Since the age of the Enlightenment, the declining influence of tradition in explaining the formulaic truth has undoubtedly been threatened by the growing influence of rationality and science. That way, humanism is taking precedence in explaining the workings of the world. However, I beg to differ. I say there is no perfect truth. Rationality can’t be the only way. It may be the dominant way, but in that sense, there is a variety of perspectives to account for a particular social phenomenon.

The mono-adoption of the dominant perspective of the world makes us blind. It’s as good as looking through a kaleidoscope; everything seems meaningful and beautiful at the core yet we can’t see from another lens. It is vital to look from different perspectives to better evaluate situations. When many people look at things from a similar point of view, it is narrow and sad. From the view of modern governments, rationality is better used to achieve legitimacy. We tend to focus on our economic growth and what not. Human beings are overly obsessed with money. We are merely cyborgs with monetary and labour value. And this is pathetic.

It is true that our being is associated to history; as much as we try to eliminate the past historical discrimination in our race, gender, nationality, etc. We cannot escpae the writings in the history books. We could burn them, yet this give rise to an uncertain state of existence. Attaching meanings to our beings become tough. In the modern sense, we are in a position where we can attach (and re-attach) our own meaning to our self. How we choose to depict ourselves is contingent on which identity we choose. We could do whatever we want, but still judged upon the historical association with truth. As modernity develops, we tend to question with our own existence no longer dependent on essentialism.

What are we then when there is no truth? How far can our biological being keep us similar?

Same, same but different is a poor phrase to explain the post modernity phenomenon; do we have the agency to create our own self? Identity is provisional based on binary logic. Yet our own biography is not created by the mere whims and fancies of oneself by rather based on the categories established by history or the dominant identity. To create an independent biography is difficult, yet we are in a situation where we can relate to different self. Identity is choice. Choice is power. Power is invisible. Invisible is the truth. Everything is liquid.

I just drank liquid water. It was horrible.

The irony is that those who lack the know-how admits the presence of arcane knowledge. The inequality of knowledge is inherent in modern society particularly due to the division of labour. We are specialized in our jobs/studies and even by our thoughts. Hegemonic structures of power relations are built once certain schools of knowledge are prioritized. It is clear science and technology are the hotbeds of society today. Progress is first in whatever race it participates in.

So then… what do we do to deal with this disparity of knowledge. We could dumb technical words down or we could educate the less educated…. But we don’t. I mean, they don’t. They don’t care….

Rightfully, the notion of ‘right’ becomes problematic in the industrial capitalist world we live in.

We ought to make the rational and logical decisions within the plethora of choices available to us. Rationality has seeped so deep that it dug a hole for emotions for future burial process. Whoever brought up the logic that everything we do in life has an opportunity costs. For instance, I could be sleeping early and allowing my body to reset its pace for a gruelling day in school tomorrow, yet here I am typing this post. I foresaw the trade-off between two choices and decided to give the middle finger to whatever the next day brings. But some people, such as my beloved parents, argue that the choice is rather irrational and ‘wrong’ because university studies are undoubtedly the top priority. To say that I am fully responsible for my current and future state of self is adult. So if hypothetically I collapse on the way to school due to the lack of rest, is entirely my fault of picking the wrong choice.

Then the question is what if I had continually adopted the safer option by choosing the rational choice not just this time, but all my life?

On second guess, I believe I would make the perfect fit for the capitalist system- someone who would make no mistake in eliciting rational choices by endless costs and benefits analysis. My tongue would be inherently politically correct with hidden agendas. Despite expressing myself, I am not actually expressing my truth self. On the inside, the innate humanistic drives are constantly repressed like a raging animal caged within the rationality walls for ‘good’ measures. On the outside, we are mere shadows of ourselves. To put it simply, we are fake; we have become walking rational creatures with no character and emotions.

I am not positing that we all should be irrational creatures with emotions as our mental compass, but we should seek to establish the balance between rationality and emotions. That would definitely help us to make decisions in life.

With that said, I would like to acknowledge that there can be no right or wrong decision within any peruse of morality.

Also I am not saying that any actions we engage is bounded by a cause and effect logic. For instance, sometimes we just do random stuff without any logical explanation; however this would lead to the dichotomy between rationality and biological urges in determining our actions. The former is explicit in the sense that almost any rational head would understand the actions within particular context. The latter is rather unpredictable yet we continually try to comprehend our biologically drives especially with the psychological studies. This scientific mode of studying the humans is scary…. I could go on and bring up Foucault’s work, but I will stop here.

Back to making the right choice, it seems to me that we are conditioned into this mode of thinking unconsciously within the four walls of the social structure.

Funny how something ontological is able to morph us into sad robots…

But even robots need blankets to keep warm…

Risk is everything which links to the improbable and chances. Living in a rational world, risk is everywhere. Typing this post is a risk. It might irate those who disagree with me or my poor fingers may be broken spamming the keyboard on my laptop.

As long as there are choices, there are bounds to be risk. Truth be told, in everything that we do, there is a risk. There are a lot of things which we can’t predict or foresee.

Some may argue that the beauty and the evolution of sciences have made life more predictable and certain. The ability to calcuate and then manage our choices is what sciences bring forth. Till someone debunk the basics of mathematics, 1 + 1 will always be 2. For thousands of years, we have perfected our craft in sciences so much so that we rarely critique what we study. We assumed it is rational and correct. Simply because we are unable to crack our head to dig out our creative juices and that it is easy to be lazy.

I guess we all are lazy in some aspects of our lives. We just take things for given. We expect that risks in our lives are set to a minimal level thus we are safe in our lives.

But what if we die tomorrow? We wouldn’t know.

His life revolves around the wheat production within the boundaries established by the landlord he barely knew. He worked at the land but it does not belong to him. Yet Han Ren does not question why.

He just worked.

Han Ren never went to school, let alone knows Karl Marx. He never sees education as a privilege. Instead, living his life was a privilege. He was contented to be alive.

Throughout his lifetime, Han watched his crop grows and sold at a meagre amount to the market forces. Sure enough, he was exploited by the capitalist system but he did not care one bit. All the jingles about alienation and mininum wages were not of relevance to him.

He was happy with his simple life. He never wanted more.

Pay was not much of an issue. As long as the money received was sufficient to get through the day, it was as good as perfect. All he had to do is to feed himself and his wife. Most times, it was perfect.

Han Ren never asks for more. Greed was alien to him.

He worked within his plantation not caring about maximizing his output per land area. Han Ren simply worked till he was tired. In that way, Han Ren was efficient within his own limits which cracks all modes of economic theories.

His life was simple: Work. Eat. Sleep. Repeat.

The work was labour-intensive and physically abusive but Han sees no problem with it. Since young, his body grew accustomed to the relentless workload. All the manual work made him stronger and faster.

The miserable weather was appalling yet he understands nothing in the world comes easy. If he stopped working, he gets no food on the table. That would not do.

Han Ren do not work for the money. He works for the food on the table.

Today he often scoffed at the ‘weaker’ younglings especially those in the urban areas. They often complain once things become tough. They crumble easily.

They want to work comfortably. They want to earn as much money.

They want this. They want that. They are greedy.

Struggles are not wanted because they hinder expectations.

“Isn’t education helps one to better define one’s world? But all I see are people struggling in the world.”

They work. They study to seek meaning in their lives.

But they are still in search of their life goals.

Some discover. The rest are still uncovering.

Laws were established to protect this pampered lifestyle where the urbanities are lost like how they are trapped in the massive nexus. They want the easy way out, yet prompting the most efficient way. They want the lazy way out.

Everything, dead or alive, has to obey the dichotomy of rationality and irrationality. Irrationality often does not bode well. Struggles are common cases. People need help in their lives. They seek other fellow beings for answers to their lives. Such a lifestyle created a market for self-help books or sorts.

Han Ren is foreign to such a life.

He knows what is difficult. He understands what is tough.

He fights fatigue. He beats his mental limits.

Han Ren is a strong man.

He works till his body gives up. He dies when he sees the end.

He never knows what is more. Enough is enough.

Han Ren lives through his struggles and beat them.

His life is simple. Anything to get through the day is perfect.

This is life.

In contemporary’s societies, inequality is widespread and getting worse at the moment, especially under the workings of the capitalist system.

We are told that a handful of elites control most of the wealth of the many. We see the poor homeless people at one end of the street and the rich personas at the other end.

We are told of the success stories of rich people. We witness massive protests globally over different issues of inequality ranging from fairness of race, gender and wealth. We are promised of a balanced level playing field in education despite knowing everyone has different capabilities.

We try to fit in a world that everyone shares. We try as best as we can to accommodate every human being living or dead.

There is a healthy obsession with inequality because there is a strong call for equality and diversity. They are a beautiful pair of virtues which decorate the world we live in. This is best representing the beauty of the human race. But can we ever get there at the global level?

As I started to read Marx’s works, it seemed like what he said makes sense because the problems are apparent. While I concur with some of his assertions, his notion of a classless society seems a little farfetched. It is believed that the capitalist system will rid itself for good to create an equal society for all through a revolution of the proletariats. (Most modern laws have altered themselves to benefit the rich under a bubble wrap of ‘equality’ because fairness is what is considered acceptable and a nice sounding word.)

However I feel that a classless society can never be achieved because everyone has different interests and historical roots.

Even if the relations of productions are stripped and full democracy holds firm, the world will be managed differently at a micro level. If we are free to do what we want, without the expense of others, it would be awesome at first gaze. You can fish. You can swim. You can sleep. You need not work. You can pursue your own past time. You can feed your family and not the capitalist system. It may sound like a glimpse of heaven. However, when you realize that some people engage similar activities and achieving a greater marginal satisfaction, the world is not that equal after all. It will start up the demand and supply situation again unless money is not used as a mode of barter. (This will open another can of debate…)

Taking the argument further by hypothesising an equal society, everyone is the same according to nationality or any forms of human rights. However, any form of man-made legislation or rights is never equal in the first place. For example, certain races are underprivileged or privileged due to historical or biologically reasons. We can never erase history and pretending to live as though history struggles didn’t happened is literally living one big lie.

Can we ignore racist’s issues at heart when surfaced? Do we abuse our rights of freedom of speech to ridicule other races? Are our hearts strong enough to let go of innate differences that sets people apart?

As undergraduate, I am a strong believer of equality. Equality can be achieved albeit difficult. Difficult, in the sense, that it requires time and subversion of human consciousness at all level of society.

I like to believe that capitalism and democracy is a paradox. They do not complement each other because capitalism feeds on inequality of wealth. This is manifested to the way we perceive the world. We view most issues as inequality because it is staring right back at us with an invisible figure. Unless capitalism is evolving we can never eradicate inequality, especially on wealth movement.

We call for equality. We want equality. But is it what we want?

When we should be more tolerant and empathetic of each other? We shouldn’t impose our wills or ideologies on clueless people.

Where is the respect for our fellow beings? Where is the love?

The politics behind aesthetic dimension is always changing. With the rise of capitalism in our daily lifestyle, we are faced with a diminishing categorical social life. Most modern production of culture is no longer done through traditional means as reflected in our historical memories but is churned out in man-made machines. While mass production provides a common subjection to different cultures, it shatters folk culture by demystifying the history of techniques behind the creation of a culture. In the past, the aesthetic dimension behind most art revolves around history and social classes. The habitus we live in and the norms we internalized, with the recollection of history lessons, we learn to experience our own culture with a particular lens. For example, upon eating the Chinese New Year snacks, we view them with a historical story behind the goodies. Yet for now, it has evolved to the politics of pleasure where we just seek to find the best tasting CNY goodies as opposed to learning about their historical background. Moreover, to appreciate art was a skill bestowed to the higher class. Ancient paintings were owned by those who appreciate and can afford it particularly the noble people. With the growing universal literacy and availability, the appetite for arts has grown bigger and there is a wider appreciation of art. Thus it can be seen that the politics of aesthetic dimension moved from historical one to perhaps pleasurable one.

The aesthetic dimension uncovers what gets constituted as arts. The legitimacy of the sense distribution seeks to provide a coherent social order in society yet it is not stable. Politics are often shown in arts and the aesthetic dimension helps to recognize the emotions and shed light on morality issues. For example, gender inequality can be detected in the common advertisement in US during the 1960s. Sex objects and female abuses were key topics which led to a political response in the feminist’s movement. Rightfully so, the aesthetic dimension is supported by a common sensibility of human emotions like sadness and hurt. These emotions are largely universal because they are innate humane feelings. Thus it can be said that aesthetic dimension identifies the problem yet it is able to pave way for a political response. Furthermore, this has created a de-territorial of art, where the sphere of experience and the reproduction of art are mixed. This has undermined the autonomy of art which was once separated from life. This de-territorial of art is set upon by social institutions and norms such as our collective experience. Thus in all, the aesthetics dimension showcases how art is legitimized.

The aesthetic dimension provides an explanation of a collective experience. This is of particular interest in the world today due to the rise of the Internet. The ever-expanding online realm created the conditions for mystical alliances between different people all over the globe. People are glued in forums due to similar interests and common empathy which has become the dominant ethos. In the past, religion services such as bible worship have led to the creation of a collective formation between Christians who is based on emotions rather than rational thoughts. Today, empathy and sympathy are what draws people regarding political and social issues. One example could be the slacktivism prevalent in most societies. With a click of the mouse and words from keyboards, anyone can be an activist sitting on his chair behind a computer. Yet what draws the common pool of slacktivists is the common identification of feelings. For example, the yellow umbrella movement in Hong kong was brought to international attentions with people all over the world slamming the government and the inequality of rights of the citizens. Art then becomes a mode of social communication rather than its past role as representation of a collective experience. The aesthetics dimension plays a vital role in that change.

In all, it is clear that art is beyond reason today. In the age of modernism, the aesthetics dimension is an important concept to understand yet a tricky one because it is always changing. If you don’t believe, just ask art.

Yes, seriously.

Camp is a stylistic form against a dominant culture with a sensibility for the love of unnatural. Camp is extraordinary in its style by portraying glamour. Drag performances and satire are common types of camp aesthetics. Both are typically over the top and entail a great deal of exaggeration. More importantly, the dominance of style lies in their form and the ability to appreciate and understand it. Very often, it subtly splits the formal standards set for any art form.

Without a doubt, camp puts an end to seriousness. The play of irony is very common in its usage and detached the signifier from the signified. For example, a man is different from a ‘man’. This play of words questions what we assumed to be categorically sure. Sometimes, camp involves no fixed definition or even entails many different definitions. A smirk is example of appreciation. When we interpret someone’s smirk, we are often unsure of one’s mode of enjoyment whether he is genuinely happy or unimpressed. Thus, this criticality and doubtfulness shatter the seriousness of the norms we have internalized.

To be not serious doesn’t mean it is not an intellectual topic because camp can be considered an art despite being reflexive in nature. By being a rip-off from its original form, Camp off-sets the expectation and standards of the original. For example, the appreciation to enjoy low brow art (anything mass produced) and comedy is a style of its own. It requires its own interpretation to apprehend the style. To appreciate jokes in a stand-up comedy show may seem easy but the narrations are often well thought of and require a certain degree of intellect. Having a low brow content does not mean that it is devoid of critical judgement and academic studies. Hence it is rather harsh to not include Camp as part of the canon of academics in the same echelons of avant-garde art.

A universal discourse and cultural judgement puts Camp art into shame.

Universal judgment includes the craft skills used, the money invested, what the art represent and how much ‘fun’ the audience derive. Camp is often given low ratings in ratings on the newspaper. As much as a universal judgement plays a part in providing objective perspective on Camp and establish a rank within the consumer culture, it may not be relevant to critique camp.

Though the politics of pleasure involved may sound logical and objective, pleasure often takes on a subjective feel. Thus it is different to develop the judgement process for Camp. How do one define what is funny when everyone has different perspective comedic vibes? The abstraction nature of camp makes the subject a vague yet a universal judgement provides a basis for judgement. A universal cultural judgement of Camp provides the awareness to the potential audience in the capitalist consumer culture.

Culture in today’s society is blurred and detached just like how the lines of bourgeoisies and proletariats are muddled.

Similarly, Camp art lies between kitsch and avant-garde art. It is hard to separate it from either ends of the spectrum and defining it yet it is easily identifiable. Like a common saying goes, “I know Pornogrpahy when I see it”. The audience or consumers of Camp is largely universal. As the original content is mediated by Camp, the internal dynamics of art takes on a new dimension of university. Camp is appreciated by many with its ability of cultural levering. It shakes Bourdieu’s notion of taste as it is nearly impossible to identify the different social class of the audience. Camp is normally seen as a low brow culture and it is not regarded highly by formal judgements.

Formal judgement never sits well with Camp. During the scout for the host of the daily show, it was a paradox to have criteria to ascertain a legitimate successor for Jon Stewart. Sure there were many online bashes and disagreements about Trever Noah but the beauty of Camp is that it has immense capacity to be flexible.

In all, the question is where or how do we draw the line for Camp when its form is practically limitless. As much as it is a form of detachment, it is dependent on imagination, thoughts and ideas. Placing rational judgement on something non-rational may not seem like a good idea after all…

A photograph, the child of the camera, is a powerful tool in aiding the process of representation in reality. In the modern era where cameras are easily available, the photography loses itself as an art and transformed itself to an interest or a hobby.

To quote my best friend’s Facebook post, he said

“I just want to take some nice holiday photos and show them off on facebook.”

Yet, a photo is a simple claim to truth by providing validity to our social collective experience in the world around us. You snap a photo and this photo acts pretty much like a snapshot of reality. It is a no brainer that photography is a constitution of reality in that sense.

However, constituting photo realism and authenticity is always linked. A photo, because it is always mediated and appropriated by the cameraman, may provide falseness of reality as well. Thus the question is that, where do we draw the line between reality and the truth of photograph since it is always mediated by the user’s intention to the photo editing skills?

A photograph influences an individual’s perspective of truth and reality. We can take snapshots of the places and faces around us to indicate their participation in art or prove their existences. How we perceive reality is largely based on epistemology certainty and relatability. For example, family and wedding portraits are signifiers to acknowledge the existence of a unity. In light of this, a photograph provides a form of memory for us to look back and appreciate the good times. Thus the aesthetics behind a photograph illustrates more than just sentiments, emotions but also certainty in our static reality.

The key issue is the act of appropriation of photographs.

Susan Sontag asserts that there is always ‘power’ imposed on the subject in any photograph. This means that there is an underline power relationship between the subject and object in the photograph. The photographer has the ability to edit and the agency to publish the photograph whenever he likes. However, what he posts, despite being reflective of reality, provides a falseness of reality. This may sound like a paradox but I will explain it further.

Ever looked a tourist postcard of a Swiss Alps and go ‘Man, it is so pretty and I want to go there’ but when you personally stand on the edge of Alps, the places may not be as beautiful as what you saw?

In recent times, digitalization of photographs has enabled for easier editing and in that sense, such appropriation influences reality especially in providing the aesthetics of a certain place. For the tourist postcards are edited to a point where they are aesthetically pleasing to the consumers to buy them. With that said, some photographs are made for the mass production to show what is desired. This is sits well with aesthetic consumerism. Digitalization also improves the general quality of photographs. Yet, one may raise question of its authenticity. Thus this gives rise to ‘no filter’ art to differentiate the level of photographers. A professional photographer is able to display the aesthetic qualities of ‘pure’ photos without editing.

It seems to me that we can never eradicate the process of appropriation in photography because there will forever be a button on the camera which implies that the cameraman has the power to snap a photo when and where he prefers. On a side note, he also can provide a watermark to stamp his own ‘claim to truth’. Photography provides the construction of reality by showcasing the truth.

A good feeder question is when does the act of appropriation supplies an authentic photo? Authenticity is a focal point in this case then. What is authentic? Or are we plainly regard a photograph as a proof of validity just because we can relate to it?

A photograph may not be the ideal way to present reality as opposed to a video because it is a mere snapshot. It is two dimensional and can be taken out of context when being interpreted. For example, Diego Costa, a soccer player, was caught in a scuffle with his opponent where his hands were cupped against the latter’s neck for one second. Yet the snapshot of this act was presented to the soccer fans displaying the innate violence of Costa. Thus a photograph may not be the ideal tool to present reality. It can be over-exaggerated by editing techniques or wrongly interpreted.

In all, a photograph is a cheap and common tool as a process to constitute reality. The mass production of cameras and the widely available photo editing softwares, anyone can take up photography as a hobby. Yet being a professional photographer is another.

Well, more importantly, we can’t look a photograph the same again.

The light and sounds effects, and camera angles during the entrance are near perfect. Credits to the backstage crew, the manipulation of these effects influences what we see and hear on the television or being part of the live crowd. The darkness, smoke and the varying of spot lights provided an unique albeit bizarre experience. It created a sense of mystic and I am saying from a perspective as a lazy couch potato watching at home. As a WWE fan, I cannot imagine what it would feel like if I were part of the crowd witnessing this spectacle.

Finn Balor’s entrance can be regarded as authentic in its own way.

Yet reproduction of his entrance is done easily as the NXT crew head to different hosting venues weekly. This may possibly decline its ‘aura’ (a term from Walter Benjamin). So far, he has only come out in body paints during pay-per-view events. Maybe it is a constraint by WWE to prevent the marginal mystification effect from exceeding the optimal point in order to prevent normalization. Think about it, the mystical effects would not be as impressive if experienced on a regular basis.

In Immanuel Kant’s words, Balor’s entrance is sublime. It is not assigned to any given form. It is formless. To elaborate further, what the beholder experiences is cannot be explained and this is against the universal categorical sets of feelings that we know like happy, sad, disgust, etc.

Maybe eccentric would be the most fitting description. With unorthodox crawling on the steps, accompanied by the pounding tempo from his theme song and aesthetic appearance such as the ‘long’ hair and body paint resembling the cartoon character ‘Carnage’, the Finn Balor character is eerie. As we try to relate what we have seen to our past experience, there is no perfect word to describe the immense feeling.

Despite the vague description of the entrance, I believe it is considered art.

According to Tolstoy, art is something which transmits and evokes feelings. Interesting, the entrance does not emit expression like joy or disgust but transmits shock(at least for me). To say that we can’t put a finger to our reaction does not mean we don’t have the capacity to feel. It is just that we do not have the particular vocabulary to account for our experience.

In addition, his entrance is a revolution in terms of technique and style. Compared to the typical entrances of other wrestlers and pyro-fueled entrances, this provides an alternative reality which help the fans to critic the regularity of the wrestling entrances. The sensibility we have established throughout the years is questioned at the level of the unconsciousness because it cracks the certainty and the collective knowledge of what is expected of an wrestler’s entrance.

This is the beauty of autonomy of art. It reflects that there is space for creativity for the wrestlers to set apart themselves from the rest. While we may not know if the wrestlers have the power to influence the results, it is clear that they have an agency to establish themselves through their entrances and move sets. Such aesthetics hit us hard on our sentiments at a level of the unconsciousness and consciousness.

However in reality, I believe this decision still lies on the institution despite the ability of the wrestler to exhibits agency. What that said, Balor could opt for a different body painting but he still requires the nod of approval of the key personnel.

Lastly, the nature of participation in the live crowd involves the fans and a great deal of suspense. Fans are anticipating with excitement waiting to see if there’s any new body paint or his actions and of course, the results of the contest.

As you can see, a simple body paint can work wonders.

It feels good to be alienated once in a while. Thank you Finn Balor.