I've been very hectic lately, not even have the time to update my blog. This semester, I have used to attend lectures all day. Just today, I tried not to attend my lecture, and decided to revise on myself. Well, it was veryyyy boring!!! Sitting there alone in the library, time seems to pass very slowly! Perhaps I gained much progress studying alone compared to if i attend my lectures instead, but it was really boring! At the end of the day, you feel tired, empty, well, hard to describe. It's the same feeling when you get locked up in your room all day just with your books and you meet no one. Perhaps the same feeling as when you work in lab all day. Well, i think i'm not gonna work in labs in the future =p

Yep, i'm extremely bored, and have lots of free time, so i think i just post something in my blog =)

Btw, before reading further, u can listen to mellow songs to enjoy it's full 'aesthetic' value =p haha

This is a thought.... i dunno, a dream perhaps, I've forgotten what it was about, but it was a long time ago that I wondered about "what the end of days would be like?" 

But I remembered that I made a conclusion that the end of days would be the most beautiful day ever! Well, "IF" it ended the way I imagined it =p hehe.. and i think it is not Biblical =p

Imagine you know that it's the end of days... at this very hour..... at this very minute.. on one evening.. something is going on.. and you're standing alone on top of a hill, next to a cliff... and your view stretched far across the horizon.  You can see the whole city from above.. a panoramic view.. And on the other side you can see vaguely other mountains from afar. But today was not just an ordinary day where you go on top of a cliff to enjoy the panorama... Just yesterday you recalled that the daily news in the TV had doomed that humans gonna extinct tomorrow.. there was panic everywhere..there would be a massive destruction and disasters taking place.. You looked up the sky and below.. There are colourful meteor showers striking the city, emerging from the dark sky.. flying down.. crushing the buildings and bursting up into flames with loud echoing explosions... But you stood at the safe spot..This gives you enough time to think...Now, you were at your most conscious state of your life... You know that destruction of the world was going on.. That human extinction is taking place within a few hours.. You realized that everything's gonna end very soon.. You started to made a reflection.. pondering about your past... about everything.. your families you had.. friends you had known.. beautiful places in the world you had visited.. or maybe you didn't have the opportunity to visit... Suddenly you realise.. that everything was indeed in vain.. All life pressures was reduced significantly until they diminishes... the education you have pursued so far was nothing.. the wealth you have pursued so far was useless.. You just focused yourself on this very few hours left.. And you started to think..You started to miss everything.. You started to recall every happenings you have encountered.. every conversations you had with your friends.. ever since you were a child... teenage..every cheerful days.. every sad and lonely periods of time.. every gloom and every unfortunate days turns up to be something sweet indeed... You started to regret.. You cried.. Now everything was too late... though maybe you have an assurance that believers are gonna meet again in heaven.. you're now having a weird feeling.. of leaving this world...well..maybe there are a lot of laughters in heaven.. it was told that we would be more happier in heaven.. it was told that everything's not gonna end.. that there is a continuation to the story... but it's just this weird 'situation' that make things feel so odd...

- The End- =p an abrupt ending huh? =p hahaha

The ancient famous question that various philosophers had tried to tackle was the question of 'What is art?'. Various theories had been proposed, one after another, and I can say that no theory had been ever suceeded in the sense that it spells absolute dominancy in terms of its supporters. Here are a few examples :

1) Mimetic theory of art by Aristotle. It says that the aim of the art is to imitate, to illuminate significance of a certain subject matter.

2) The Representational Theory of Art, claims that art is a representation of something. For example, the portrait of Mona Lisa stands for Leonardo.

3) The Expressionist Theory of Art, claims art as an intended transmission to an audience of the self-same (type-identical) individualized feeling state (emotion) that the artist experienced and clarified by means of lines, shapes, colours, sounds, actions or words.

4) Formalist Theory of Art, which says that 'X is a work of art iff x is designed primarily in order to possess significant form.' (Certain ordering of elements of art, lines, colours, patterns that maintains a particular harmony when seen as a whole)

5) Neo-Formalism, which says that X is an artwork iff it has content, form, and the form and content of X are related to each other in a satisfyingly appropriate manner.

6) Institutional Theory of Art. It says that art is something, in the form of artifact, presented as an art by its maker, and be recognized as the artworld as an art.

These theories of art, well, some of them, are proposed and gets rejected. The reason for its rejection, most often, is that there are forms of art that is excluded by the definition, but which is still, regarded as art by most people! For example, the mimetic theory of art wouldn't regard pure visual decoration, most of music, social dancing, literature as art. For representational theory, it excludes much of architecture, orchestral music, etc. Other common trend of rejected proposed theories is that, trying not to exclude any art, it adopts a vague stand, usually noticed by the usage of not-strictly-defined words in its formulation. The formalist theory of art that suggests certain combination of lines, colours, etc, does not specify in what way was this combination must be in order to achieve a 'significant form'. For neo formalism, again, some 'art' is found to have no meaning, eg. decorative work, orchestral work, pure dance. Hence the theory is false since it says that art should bear content. The institutional theory of art seems formidable, as it provides us to a convention to agree with. Sort of a common ground to be accepted before we proceed, the concept of an artworld, etc. It can't be rejected based on exclusion of certain forms of art since it calls art what is recognized to be art. But it's exactly due to this, that it was then criticized for having a circular definition.

So much for the background information.. Now, let me state my stand towards these disputes..

First of all, let's think.. when one proposes a theory, and it provides a definition of art, why would then it be rejected based on the exclusion of certain 'artworks' that are not included by the theory? If so, we can just say that those artworks therefore is not art! It's as simple as that! But this is not the case. Hence, this example provides us with the idea that there must be a 'general understanding' of art, or, a certain pre-existing concept of what is to be art and what is not to be art. But what is this ciriteria? Or understanding?.. The usual way that has been done was that, a theory must encompass everything that has been generally considered as art (instead of defining what art should or should not be defined as). Now, the problem with this, is that not everyone even agrees to what is considered as art and what is not. Well take examples of cooking, martial arts, yoga, etc.. the lines of what is and what is not art is vague! Next, the main problem to this method of 'trying to suit everything that had been called art in general' is that, what is then the point of making a definition of art? It was thought that by formulating a definition, then it would help us to classify things as art or non art. This definition then would help us to decide esp in difficult cases, to determine whether a certain artwork is really an artwork or not, such as the 'Pile of Bricks'. But of course, if this is to be done, then contradiction arises. Our main source of judgement so far had been derived from what was considered as art by the public. On what grounds would we then shift our main source of judgement into the confines of the definition? What if a new artwork X, is considered art by the public, perhaps a new form, and therefore not suitable for the definition of art formulated earlier? Which one would we follow? the definition? or public opinion? Hence, due to this contradiction, I reject this method of testing a theory based merely on existing forms of art to come up with a strict definition.

Definition simply spells limitation to the arts. It restricts creativity! Perhaps, if we still want to argue, we should ask again whether art really needs a definition... or I must say, a static definition (that doesn't need to be modified through time to include new forms of 'future arts')?.. Another way out of the contradiction would be to consider a restrictive and decisive definition of art, even if this means to exclude some artworks considered as art by the public. This would mean shifting the debates into 'what should be the ideal definition of art?' (regardless of public opinion of whether someting is art or not). I think this would be more reliable, rather than the trying to encompass everything which seems to be so pragmatic and not logically / reasonably grounded. Well, unless you would investigate "what are the similarities of the things that are classified as an art by the general public?" which is totally a new question to be answered, and this one would pertain to area of psychology i guess, about the human mind, which is out of the scope of this discussion.

What are the things to be considered before anyone starts a relationship? Or even make a plan to build one?.. I believe this would be very crucial questions to ask..

We often heard that outer looks aren't important, what's inner is most important.

But can we at all neglect the outer?

And one thing about 'feeling', does it really important? Or is it something that can be grown? If so, then again it is not something really important..

What should be the right things to consider then?

To summarize.. if looks doesnt matter.. it implies that desire doesnt matter (since desire might well be affected by looks (arguable)).. and if feeling too, doesnt matter.. what matters then?

Should a relationship be viewed as something that is merely 'functional'? That's best weighed just according to the ratio?

Therefore I would reduce the case into 2 possibilities :

1) Should one starts with feeling, and hope that other qualities will follow?

2) or should one starts with what's best according to the ratio (looking into the qualities of a person), and hope that feeling will follow?

Anyone wanna contribute any ideas? Will be most welcomed.. 

Consequentialism, a theory in the philosophy of ethics, stated that whether an action is moral or immoral, it should be judged by the consequence of the action itself. Hence, motivations doesn't really matters. Fine, but there will be ridiculous implications when we adopt this theory.

First, if motivations does not matter, and consequences alone matters, then practically, animals might as well be moral. Not just beings, but nature too, might be moral, if they 'accidentally' produces something that turns out to be good. Eg : rain gives water to plants, and which in turn is beneficial towards animals and human beings. The ozone layer has a good consequence, that is to protect us from radiation, hence it is moral! Perhaps consequentialists themselves would find this ridiculous and out of point. They might argue that these are irrelevant examples, as nature or animals does not have consciousness or freewill. (As denoted by Aristotle, freewill is a necessity for morality)

But then contradictions arises. Freewill does not really account for actions that is unintended! To have freewill means to have intention, to have personal aim, motives and purpose. If a consequence arises from action that is outside of what was intended by the freewill, wouldnt it jus be like an accident that animals or even nature might create? Hence, consequentialism is an invalid theory.

Yea.. i'm tired of studying, let's have a little imagination exercise.. haha =P

Hmm.. if I have lotz of money.. what would I create? (anyway this is just an imagination, not necessarily that i would pursue it)

If I live in an ideal world.. where there's no obligation of giving money to the poor.. when there's no other neccessity of anything, of education of my future children, if i could use an infinite amount of money to build a house..what kind of house would i build?

(pardon me for being being too imaginative).. 

Firstly, I would like my home to be located in a green, quite isolated area (perhaps in a cold area like Canberra, in which the houses are located far apart from one another). My home..I would like it to have a huugeeee and tallll brand gate!! (The gate similar to "Haunted Mansion" coloured in black, a wide, green garden frequented with trees. There must be a lonng trailing yellow pathway. In the middle there runs a small river containing transparent water.. and there's a small bridge that connects the pathway to cross that river.. that finally reaches the entranceof a biggg Mansion...

I would like to have unconventional and so uncommon features such as those in fantasies.. I would like to have:

1)An underground, square, wide lab, as the size of a hangar! Perhaps like the one in Dexter's lab It was full of computers, tubes, chemicals, etc, you name it =p

2)An rather empty, rectangular warehouse, at the far end there's a wooden wardrobe, and behind it there's a secret door leading to a secret "snow garden", artificial of course, but i wanna make it similar to "chronicles of narnia". The garden is indoor, or maybe outdoor, but covered with glass as for the top. But it should be covered with walls painted to suit the 'snow' environment, in which it can create an impression as if there's still something, an openness that extend beyond the walls. Anyway, the garden should not be too small, but it must be widee enough, perhaps the size of a football field? =p There should be conifer trees and of course, artificial snows! with snow mounds, etc. There is an installation of 'fake snow machine', and the temperature set to around 5 degrees.

3)An indoor 'alladin jet coaster', not a jet coaster perhaps, as you're not riding a 'coaster', but rather, a flying carpet =p The entrance to it was just a normal wooden door. Suddenly as you stepped in, it was really dark, and what was visible is just a small pathway in and a carpet. You sit on it, then it goes.. well, it was driven mechanically, but then it hovers in a snaking path / trail,  through a hugeee room in which the floor is clear glass, (it was so clear that you didnt notice there's a glass. Still, the room is dark and you cant see anything. The ceiling was painted with stars, and it was quite round and oval, rather than the abrupt rectangular. Below, beyond the glass you can see the miniature of buildings like those in Alladin, smoothly lit up in yellow and gold. There's a "I can show you the world" instrumental music played in the background, and there's a machine that provides a cold (arnd 20 degrees) aircon, and wind blows.

4)A hugeee and complete library, in 1 floor, and perhaps a private librarian? Haha..

5)A not-so-huge backyard that contains an artificial lake such as in FFX, surrounded with trees, and there i would release some 'glow in the dark' butterflies and also 'glow in the dark' vegetations, made by some mutated species I would like to hybrid myself. The atmosphere was quiet, humid and dark. (was indoor garden) There's a small hut, to sit in and contemplate. You can also switch on final fantasy music in the background.

6)A biggg auditorium that contains an ice skate-arena

7)A grand piano in the middle of a rather empty grand hall

8)A long corridor next to windows facing outside, and on the walls opposite to the windows there are paintings (the arrangement is quite common).

9) A largee concert hall, with 5000 seats. Well, who's gonna perform? Anyone! =p The seats are fully occupied with 'fake audiences', with all those lights that they wave in the air, of course, mechanically haha.. Well at least you can have a karaoke there with the atmosphere of a grand concert =p The lighting and the 'claps' all done mechanically, and the cheers comes from the recorder, haaha...

10) A round sofa that can take you for a tour around the house just by a press of a button (oops, along with commentary, lolz)

11) An observatorium ceiling for my bedroom =p

12)Many2 hectars for additional features not yet decided =p

All in all, there must be features that includes all the notions of each season, winter (the narnia garden), tropical, summer and autumn. Next, there are context such as western and eastern. A few of my fav themes, final fantasy, etc.. Rooms or places that resembles my fav movies / games, etc.. lolz! All of it was just..*Dream...........* -___-" Ok that's all,  back to real life!! =p *ZAP*

PS: Oh yea, i forgot to mention, there must be some kind of 'puzzle' in my house.. if you can solve it, then a passageway would open in the garden, or perhaps, a wall would slide downwards, leaving a secret passageway.. hahahaa