Angel à Ventures

Angela Min, a blog

This is an archived post This is an archived post

Index   Next

The mechanized thinking behind SOPA, and what Tech and Gardening Have in Common.

January 19 2012, 1:38 AM  by Angela Min

Doing a tech startup is a lot like gardening. First of all, both are totally consuming activities. And both are about digging deep - which is to say, they are both about a core fundamental principle: RE-. Gardens must be recycled, re-seeded and replenished year after year in order to be born again each spring. Tech is the same way - it must re-cycle, re-interpret, re-mix and re-contextualize the past so that new stories can be born again, in the spring. Perhaps an Arab Spring. "Re" is about re-defining the stories of the past so that a new generation can use them to re-write the stories that are re-levant to them, to navigate their way into the future long after we are gone.

"Re" is the fundamental tool to solve the problems of a new future. Re is the foundation of innovation, and without it, you have choked off the new generation from their only tools to solve world problems so complex that you and I cannot even begin to imagine, from our 20th century viewpoint of the world. While we have no idea what that new future will be, we do know that Change is Inevitable. And the only tools for dealing with change, is "re". But the one thing we cannot re-cycle in this world, is human life. We are born, we live and we die. The only thing we can hope to hand down to the next generation of humanity are the best of our ideas, so they can be used - almost like a learning lab - to create new ideas of their own. The platform of "re" is not just a nostalgic sentiment, but the precise springboard and launchpad for the next generation to self-actualize and soar. Without "re", we're just drones on the assembly line, mechanically spitting out new, new, new without the benefit of the past to lend its weight of depth, richness and gravitas, to ground the here and now and pivot us, towards the future. Elon Musk, the founder of SpaceX space technology, understands the fundamental power of "RE". "When he heard that NASA had no plans to send astronauts to Mars, it boggled his mind. The financial problem seemed straightforward, if not simple. Existing rockets employed old technology, used once. 'Imagine", he says, 'if you built a new 747 for every flight.'" SOPA is mechanized, backwards thinking. And it will get us, absolutely nowhere.

Angela Min, a blog

This is an archived post This is an archived post

Previous   Index   Next

Faith, Madness, Churchill, Gandhi, The Art of War and Transcending the ceiling

August 1 2011, 7:48 AM  by Angela Min

I have written before, on ceilings, e.g., the glass ceiling. Now seems an appropriate time to write about ceilings again. What does it take to break through? Literally, figuratively, financially, historically or politically speaking? The typical manner is to argue and debate our way through it. "My Argument Wins, and Yours Loses" is the well-worn paradigm at work here.

I happen to prefer Win-Win. What is Win-Win? Sometimes, a rejection of the argument altogether.

Great WSJ article July 30th, on Churchill, Lincoln, Gandhi and Madness:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904800304576474451102761640.html#articleTabs%3Dcomments%26commentId=2824728

The author postulates that normalcy (ie, rationality, reason and sanity) may be the exact opposite characteristics needed to lead a people through times of transition and trouble. To wit, the difference between a Neville Chamberlain (reasonable, rational, normal) vs a Winston Churchill (a real beast if there ever was one! and apparently, borderline insane. But ultimately .. Churchill).

Inevitably, the author himself is characterized as nothing more than a kook ... for not delivering enough proof of his argument. But how does one "prove" something that defies and transcends reason? It requires something greater than that. Some say faith. Some say a touch of madness. 

My comment (page 4 of comments, approximately comment #39):

"To argue that the theory is wrong, because it doesn't demonstrate enough scientific 'proof', is essentially proving the theory correct, if you ask me. The need for proof, is really, the need for some kind of validation that fits the same parameters and metrics of reality, as one is accustomed to having/seeing all the time. Proof is nothing more than repetition of some paradigm of the past.

The need for 'proof' essentially confirms the following passage from the article: 'the sanest of CEOs may be just right during prosperous times, allowing the past to predict the future.' But as Sun Tzu so wisely wrote in the Art of War, 'To see victory only when it is within the ken of the common herd is not the acme of excellence.'

And to argue that the theory falls flat because the author failed to mention intelligence (as the requisite factor of greatness), is ridiculous. This is the WSJ – I thought intelligence was presumed ?. But let’s examine that. What is intelligence anyways? The abillity to deliver "proof" that is confirm-able by the common herd? Or imagine and create something entirely new, revolutionary and different? Conversely, is intelligence the ability to spot proof, in the manner you’ve always seen it proven before? Or is true intelligence the ability to imagine and comprehend something, without the need for proof?"

Angela Min, a blog

This is an archived post This is an archived post

Previous   Index   Next

Forget what the White House has to say about women, and let's go bake some pie

March 5 2011, 6:42 PM  by Angela Min

The White House just released a report on the state of women's achievement in this country. It reports that not much has changed, for all that it has changed. So what's going on here? Why aren't women reaching all the heights of achievement that we "should" be achieving? Or even, why isn't there a woman in the White House yet?

First of all, let's start with the the very fact that I have referenced a report from the White House, which kind of suggests that the White House is the voice of authority on the matter, which in turn suggests that this is why I have referenced it. 

And that's the problem, right there (that I have to reference it)

The key to solving this problem, is to break out of the problem altogether. That means, dismantling the very framework within which we are viewing the problem. 

Here, the problem is presented within the framework/paradigm of an authoritative model. Then, having agreed to the problem as stated by this authority, the brain automatically concludes that securing Authority-in-a-White-House-Sense-of-the-word, would be the solution to the problem. And yet, this model of authority, is the very problem itself. In the authority model, there are winners (authority figures) and losers (non-authority figures). And now we have a "problem" in which women are saying that they are losing. So according to this logic, for women to "win", they must become the authority figures, which means that those in authority now (men), must lose. I'm not sure if we can consider it a real win, if someone has to lose, no matter who the loser. I tend like to think of Win-Win, rather than Win-Lose.

And so, to me, the key to solving the "problem", is to switch our brains off of "authority" mode altogether. Getting out of the "authority" paradigm is no easy thing. For years, it has been necessary for women to prove ourselves by competing in a man's world, ie, gaining authority within an authority model/paradigm of society. All of this was a critical evolutionary necessity in order to reach the point where society stands now. Without the tremendous efforts of these women, I would not even be in a position with the liberty to write what I am writing today. 

But the world is poised for some serious change, not least reason for which is the fact that women have reached a collective glass ceiling in which no amount of continued fighting against the authoritative model seems to do much .. except generate more reports by figures in positions of "authority", on why it is a losing battle. As such, we have still failed to figure out why women are losing. Hmmph.

So maybe it is time to break the cycle, and consider something different altogether. Perhaps we need to consider if we are actually beginning to perpetuate the glass ceiling, just by obsessing about it so much. Maybe being at the top, shouldn't be the point.

Why has it been so important to be at the "top"? It's the model of scarcity. Winners vs. Losers, in which there is only so much of the pie to go around for everyone. Fighting for our piece of it. We have heard time and again that men get most of the pie, and women get very little.

But does the scarcity model still apply? Sure, it did when we were talking about a crusty old pie made several thousand years ago, when people had to secure their buffalo-on-the plains for dinner, and fight against the marauding tribe next door who wanted the same thing. I'm not so sure this applies anymore. Haven't we learned that humankind's ingenuity, innovation and creativity enables us to create new resources? Isn't this precisely the thing that sets us apart from all other species of animals? Agriculture comes to mind. Or, baking.

Women are bakers at heart. We know what it means to create something from scratch, do we not? Women need to embrace the wisdom at their core of their being, which is inherently understanding "what it means to create". And embedded in this wisdom, is the wisdom of community, for women know that the act of creating something, is the act of gathering together external resources, disparate elements and synthesizing the ingredients to create a pie, a home, a family, a community, an interconnected global village. When women reach out to each other and come together to collectively create, suddenly there is more than enough pie to go around for everyone. And isn't that the very definition of creation? To make something that wasn't there before? And in fact, when we come together in community and contribution, we not only have a pie, but in sheer defiance of reason, we now have a pie that grower larger and larger, the more people that come to feast at the table. There is plenty of pie for everyone, and then some. The glass ceiling dissolves naturally on its own.

Women need to create a new paradigm of society --- not some derivative of the paradigms and structures already in place. A new archetype that represents the best of what it means to be a woman: connective, outreaching, generative. Creative. We are all pie-bakers, at heart.

So let's start baking, shall we?

Angela Min, a blog

This is an archived post This is an archived post

Previous   Index   Next

Immeasurable Value and the Next Egypt

March 5 2011, 5:05 PM  by Angela Min

I am a big fan of Seth Godin, his posts are at once inspiring, practical, and to me, pretty profound stuff if you're inclined to read deeply into things. My comment to his post, below:

Seth Godin writes:

"Is something important because you measure it, or is it measured because it's important? Does our new ability to see things with web data make the previously overlooked now visible, or are we giving weight to things merely because we've measured them?" http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2011/03/importantmeasured.html

My comment:

This to me, is the question of all questions, of life. What constitutes meaning/importance? What is the yardstick by which we "measure"? In economics, it's the unanswerable conundrum, how do you define and measure Value?

My opinion is this: that the second we notice something, it takes on personal value in our minds. Because until that point is reached, our mind somehow filters it out of our field of noticing such things, out of our consciousness. But it doesn't mean it wasn't important because we failed to notice it until that moment. The question then becomes, how does a person come about to finally noticing something? Because, we tend to only notice things, when they are somehow already deemed important enough to notice, in our minds. A bit of circular logic, but such is the self-fulfilling characteristic of belief.

In any case, the question is, how does a person come about to finally noticing something? The answer, as the blog post alludes to, is because it comes high up on Google search (or is on the internet in some shape or form).

I specifically bring up search however, because the folks at Google ask themselves these questions everyday: what do humans consider important? And by extension, how will they then will behave? Because what we consider important tends to dictate how we will behave. Finding the answer to this issue is the internet's holy grail, that is, to figure out the algorithm-of-all-algorithm s - the DNA of human behavior.

The problem with computer-generated algorithms of behavior is that it only considers the past, in order to predict the future. It is a somewhat pessimistic view of humanity that says we are only as capable of doing as what we have done in the past. 

And yet, who could have predicted Egypt? Not me, and certainly not some computer algorithm. And being the consumer of products of computer algorithms as I am (ie, a user of Google et. al.), I have carried my own admittedly pessimistic views of the region and would never have predicted such a thing to happen, at least not this soon. 

And yet it happened. And the world sat back, amazed. Amazed and humbled by the power of the spirit to defy the entrenched, cynical notions we have come to have about the region. Like the rest of the world, I was thrilled, inspired and moved at the power of the human spirit to overcome tyranny as I witnessed these small acts of defiance, collectively creating something that bigger than the sum of its parts, a sum that defied description --- or prediction.

An algorithm cannot predict the unpredictable. But true that for the most part, everyday human life runs on the predictable. We are creatures of habit, culture, societal mores, peer pressure, etc. This makes us highly predictable in many ways, and measurable. And yes, these daily things are very important. But in and of themselves, they are not the whole story, neither of who we are as individuals, nor citizens of the human race. 

And so, I posit, it is precisely the things that we do NOT notice, that are the doorways for opportunity and evolutionary change to happen, e.g., Egypt. It is the unknowable that makes the unpredictable possible, and it is that which makes all the trials of everyday human life, infinitely and immeasurably worth it. And that it is precisely this quality of Being Human that sets us apart from all other species of animals, that is, our ability, to perform the Miraculous. 

And in that moment of the miraculous, do we defy the predictable, the rational ... and the knowable. We then come to know, how little we really do know, about the human spirit. We also come to accept the "fallible" (ie, non-rational) nature of the human spirit ... and how very necessary, that fallibility is, to progress as human civilization. Change-with-a-Capital-C doesn't happen by following the playbook and taking the rational, predictable course of life. It happens because something falls out of the norm, usually, something very unpleasant. A mistake, a failure. An immeasurable tragedy. Something that forces us to Question our heretofore compact and well-defined understanding of the world. Suddenly we must consider other possibilities --- because certainly,seeing things in the way we have always seen/noticed them before, isn't going to solve the problem, and in fact, may have caused the problem in the first place. As such, it is precisely the previously unnoticed/unpredicted thing, which becomes the doorway out. It is the thing which existed outside our normal sphere of understanding -- that becomes the exact point of leverage to go to the next level, effect change, or start a Revolution.

Science can predict that a gene may mutate as a theoretical possibility, but it cannot predict the how/when/where/why. Neither can an algorithm nor any autocratic entity, predict the catalyst for change that will compel the human spirit, to unshackle itself from generations of oppression. The moment an individual begins to notice worlds heretofore unnoticed, we open the gateway for new possibility, namely, that their own voices now be noticed too ... and deemed, finally, Worthy. 

Google, Twitter, Facebook and the internet overall have done wonderful things in bringing the once "unnoticed" into our sphere of everyday consciousness. However, from this point on, we must proceed with caution. It is easy at this point to hand over the keys to say "now go find thee, oh great Internet and All Knowing Being, and deliver unto us another revolution-in-the-making to which I will then stop the daily course of my life to momentarily pay attention."

But the second we do that, the revolution will have ended before it had even begun. We will have handed over the keys of not only how we consume information, but of our personal and individual values as Human Beings, in our own individual worth, meaning, importance and value. No one entity, nor all the collective brilliant minds driving the Internet have the intellect or power to measure or predict the human spirit, nor when the next miracle will surface next to astound the World. Nor should they.

Angela Min, a blog

This is an archived post This is an archived post

Previous   Index   Next

Veritas

February 19 2011, 11:33 AM  by Angela Min

Slate essay by Harvard grad last fall when the Facebook movie came out, "You Can't Handle the Veritas. What Aaron Sorkin and David Fincher get wrong about Harvard - and Facebook". Summary of essay: boo hoo, don't poo poo my beloved Harvard experience!

http://www.slate.com/id/2269308/pagenum/all/#p2

My commentary (approx comment #170):

I agree with commenter "Steve" that Nathan Hall is as yet, an undeveloped writer. His writing, simply put, lacks. Good writing rarely has anything to do with words like "risible" and "vestigial curios". The first rule of writing should be "is there a common word that will do the same trick?".  

However, perhaps we've missed the bigger point to be made, by making that point.  

 I agree with most of critical comments here, in that Hall does appear to remain quite starry-eyed by the Harvard experience. To wit, Hall attempts some kind of post-modernist plangency, err I mean, sadness or irony, in the writing of this sentence:  

 "I once heard a socially adept and pristinely credentialed senior, trying for an internship, cry in a now-fluorescent-lit room in a hallowed building."  

 Hallowed? I’m a little puzzled, but I'm guessing my 4 year old daughter could probably clear that up and tell me that, given the looming festivities on the horizon, Mr. Hall most certainly must have meant “Hallow'een!”. Well then, mea culpa!  

 Hall's writing is innocent and searching, a bit idealistic, a bit naive ... and most of all, profoundly clueless. For these reasons, Slate's decision to publish this article, to me, is not an indication that someone in the freelance column department was asleep at the wheel, but that someone in the Editorial corner office was wide awake. This is because Hall’s article, essentially confirms the message of movie.  

 Hall reveals himself to be quite firmly rooted in his generation -- a lost generation that for all their highly educated and aspirational credentials, must now wrestle with the little remaining meaning that this may still have in a Facebook world. l presume Hall has put in quite a bit of time and angst into tackling the Harvard/Not-Harvard issue, in the writing of his article. The paradigm is quite real in the author's mind.  

 And that’s exactly the point of the movie. It's real, and Facebook made you realize how real it is in your life. Harvard/NotHarvard. Pretty/NotPretty. Binary Code 1 or 0. In or Out. Win or Lose. It's a zero sum game. But any way you slice it, it's still a game. If it weren't, then why are you talking about it?  

 Let's put it this way: Larry Summers would never bother --- or even think --- to write such an article. He would tell Mr. Hall to not bother either -- and in fact, he would tell Nathan to "make your own project", as he did to the Winkelvi. But Hall pressed forward, as did the Winkelvi, thus confirming what Mark Zuckerberg’s character says in the movie, that win or lose, everyone “stands on his shoulders”.  

 it's Zuckerberg's game, whether you admit it or not. Harvard is just the detail that illustrates the point.  

 Brilliant movie. Nothing short of brilliant. This article, and our 165 comments prove it: we are all players in the game.  

Angela Min, a blog

This is an archived post This is an archived post

Previous   Index   Next

The Kings Speech: Kindness prevails over Clever. Mighty deeds indeed.

February 27 2011, 9:33 PM  by Angela Min

A magnificent movie, and I am thrilled that it won Best Picture tonight against front-runner "The Social Network". I find it standing in wonderful symbolic defiance against totalitarianism, tyranny and dictatorship. Uh, I mean Facebook.

It is the story of a man who struggled to say much, yet inspired a nation in triumphant unity. By contrast, we have the story of the man who apparently said too much and inspired a 500 million person nation to divide and conquer, in passive-aggressive one-upmanship, popularity obsessions and zero-sum games of "Pretty / Not Pretty".

"Cleverness is a gift. Kindness is a choice. Do you wish to be remembered for your gifts? Or your choices." (re-quoting my favorite Jeff Bezos quote)

Angela Min, a blog

This is an archived post This is an archived post

Previous   Index   Next

Self-fulfilling evolution

February 19 2011, 1:58 PM  by Angela Min

I recommend everyone watch "Winged Migration". It is a beautiful documentary directed by French director Jacques Perrin in which he and his team tracked migratory birds all over the earth, logging thousands of hours of filming over 4 years.

http://amzn.to/h5CQDQ

It is a breathtaking experience to view these migratory birds, crisscrossing and swirling over earth and back, time and again, and season after season. Inspiring, stunning, beautiful. The person sitting next to me, equally inspired, conjectured wonderously how the birds may have evolved over time in response to the wind and climate patterns of the world.

But immediately it struck me that perhaps this was backwards. Perhaps it was not the earth's patterns which was created first, but the birds. Created for the world, to inspire it to be created. So that we may look at up at the sky and gaze up at them in wonderment, and turn our heads skywards if for a moment to remember how majestic our world truly is, from every vantage point. Inspired as such, would we create the world as wonderously as it was meant to be created.

And so perhaps the earth, with its gulf streams, cyclical climate, hills and valleys and oceans, and all the forces of the world therein and thereof --- perhaps they did not so much create the migration patterns of the birds, but were created, specifically, because the birds needed a vehicle upon which to fly, and a canvas, to fully express the beauty and majesty of their existence, that was always meant to be. 

Just something I have wondered about.

Angela Min, a blog

This is an archived post This is an archived post

Previous   Index   Next

Mighty deeds

February 26 2011, 2:27 AM  by Angela Min

One small thing, has the ripple effect of Enormous. On the one hand, we realize how powerful we are and how this can feel like a burdensome responsibility. On the other hand, we realize how powerful we are, and that with one small act, we have the power to turn the tide.

Angela Min, a blog

This is an archived post This is an archived post

Previous   Index   Next

Facebook, the Silo, and geometric perception

February 26 2011, 7:12 PM  by Angela Min

The silo is usually referred to, when discussing vertical models of 20th century institutions, particularly, they come falling to ruin. Or rather, the word silo has been chosen, precisely to depict something toppling over in ruin, as overly tall vertical structures are apt to do over time. And the silo, with its connotations of outdated bomb-shelter-in-my-backyard mentalities, makes the word seem all the more fitting.

In other words, you wouldn't call it a silo, if you didn't think it were toppling down, or out-of-date. Instead, you'd perceive it as a blanket truth -- with the literal geometry of a blanket - planar in form, universally pervasive to every human being, in equal measure.  You wouldn't perceive a shape to it, since you considered it self-evident Truth. In other words, you didn't go through everyday life thinking about it, period. Indeed, one only tends to see the shape of things, in retrospect.

But back to those who talk silo, and who do see things in retrospect. In particular, the retrospect of the vast 11 years that have passed since stepping out of the 20th century and into the 21st. And yes, we have admittedly progressed a great deal deal, particularly, on the internet. The progress here lies in the phenomena of a great many people eople all being universal access to communication, nearly at the same time (11 years, within the scope of humankind, qualifying in my book as "nearly the same time"). And then this phenomena of collective participation, has given us the personal and collective impression of having achieved great collective wisdom, ne'er before seen in human history. I of course refer to the rise of Social Media.

And in fact, to more vividly depict the geometry of the silo, chiarascuro, they refer to the contrasting shape and form of Social Media. Social media's shape is planar, horizontal and lateral. It reaches out, rather than up. Equal voices, spoken on the ground, creating a revolution on the ground. The obvious poster child for this phenonemon is Facebook, given the reach of 500 million people it boasts of having.

Ahhh yes Facebook, the crown prince of social media, brandishing not a sword but the mighty wave of grassroots discontent to confront the imposing dragons of yore, toppling down our old guard notions of hierarchy, power, legitimacy + a country named Egypt. Bravo Facebook! All hail the mighty minions-as-legions of Facebook-dom! 

But rather than considering all of this as sitting on the side of Awe Inspiring, I find this ever so slightly sitting on the side of Massively Troubling?

Why do I find myself not celebrating alongside 1 in 13 persons in the world (plus, a baby in Egypt) that has come to be given the name of Facebook. In fact, I find Facebook the most anti-revolutionary thing to happen to humans, since the adoption of the slavery. 

Angela Min, a blog

This is an archived post This is an archived post

Previous   Index   Next

Circle of influence: Gollum's ring or the Pebble

February 28 2011, 12:00 PM  by Angela Min

Keep everything to your self, like Gollum clinging on to "my precious". 

Or, drop a pebble into the ocean, and see the circles ripple out.

The ring around one's finger, vs the pebble released into the world. It's a choice.

Art versus Design

February 24 2011, 8:25 PM  by Angela Min

To me, its a matter of context.

Art is Art. Design is assuredly not. Art stands alone. Design exists in context.

Of course, you could say art has context too. For instance, Guernica or the Sistine Chapel could never have been conceived by a suburban mom in Westchester. Sure, anything's possible, but this doesn't make it likely. So clearly, context comes into play with art, as well as design. 

The difference? Art is created as a result of a certain context/environment/situation, design is created for a certain context/environment/situation.

Art stirs the nascent discontent, summons our courage to inspire revolution and change. Art becomes the catalyst for change by imagining alternate worlds either better, more colorful, more dire, less dire, etc. In other words, it imagines something new, and directs us to do the same.

Art is a statement. A glorious or wretched one, an inspiring or disgusting one, it is Art. It is a shout into the Universe declaring one's voice and directing others to listen and see too. It is a directive against institutional apathy, entrenched habits, mindless social mores, which over time have the tendency to sap the individual voice. The Artist Speaks. And this is no small thing. 

Design on the other hand, can seem a little less inspiring. In fact, it can seem a bit slavish by comparison. 

Design is not so much a statement and directive to the state of society, so much as it is the directive itself. It is a tool. In other words, it is useful. 

Usefulness can 

Angela Min, a blog

This is an archived post This is an archived post

Previous   Index   Next

The Idea

February 14 2011, 8:23 AM  by Angela Min

There is one concept I treasure above all others in life. Kind of a fundamental core concept in life and the ages that underscores all others. I find that all roads, paths, philosophies and wisdoms lead back to this one. I guess that's quite a statement to make. But it's my blog after all, right? And this blog is really about me expounding on that idea, over and over again (or at least, as often as time permits). This blog is about the insights and roads taken that have led me to come to believe in this idea. Moreso, this blog is about the roads I keep uncovering and discovering that continue returning back to this idea, over and over again.

Or, perhaps having the idea in the first place, is what is making me see the idea in everything I see, over and over again.

Which is precisely the idea. That is to say that --- that's the Idea!

(summary: circular logic not only works, but even better than you think it does because you think it works!)

Angela Min, a blog

This is an archived post This is an archived post

Previous   Index   Next

Gradatim ferociter, and other favorite Jeff Bezos quotes

December 12 2010, 6:19 PM  by Angela Min

Here are a few quotes of Jeff Bezos, CEO Amazon, that I like:

"Cleverness is a gift. Kindness is a choice. Do you wish to be remembered for your gifts? Or your choices."

"People think of liberty or freedom as happiness, but it's not. Those very smart people who wrote 'life liberty and the pursuit of happiness', had it right."

"Debt is a useful invention. It's why people can afford houses before they reach seventy. They can actually have the house while they need it and then work and pay for it. That's very, very useful."

"What I would really like people to say about Amazon is that we raised the bar on customer experience for every industry all over the world. Some companies have missions that are even bigger than the company; an example of that would be Sony. Sony, coming out of WWII, said that their mission was 'We are going to make Japan known for quality.' They had a mission that was bigger than Sony. It was a mission for Japan. And we have a similar mission."

"Gradatim ferociter." - (step by step, ferociously) - slogan for Blue Origin, space exploration company

Angela Min, a blog

This is an archived post This is an archived post

Previous   Index   Next

Contemplating the Void, Declarations, and What Do You Think Constitutes Progress?

November 19 2010, 6:18 PM  by Angela Min

Seems appropriate to start my blog with my thoughts on the seminal exhibit at the Guggenheim this past spring, "Contemplating the Void", in which the museum put full curatorial control in the hands of the artist -- or rather, in his/her imagination. 200 artists, designers and innovators from around the world, were asked to each imagine the museum's great rotunda completely emptied, and to be filled with his/her own artistic or personal vision, limited only by imagination.   

In the midst of the exhibition, the museum opened up a dialogue with the general public, in Facebook, Twitter and on its own website page, called the Declarations Page. On the Declarations page, the general public was invited to comment on the question, "What Do You Think Constitutes Progress?". Here is my comment on 3/9/10:  http://www.guggenheim.org/new-york/interact/online-forum/declarations/public-statements

Okay, let me take a stab at this. Here is my little bit of “self-reflexive folly." The Guggenheim is giving us possibly the most clever example of progress. The museum has asked "What is Progress?" and not coincidentally, has asked the question smack dab on the Web page page called DECLARATIONS. It’s a simple enough question, and yet, “unquestionably” profound because in fact, the museum has given away the answer. By the sheer act of asking the people the question, the museum has declared what the answer is. For indeed, the question IS the answer! When a society asks questions of its people, then progress is possible. And so the “Question-as-Answer” that it is, it is therefore not a static entity. Instead, it is a fluid, organic “thing," a work in progress. It is a back-and-forth dialogue of many voices responding back to the question, creating more questions, creating more dialogue. And ultimately, isn’t that what art ultimately is? A dialogue between the self and the world at large, about what it means to live in this world? 

Here is a contrasting example to illustrate what progress is not, and it is a bit extreme for the sake of illustration. Tyrannical governments tend not to ask its citizens to ask questions of the self-reflective kind, particularly those that may lead to follies of the most revolutionary and mutinous kind! In other words, they do not ask its citizens "What is Progress?" Instead, they TELL the people -- or hammer it over their heads -- what “progress” is, either in highly controlled sound bites blared over state controlled airwaves, or by threat of death or severe punishment. 

In a free society, the ability to Question IS the founding premise of freedom. We have the right to question our leaders, to question policy, to question laws, corruption and abuse of power. The right to question is the power of the people. And so, we have the genius of the Guggenheim, asking quite innocently -- What is Progress? And we have answered, on Facebook, Twitter and on the Declarations page. And that is precisely what progress is, in action, one Facebook post, one Declaration at a time (thankfully here, with more than 140 characters allowed!). I therefore Declare that the Guggenheim, having asked me the question, is actual Progress itself. The Declaration of Independence (hmm, that declaration word again!), the Renaissance, the invention of print, the Protestant Revolution, the suffrage movement, the Civil Rights movement, and now, the Guggenheim’s latest exhibit, “Contemplating the Void," are all revolutionary acts of progress. 

Angela Min, a blog

This is an archived post This is an archived post

Previous   Index

Might as well blog it!

November 11 2010, 11:50 PM  by Angela Min

That is, my lessons, thoughts and inspirations along the way. Gradatim ferociter!