Unfinished thoughts ...
Miranda Marks
May 25, 2005

Why can I not separate my opinions from ones that I’ve heard? Augusto Boal says: all art is inherently political. To deny art of politics is to deny what art is. Although I misquote him now to suit my thoughts, although misquoting is or can be inherently dangerous---

My father used to take me to museums when I was 13. I loved going to the museum and looking at all the paintings. He taught me early that a piece of art is successful when it can evoke a feeling. At one point I remember this conversation---

"I hate this painting."
"Why?"
"It’s disgusting. It’s a terrible painting."
"It makes you feel ... terrible?"
"No ... I just hate it. I hate that I am looking at it. It shouldn’t even be here."
"It makes you ... feel?"
"Yes."
"Then there is every reason for it to be there."

My opinion of what is art, and when is art successful, changed drastically with that conversation.

Also---I have always thought "politics" is a bad word. It always meant---"this is my opinion of what is going on in the world and you can’t change a thing about it." I have always immediately avoided any conversation that mentioned the word ‘political.’ It is a dead-end street, people ranting their steadfast opinions at each other of the way the world is and should be, each not willing to change or listen to another’s opinion, because if someone is to mention the word "politics" that means whatever they are about to speak of next has concrete examples of why they think the way they do, and is about to attempt to convince others with other concrete examples for believing the way they do---and all meaning of change and open-mindedness is lost in a rant of trying to convince. What else does a politician do? What can a politician accomplish?

Art opens new facets to this conversation. It is able to expose certain ideas that may seem true but prove faulty. It is able to open our eyes to ideas we have not thought of yet. It has no need for argument. It simply is, and by being, is able to transform our thinking. Art is able to transform "politics" to "positive change."

And then the question arises---how to measure the success of any act of resistance, whether it be something new, as a piece of art, or something dated, as a demonstration or a protest? By how many people attend or are reached? Or how much money is raised? By how many issues are discussed? Or how much talk there is afterward?

Why do we feel it necessary to measure resistance in quantity?

I know I have been taught---There is strength in numbers. Unity is the key. Peace is coming together. More more more.
But I have also been taught that an individual is more conscious of morality than a group. And I have been taught that I am an individual, and should be proud of that. (I am unique, just like everybody else!) We all with I when speaking of OURselves.

When does individuality become collective?
When do we, as individuals, come together, to provoke positive change within a society? I guess it is when we, as individuals, decide that each of us has something to give that no one else can. Integral, then, comes to mean---a group of people that becomes collective when each individual has something necessary to give, something that no one else can.

But then this question haunts me---what can I give that no one else can? What can I think of that no one else has thought of yet?

I guess I have been taught to think that too. I have been taught that all thoughts are made up of thoughts already formulated, all inventions already invented, all ideas already old---then I guess it must be my place to teach that this is not true at all.

Knowledge is not the key to understanding. Trying to be understood is not the key to understanding. Misunderstanding does not lead to understanding. Even the word is misleading---under standing. Standing under? Does that mean sitting down?

I woke up in a start one night plagued with this question---what is the history of any opinion? Aren’t all opinions molded by other opinions, which are influenced by other opinions? When can an opinion be unique?

But I don’t think I’ve ever been born before. So that must mean I have the power to show things in a way that no one else can. And so do you.
Maybe this is where individuality becomes collective but remains important.

I have been taught that we learn about history so that we don’t have to repeat it. More individualistically---we learn from our mistakes. But I have also been taught that history repeats itself ... so many contradictions. But what doesn’t contradict itself in these opposing statements is that I should expect rather than work toward change.

Perhaps then, my job is to dissolve all of these contradictions (or at least bring them to light) and bouts of defeatism that I have been taught. It is my job to teach myself out of this defeatism that there is nothing I can do and perhaps help others to change in the process.

But the thought still plagues me---what can I do to change the world?

Here is my father’s voice again, but in a different light---

"You could be the first woman President of the United States!"

But I have no desire to be a martyr for my country. In fact, I desire a world where no one feels the need to be a martyr at all.

Then I am left here- --to speak of what disturbs me, in hopes that by speaking of it I may be able to come to an understanding of that disturbance, working toward and through it, come to a place where I am working against it, changing it---
Which is what I mean by resistance---
Which is what I mean by positive change.