Should I keep writing about material things?
Would you like to see something written up about this lamp?
Just a quick bloggy existential crisis: I've been thinking long and hard about the kinds of things I think long and hard about, and what I write about, and if that's worth writing about.
The quick and easy answer is no, of course not.
The truth is, it's really easy to write about things I've bought or received or found. I can look at it, describe it, vaguely share what it is I like about it, provide some background on it and where it came from, and where I put it in my home. Because hey, sometimes I'm proud of my stuff: I think it's pretty cool, and I think I've worked hard to earn it, and I want to show it off. Sure, my vintage Lotte lamp is but a fraction of the value or a house or loft or car, but it's valuable to me!
But I'll also admit that writing about -- or investing any sort of value -- in material things that are trivial and frivolous is a shallow en devour. Sometimes it makes me feel like writing about goods and trinkets feels like the written equivalent of tumblr post featuring the account of an ingénue's daily thrift-store/American Apparel "outfit" and sure-I-did-it-myself haircut.
So where is the line drawn? Why stop at "objects," when maybe I should also stop writing about "places," "stores," "food," "concerts," "books" and "movies," right? At a certain point, that even gets a little shallow, right? Even writing about my own writing, musical or otherwise is even sort of selfish, right? To go even further, who cares about what I have to thing about Government/Religion/Art in general?
The downward spiral can go even further: Why write that novel? Why take that photo? Why hack that Ikea? Well, I could go on, but you get the point
Here's what I think: As long as I never lose sight of the big things are actually important (God, family, community, love, culture), there's not a good reason why I can't adorn my life or my writing with diversions that add a little embellishment. After all, these kinds of things are the spice and flavour of life -- to a point.
For now, I'll stop this train of though here, and leave you with a quote by my favourite philosopher, Soren Kirkegaard, from "Fear and Trembling."
If there were no eternal consciousness in a man,
If at the bottom of everything there were only a wild ferment,
A power that twisting in dark passions produced everything great or inconsequential;
If an unfathomable, insatiable emptiness lay hid beneath everything,
What would life be but despair?
Thanks for bearing with me on this... we'll now return to your regularly random updates about whatever.
Web 2.0
Christian Life
Silver Speakers
Movies watched, reviewed.
Archives
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- January 2009
January 20th, 2010 - 13:01
It is sort of a never ending question, but I have to say I really agree with you. One of the things that I really took away from The Screwtape Letters when I read it years ago was the idea that we can find enjoyment of God even in small, seemingly mundane things. Like maybe enjoying a really good cup of coffee, definately listening to a good album or apreciating a piece of art or design. Why not pay attention to the things you love, write about them to enjoy them even more and share them with others?
January 20th, 2010 - 13:56
Counterpoint:
If we don’t relate to our environment (our city/art/design/social media), then we can’t relate to our culture or work to redeem it.
If you covered only the great creative works of Thomas Kinkaid and Helen Keller, who exactly can you expect to interface with? Who are you relevant to?
Le Corbusier, van der Rohe – these guys didn’t set out to make objects, they set out to change the way people live. Their medium was material, but their message went beyond. That’s worth blogging about.
January 20th, 2010 - 14:42
I think that’s a fair assessment… thanks for the insight!
February 1st, 2010 - 10:32
Hi Tyrone,
It’s interesting to me how you’re approaching thinking about the object “Lotte Lamp”. As the current producer of Lotte Lamps, it’s interesting to me how your view of the object certainly reaches and reflects on the surface of the object as an object, but perhaps could also extend into the “soul” of the object and it’s makers as well. It was the soul of the designer and original producers, and their work and outlook on the world that resulted in the item you’re examining. Perhaps that is hidden by the outer surface of the physical object, or at least obscured, but there is an entire world inside there. I suppose that inner world created the object, and hopes to communicate their values and souls to the item so that it would create some sense of meaning to its future owner. Sometimes this succeeds and sometimes it falls short, perhaps the shared fault of an incomplete communication on the part of the producer, combined with varying degress of receptivity on the part of the owner. When it succeeds, the owner feels the attachment as a reflection and appreciation of their own attitudes, and “loves” their object.
February 1st, 2010 - 10:40
Hi Victor, thanks for your thoughtful response… I like what you have to say about how the producer invests their soul into the work, in hopes that meaning will be indebted to it by those who “appreciate it.” Or at least, that’s who I interpret it ;) Thanks for reading!