真的說不出是什麽感受，當我聽到老闆告訴我要我在這裡多呆一年。 二十分鈡前，在新的死黨同事還跑去問了前老闆我回來之後的職位，尤其是在聽到公司改革之後總部會在新加坡。
當我以爲，心裏也有了準備返囯之後，原來是三年。 雖然有點擔心自己會變得沒有幹勁，但是也覺得就這樣子現在的生活也沒有什麽不好，至少是我理想的。在外囯的單身生活，沒有太多的包袱，人的關係也簡單。
安慰自己，現在還年輕，而且紐約這個大都市，還有很多事我還沒有挖掘的，多留一年也好。
不知道爲什麽，心裏還是對未來的一年半有點恐慌。
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Friday, January 22, 2010
找到讓自己熱衷的事情
對某件事情很熱衷是什麽樣的心情？ 前些天看到朋友在facebook寫了一些泡咖啡的器皿， 感覺到了她對咖啡的鍾愛，就像她的另一個朋友說的coffee nerd，那種熱愛，已經達到了‘宅’的境界。。
其實沒什麽不好，對於自己喜歡的東西和興趣，花時間，精力，金錢投注其中，也樂在其中。 我想，那種快樂的滿足感就是一種對自己所付出的慰勞吧。 這樣子的人生，才能算是過的有意義吧？不需要對人交待，完全了解自己的想要的，從中得到樂趣。就算是簡單的小事情也是有意義的。
找得到可以讓自己投注熱情的人事物，是幸福的。讓自己這麽簡單的執著就好。
其實沒什麽不好，對於自己喜歡的東西和興趣，花時間，精力，金錢投注其中，也樂在其中。 我想，那種快樂的滿足感就是一種對自己所付出的慰勞吧。 這樣子的人生，才能算是過的有意義吧？不需要對人交待，完全了解自己的想要的，從中得到樂趣。就算是簡單的小事情也是有意義的。
找得到可以讓自己投注熱情的人事物，是幸福的。讓自己這麽簡單的執著就好。
Friday, January 15, 2010
朋友
五月，又有一個友人要結婚了。。 其實她已經和丈夫在去年合法註冊了，只是華人婚禮等了一段時間后才決定在今年五月舉行。 和她已經認識已經好十幾年了，從中學時期認識時關係要好，斷斷續續保持關係到了現在。 但是隨著時間慢慢流逝，我們的距離變得遙遠了，她的生活我都沒有參與，只是偶爾出來喝杯咖啡，吃飯聊天。 感覺上沒有什麽共同點，生活也只是在各過各的，也可以説是幾乎沒有交際。。。
結果有一天，她發了一封電郵給我，說五月舉行華人婚禮，擺酒席，向我要了在美國的地址，想把請帖寄給我。 我給了她的地址之後， 她回復說應該會早一點把請帖寄過來，這樣自我就可以早一點預訂機票。。。 當時我讀了愣了一陣，回國去參加她的婚禮？那要花去我多少錢呐？ 爲什麽我要特地飛回國參加她的婚禮？ 爲什麽她會理所當然地以爲我應該如此？。。。
我想，我應該不至於是一個對朋友不好的人，也不是一個吝嗇的人。 只是，她就于我，頂多只是屬於過得去的朋友。。。 如果十幾年下來還可也保持和當初一樣很要好的關係的話，我想我應該會考慮。。 但情況並非如此。 所以我想我沒有必要飛回國，但是大禮肯定是要送的。 對於這點我沒有異議。。。
而她的電郵裏的理所當然，反而讓我陷入了尷尬的情況。 如果說不，感覺上我好像冷淡了，連關乎她的人生大事都不參與。。。 但是我也不是這麽海派到願意花幾千塊搭飛機飛來飛去，更本就不能答應會回國參加婚禮。。。。 那答案應該是什麽呢？ 本來就不是很擅長人際關係的我現在真的傷透腦筋了。 結果，唯一的答案就是選擇沉默。。。
sigh。。。我以爲自己和她的關係已經不像從前了，可是對方似乎並不這麽認爲。 雖然我猜更多的成分在於金錢吧。。。 舉辦婚禮不就是這麽一回事嗎？ 雖然這樣子抹黑朋友真的很過分，但是心裏就是沒有辦法控制地冒出這樣子的想法。 因爲最近幾年的疏於聯絡，連她病了我也是從第三者的口中才知道。。。 這樣子的關係，我真的想像不到爲何她會認爲我會特地飛回國參加她的婚禮。 如果真的去了，那去年我的好朋友的婚禮應該怎麽解釋？
有時，真的好討厭自己爲什麽要把人想象成這個樣子。。。 她是我的朋友，沒有疑問的。 如果哪一天要是她有什麽情況，我想我會義不容辭。。 。 從現有情況看來，我還是沒有辦法告訴自己其實和她的友誼有這麽的深。 有的，也只是在時間上累積下來的‘老朋友’的定義， 和中學時期的回憶吧。
像這種關係，總是讓我覺得尷尬而且有壓力的。 不能夠直接拒絕，卻又不想茫然敷衍 （因爲機票真的太貴了），好難。
結果有一天，她發了一封電郵給我，說五月舉行華人婚禮，擺酒席，向我要了在美國的地址，想把請帖寄給我。 我給了她的地址之後， 她回復說應該會早一點把請帖寄過來，這樣自我就可以早一點預訂機票。。。 當時我讀了愣了一陣，回國去參加她的婚禮？那要花去我多少錢呐？ 爲什麽我要特地飛回國參加她的婚禮？ 爲什麽她會理所當然地以爲我應該如此？。。。
我想，我應該不至於是一個對朋友不好的人，也不是一個吝嗇的人。 只是，她就于我，頂多只是屬於過得去的朋友。。。 如果十幾年下來還可也保持和當初一樣很要好的關係的話，我想我應該會考慮。。 但情況並非如此。 所以我想我沒有必要飛回國，但是大禮肯定是要送的。 對於這點我沒有異議。。。
而她的電郵裏的理所當然，反而讓我陷入了尷尬的情況。 如果說不，感覺上我好像冷淡了，連關乎她的人生大事都不參與。。。 但是我也不是這麽海派到願意花幾千塊搭飛機飛來飛去，更本就不能答應會回國參加婚禮。。。。 那答案應該是什麽呢？ 本來就不是很擅長人際關係的我現在真的傷透腦筋了。 結果，唯一的答案就是選擇沉默。。。
sigh。。。我以爲自己和她的關係已經不像從前了，可是對方似乎並不這麽認爲。 雖然我猜更多的成分在於金錢吧。。。 舉辦婚禮不就是這麽一回事嗎？ 雖然這樣子抹黑朋友真的很過分，但是心裏就是沒有辦法控制地冒出這樣子的想法。 因爲最近幾年的疏於聯絡，連她病了我也是從第三者的口中才知道。。。 這樣子的關係，我真的想像不到爲何她會認爲我會特地飛回國參加她的婚禮。 如果真的去了，那去年我的好朋友的婚禮應該怎麽解釋？
有時，真的好討厭自己爲什麽要把人想象成這個樣子。。。 她是我的朋友，沒有疑問的。 如果哪一天要是她有什麽情況，我想我會義不容辭。。 。 從現有情況看來，我還是沒有辦法告訴自己其實和她的友誼有這麽的深。 有的，也只是在時間上累積下來的‘老朋友’的定義， 和中學時期的回憶吧。
像這種關係，總是讓我覺得尷尬而且有壓力的。 不能夠直接拒絕，卻又不想茫然敷衍 （因爲機票真的太貴了），好難。
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
When I was Fifiteen...
I did not understand what is the hype about boys, although I do like looking at them.
I went crazy over a petite girl in the next class but I never got a chance to talk to her.
I dreamed of getting the expensive Sony Walkman model
I loved hanging out with friends at bubble tea shop
I did not have a lot of money, but did not know how to save
I did not like staying in the house
I dreamed of flying away to a place where nobody knew me
I hated myself and felt very inferior
I walked to the same place to commute but I loved it
I loved taking long bus rides and detour to places I have never been
I was lost in all aspects of life now and future
I thought I was happy
I went crazy over a petite girl in the next class but I never got a chance to talk to her.
I dreamed of getting the expensive Sony Walkman model
I loved hanging out with friends at bubble tea shop
I did not have a lot of money, but did not know how to save
I did not like staying in the house
I dreamed of flying away to a place where nobody knew me
I hated myself and felt very inferior
I walked to the same place to commute but I loved it
I loved taking long bus rides and detour to places I have never been
I was lost in all aspects of life now and future
I thought I was happy
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
When Some Lines Cannot Be Crossed
Alright, I have decided to change my post today from 'Why I Do Not Encourage Same-Sex Marriage' to whatever you are reading now.
Today's topic, Bill Henson: http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/the-controversial-career-of-bill-henson/2008/05/24/1211183189567.html
In summary, an Australian photographer whose exhibitions have brought controversy. Talented, yet, probably likes to walk on the line, a thin fine line. This time, the line between art and child pornography. Child pornography, a very very sensitive issue.
My opinion, any individual/organization engaging with child pornography should just burn forever in hell. If in reality there is no such thing as hell, I would gladly spend the rest of my life to create one for them to burn in. Literally.
Yes, child pornography is the worst. I cannot imagine how sick the person's mind must be in order to engage in something like that. So, for such a sick mind to be connected to any system (such as a human body) is wrong. If there is the one absolute thing in the world that I ever believe in, this is probably it. Pedophiles should die, their souls should never be allowed on earth and should eternally suffer agony, their bodies should be whipped repeatedly, then cut up into pieces and burn. It is not even fit to be fed to any animals.
Now, the controversy is really about the photographs by Bill Henson. Pornography or not? I first saw the photos on the web (check it out on Google). I have to seriously say, it is very beautiful. The use of lights, the dark space surrounding the subject created a very very compelling photograph that forces viewers to look and feel what the subjects are feeling. Powerful photographs. In my sense, this is art more than anything else.
However, any public display of photographs or realistic depictions of a naked child is against my morals. Now I do appreciate art in different forms (no, creating a pillar by sticking it full with bacons is NOT art, NOR is leashing a dog for days and hanging tons and tons of ham right in front of it is), even those that depicts violence; pushing boundaries between morality and art. Because this constantly forces people to rethink and relook into their own moral values by means of provcating. Viewers should really, see with discretion. If you don't like it, take it with a pinch of salt and walk away. Then this is not art to you, go see Monet.
In this sense, I would probably just walk away from Henson's exhibition.
It is art, but not something which is provocative to me. However, by my own moral values, any depictions of child being sexualized (that includes fully-clothed children giving sexy pose), nude children (even if is purely art that does not suggest a single hint of sex) should not be created. Much less to display it in public. Not that I do not see his point, but simply because the subject is a child that I do not feel is acceptable.
Truth is, there is a fine line that artists pushes constantly between art and sex. More often than not, sex or pornography has even been taken as art. Of course, vice versa. The really disturbing fact is not that the photos could possibly be depicted as pornography by people, but the fact that nake subject is a child that really, I do not feel its acceptable. Why? Of all, should you be using nude children? There are, really a lot of other subjects or ways that you could possibly bring across the point. So why nude children?
Think about it, photographs of you nude when you were born, being exhibited, will probably never cause any of such controversies. Why? Simply because they are not even being viewed as anywhere being closed to a full human beings. This is the same as, putting nude photographs of puppies, kittens etc. etc. Human brains (except the really sick ones) just do not see it being any different (across culture). So if ever, there are people who find that posting of Henson's photographs as suggestion of child pornography, is it not best that he does not do this anymore, even if it is purely a form of art?
Bear in mind that I still, do find his photographs taken very beautifully and does not bear any resemblances of pornography in any sense. So against all my liking towards the photographs, I still do not approve such exhibitions to be held nor photographs to be taken in first place.
Today's topic, Bill Henson: http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/the-controversial-career-of-bill-henson/2008/05/24/1211183189567.html
In summary, an Australian photographer whose exhibitions have brought controversy. Talented, yet, probably likes to walk on the line, a thin fine line. This time, the line between art and child pornography. Child pornography, a very very sensitive issue.
My opinion, any individual/organization engaging with child pornography should just burn forever in hell. If in reality there is no such thing as hell, I would gladly spend the rest of my life to create one for them to burn in. Literally.
Yes, child pornography is the worst. I cannot imagine how sick the person's mind must be in order to engage in something like that. So, for such a sick mind to be connected to any system (such as a human body) is wrong. If there is the one absolute thing in the world that I ever believe in, this is probably it. Pedophiles should die, their souls should never be allowed on earth and should eternally suffer agony, their bodies should be whipped repeatedly, then cut up into pieces and burn. It is not even fit to be fed to any animals.
Now, the controversy is really about the photographs by Bill Henson. Pornography or not? I first saw the photos on the web (check it out on Google). I have to seriously say, it is very beautiful. The use of lights, the dark space surrounding the subject created a very very compelling photograph that forces viewers to look and feel what the subjects are feeling. Powerful photographs. In my sense, this is art more than anything else.
However, any public display of photographs or realistic depictions of a naked child is against my morals. Now I do appreciate art in different forms (no, creating a pillar by sticking it full with bacons is NOT art, NOR is leashing a dog for days and hanging tons and tons of ham right in front of it is), even those that depicts violence; pushing boundaries between morality and art. Because this constantly forces people to rethink and relook into their own moral values by means of provcating. Viewers should really, see with discretion. If you don't like it, take it with a pinch of salt and walk away. Then this is not art to you, go see Monet.
In this sense, I would probably just walk away from Henson's exhibition.
It is art, but not something which is provocative to me. However, by my own moral values, any depictions of child being sexualized (that includes fully-clothed children giving sexy pose), nude children (even if is purely art that does not suggest a single hint of sex) should not be created. Much less to display it in public. Not that I do not see his point, but simply because the subject is a child that I do not feel is acceptable.
Truth is, there is a fine line that artists pushes constantly between art and sex. More often than not, sex or pornography has even been taken as art. Of course, vice versa. The really disturbing fact is not that the photos could possibly be depicted as pornography by people, but the fact that nake subject is a child that really, I do not feel its acceptable. Why? Of all, should you be using nude children? There are, really a lot of other subjects or ways that you could possibly bring across the point. So why nude children?
Think about it, photographs of you nude when you were born, being exhibited, will probably never cause any of such controversies. Why? Simply because they are not even being viewed as anywhere being closed to a full human beings. This is the same as, putting nude photographs of puppies, kittens etc. etc. Human brains (except the really sick ones) just do not see it being any different (across culture). So if ever, there are people who find that posting of Henson's photographs as suggestion of child pornography, is it not best that he does not do this anymore, even if it is purely a form of art?
Bear in mind that I still, do find his photographs taken very beautifully and does not bear any resemblances of pornography in any sense. So against all my liking towards the photographs, I still do not approve such exhibitions to be held nor photographs to be taken in first place.
Sunday, January 10, 2010
Blah blah blah.... Acting Arty Farty
I probably understood art more than I ever did in my life when in Manhattan. Not really because of the endless list of world-class museums that are cramped into this 59.47 km² of land mass, but rather because of the increased liberation towards alcohol here.
Would probably even say that I am starting to understand the concept of automatism, and to appreciate surrealism. To liberate the innermost of your emotions, to bring out strong potent feelings that, as a most sane person would never have felt it. And, the reason why some artists went into self-destruction, got into drugs, and of course are mostly, if not all, alcoholics. My assumption, that is.
I do feel more liberated and closer to the most inner self when the devil's drink starts to take effect and slowly shedding away the armor call sanity, bringing you closer to your own wildest imagination, closer to something, that I would probably be afraid to address and acknowledge while wearing 'the sane armor'.
Of course, not all drunks appreciate art (or can be artists for that matters). Although most artists are probably pretty drunk at some point where they produced the most powerful art that awes the world and leave such an impression that cannot be easily forgotten.
Personally I probably would appreciate Pollock (abstract, probably influenced by automatism) more if I drink 2 tequila shots (yes, two and no more, otherwise I would create a scene and forget I am suppose to be in MOMA appreciating art) and went straight there. Liberating myself, and allowing Pollock's to leave me in awe. Allow it to unleash its power at me that it will be emotionally an impression I would never forget. Art, or very profound art like abstract, cubism, surrealism, or (even impressionism?) is something that as a very sane person, I would never really understand.
Conclusion, I can sort of understand the feelings of trusting your inner self to the artists' work if I am drunk (slightly). Not only does it requires a talent to create art, but talent (maybe slightly drunk ones) to also appreciate the profundity of those creations. Lol... Random random...
Would probably even say that I am starting to understand the concept of automatism, and to appreciate surrealism. To liberate the innermost of your emotions, to bring out strong potent feelings that, as a most sane person would never have felt it. And, the reason why some artists went into self-destruction, got into drugs, and of course are mostly, if not all, alcoholics. My assumption, that is.
I do feel more liberated and closer to the most inner self when the devil's drink starts to take effect and slowly shedding away the armor call sanity, bringing you closer to your own wildest imagination, closer to something, that I would probably be afraid to address and acknowledge while wearing 'the sane armor'.
Of course, not all drunks appreciate art (or can be artists for that matters). Although most artists are probably pretty drunk at some point where they produced the most powerful art that awes the world and leave such an impression that cannot be easily forgotten.
Personally I probably would appreciate Pollock (abstract, probably influenced by automatism) more if I drink 2 tequila shots (yes, two and no more, otherwise I would create a scene and forget I am suppose to be in MOMA appreciating art) and went straight there. Liberating myself, and allowing Pollock's to leave me in awe. Allow it to unleash its power at me that it will be emotionally an impression I would never forget. Art, or very profound art like abstract, cubism, surrealism, or (even impressionism?) is something that as a very sane person, I would never really understand.
Conclusion, I can sort of understand the feelings of trusting your inner self to the artists' work if I am drunk (slightly). Not only does it requires a talent to create art, but talent (maybe slightly drunk ones) to also appreciate the profundity of those creations. Lol... Random random...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)