complain on Facebook, then you rant to your whatsapp group of friends and complete the experience by pounding your head on the table. Everyone knows about your problems, offers you consolation (or what it seems to be consolation) and you feel better about yourself that someone has sympathies or curses the lecturer along with you. 

In short, you feel the need that you're not alone in this. Yet the issue is not about camaraderie. Take a step back and consider perhaps the purpose of the assignment is precisely to suss out between those that give up and hand in superficial projects, and those that take the initiative to make consultation appointments to clarify the finer points of the paper. I have personally met with professors who give us the most obscure of assignments to have them give me the knowing smile when I asked the right questions and take the initiative to approach them. It is naive to assume that everyone marks your paper based on what is in the paper. In their shoes, would you not be tired of seeing the same answers and responses year in year out, the struggle to award credit to students who truly have a thrist for knowledge and learning instead of the grade? It is part of the learning process and it is part of what makes me a more independent learner. How can one rant about that?

This is a personal affront. This is also a personal experience. I used to have a colleague who whines/rants/complains about my boss and all the difficult work and changeability of the environment. I was influenced by his attitude, thinking that this was the "culture" and it would be a badge of honour to bitch about the work and show others how much work you are putting in. However, all it ever achieved was to highlight your own personal incompetencies. For one, you never know who's listening to your complaints and whining undermines your position in the company. Secondly, my boss came to ask me personally why I cannot tell him straight in the face that the work he delegated to me was too much for me to bear for a young executive. Thirdly, he then questioned my aptitude AND attitude for spreading the melodrama around to other colleagues. He then pointed out another colleague who was silently bearing tasks that far surpass mine and not only just excelling, but also doing it without bringing "others down" with her. It was a lesson I will never forget.  It almost cost me my job and the damage done took months to repair.

Ranting about small problems like term papers is a habit that will lead to other larger actions which can severely cripple your career prospects. It is one thing to sound out to a close friend, and another to do so in front of a public audience - who may one day be your boss or a valuable associate. The worst part is that you might not even know you had miss opportunities because people simply avoid working with you on what might be lucrative projects due to your seemingly innocuous rants.

It's only a small task, and the one who gave you the task of all people, actually knows how it's like to be in your shoes. When we whine, we give a signal that we cannot cope with larger tasks and you'll soon find yourself devoid of opportunities because people judge you incapable. No one asks that you suffer in silence as well, there is an avenue and time to bring issues to the right people. Whining/Ranting breeds more negativity and instead of sympathy, it feeds a self-pitying and self-entitled mindset. How is that positive to what might already be a dire predicament? 

Hiatus

These couple of days I've been recuperating from a cough, a fever, menses as well as jet lag. It explains the lack of posts and I do hope to keep on writing at least for the next couple of weeks.

I'm actually easing back into action. Besides sleeping, which occupies the major part of my day, I took time (grudgingly), to direct this chamber reading (a play with script). It's called I LOVE GOD BUT I DESIRE MARRIAGE. From a writer's point of view, I have a lot of issues with the script, but I am attracted to the thematic matter as well as some of the dialogue.

It brings to mind about the confluence of religion and personal motivations, as well as the illogicality of desire and human frailty. It's not dramatic like Hamlet, but I hope in some small ways the story it tells will resonate my audience as it does in me.

I promise to write soon, especially when this wreck of a body has resumed some of it's equilibrium. MAYBE, I need to write TO restore equilibrium. For now, I'm content to be curled up with a copy of the Dresden Files, hoping to go to sleep before insanity strikes me.