Of Placards and Petitions

Something came to mind. We have become so adamant in making (positive) changes that we believe change involves petitions, open letters, blogs and the mass email. The double-edged sword of 'New Media' which has been so much in discussion seems to be the way to "make yourself heard" in the less money-spent-way as possible (and getting really popular very quickly).

The back-fire of rejections of personalities like Mr Brown and recently Ms Catherine Lim for their views has instead sparked off bush fire on www. In the silliness of the entire episode, being rejected seems to be the way to reach an even bigger audience.

Freedom, openness, fairness and reformation are too big-a-word for the frog in the well. What do we want? What is making us so upset in the first place? And just what the hell are we fighting for? What birth rights are we really denied?

Change only happens when enough people believe. And more than that - more than signing a letter and so much more than adding your comments on a post - it requires us be sure that that change can actually better and benefit everyone. That of course is not possible in the first place. (Where I am going with this as I rant seems to be going no where. And there seems to be no real point in this post, but hey, welcome to the blogging world.)

Personally, it all just seems very passive.

I think the idea is to conform differently. You can only evoke positivity if you are in the system and not out of it. As an artist, it has never occurred to me that defying conventions is the route to take - rather, it is embracing conventions and working with the constraints that makes the work or cause more interesting. With complete freedom, things are not believable. And I for one am more skeptical about the intent of the individual than the collective.

A world without leaders would not be something I am up for. A world without middle-management - maybe.