Skip to main content

Beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder

Yeah, I know, clichéd saying, coined probably by ugly ducklings who wish that they could change to swans. No, I am not going to exalt this statement, but I am merely planning to express some of my views on the same.

I had earlier written a post on us trying to find meaning in everything. I shall resume from where I left off, and try to show how the jumbled, twisted and convoluted skein of thought links these two posts.

I resume at the interactions in my literature class. I have since completed that course, and moved on to another course which far surpasses the previous one in the qualities of the same. This course tries hard to hammer into the students some examples of good literature, which the students are required to accept as good literature. While I myself have no keen reasons to be a radical and debunk the canon, I think that it is unfair to actually point out what is good and what's not.

Why, you ask. Very well, I shall tell. I go back to the highly clichéd title of this post. Everyone has slightly different aesthetic senses, and it would be cruel, almost inhuman to destroy that individuality. We are not machines or products on a conveyor belt assembly line in a factory, but human beings, yet, our current system of education simply wishes to prepare us for industry, and does so with a practical demonstration of an assembly line.

Recently, I decided to increase the means of wasting my time on the internet. Clearly, Google Reader was not a sufficient waste of time. Suddenly, I have decided to fancy myself as a photographer with a highly developed aesthetic sense (only in my version of reality though), and I have started following good photographers like Trey Ratcliff, Jay Patel, Varina Patel, Darren Rowse, Lisa Bettany and other-not-so-good-people. However, others clearly think them as good. (I don't want to risk making enemies with people, so I don't name the not-so-good, and definitely not the not-at-all-good.) But why do I mention these photographers? Just to drive home the point that my version of aesthetic beauty does not necessarily comply with the notions that others may have. But this does not mean that I need to change my notions of what is good and what-is-not simply because someone thinks I should.

Which brings me to the other point I wanted to raise. Am I a good photographer? I think I am. I make all my photographs faded, vignette, with poor colours and noisy. Now that's beautiful photography. If you don't agree, you don't belong to my world, and I have nothingtodowithyou! All the good photographs from masters of yesteryear have some common characteristics. They are either black and white, or have distorted colours. They show characteristics of vignetting. They have a lot of noise on the image. Conclusion: Any photograph with these characteristics has to be a good photograph.

Of course, there are some who are not fooled by this notion of the canon, and demand real beauty. Have a look at this link, and this one and this one.

Again, isn't it funny that when Salman Rushdie writes like this only, complyetely debunking language grammar logic and god-knows-what-not that people appreciate it and give him the booker but a writer who nos no angrezi is never even so much as looked at? Why this injustice. I think that there is a foreign hand or a hand of the opposition in this. There is no other way that a prolific and talented writer like myself is still struggling with only 4000odd pageviews on my blog, and not even a wellwritten comment and someone with a hand(or a pointing finger) in him wins the bookerofthebooker. And how does that Bhagat person even figure in the equation? What has he done, but to take two clichéd success strategies, one being IIT, and the other which I wish to not name, and make a clichéd operation of multiplication on the two?

Appreciate my talents or go in the oven and die

As I preview this post, I am shocked and surprised at my ability to write a terrible post.

Popular posts from this blog

Progressive Snapshot: Is it worth it?

I turned 25 last year, which in the highly mathematical and calculating eyes of the US insurance industry meant that I had suddenly matured into a much more responsible driver than I was at 24 years and 364 days of age. As a result, I expected my insurance rates to go down. Imagine my surprise when my insurance renewal notice from GEICO actually quoted a $50 increase in my insurance rates. To me, this was a clear signal that it was time to switch companies.Typically, I score really high on brand loyalty. I tend to stick with a brand for as long as possible, unless they really mess up. This qualified as a major mess up. As a result, I started shopping for insurance quotes.Two companies that quoted me significantly lower rates (30%–40% lower) were Progressive and Allstate. Both had an optional programme that could give me further discounts based on my consenting to the companies tracking my driving habits. Now, I am a careful driver – I hardly ever accelerate hard. I hate using the brak…

Cornell Graduate Students United: At What Cost?

On Monday and Tuesday, we graduate students at Cornell will be voting on whether or not we want to unionise. Actually, scratch that, only graduate students who hold a TA, RA, or GRA appointment can unionise.This is a shitty arrangement, and I will be voting against it.For those of you who are not aware of how graduate school works at Cornell, you could be on one of many appointments.FellowshipA graduate student on a fellowship gets a stipend and tuition paid without associated teaching or research opportunities. Graduate students on a fellowship typically work towards their own theses, but will be excluded from the unionGraduate research assistantshipsA GRA gives a graduate student stipend and tuition without teaching responsibilities. However, this money comes out of a specific project grant, and the students typically work on their own theses. Students on GRAs magically qualify to join the union, whereas there is virtually no difference between a GRA and a fellowship for the most pa…

Reading List, April 2017

Adam Carroll, When money isn’t real: The $10,000 experiment, in TEDxLondonBusinessSchool, 9 July 2015. [Online]: Carroll presents an interesting point – we have abstracted away money through the use of a number of instruments, such as credit and debit cards, NFC payment systems on our phones, and in-app purchases, when we don’t realise how much we are actually spending. Carroll spends some time showing how his kids, aged 7–11 played monopoly differently when they were playing with real money. He goes on to lay his premise, that financial literacy must be taught to children at a young age, when they should be allowed to fail and learn from their failures at a small scale, not at the hundreds of thousands of dollars when they are in student loan debt and just out of college.Carroll’s talk hit a lot of notes with my own experiences with money, and I’m sure that it would resonate with your experiences as well.Brett Scott, If plastic replaces cash, much tha…