gravidism

I think that most of the people who read this blog probably know (or at least have guessed) that I am pregnant. I actually haven't told too many people that I am expecting, and I've really had a fun time watching the news get publicized for me. Even when you tell someone in confidence that you are pregnant, there is always going to be a leak...somewhere. Tonight one of the grad students said, "So, I heard you're pregnant!" to me after class (he heard from someone at the Springville Museum of Art, where I used to intern before morning sickness took over my life) and basically announced my pregnancy to the whole grad department for me.

I think it's really funny when these announcements get made for me. Afterwards I always get pummeled the same question by everyone who was in earshot of the announcement: "Wait...you're pregnant???" Yep. Yep. Yep. I am. And, it's even funnier because the original person who made the announcement often doesn't realize that he/she has just made an announcement for me. For some reason, the announcer doesn't seem to realize that no one else in the room has been privy to this information. It's very amusing.

A couple of people have also announced my pregnancy for me too. The first time it happened I was a little bit shocked, and I had a hard time dealing with the pummeling of questions which followed. Now, however, I rather enjoy the announcements to be made for me. My cute sister-in-law felt bad when she mentioned my pregnancy in front of previously uninformed family friends, but by the time that happened last week, I didn't mind at all. When other people bring up the pregnancy, then I don't feel like I have to put on a superficial, hyped-up "We're so excited!" face. Don't get me wrong, I am excited for the baby to come, but I don't like putting on an over-excited demeanor and instantly commanding that the next ten minutes of conversation be all about me and my baby.

I'm actually quite interested to see what will happen at church this Sunday. We told Grandma Bowen last week about the news while we were out of town. Grandma Bowen's sister-in-law, Aunt Ellen, lives in the same ward as us, and we're pretty sure that Aunt Ellen sufficiently publicized the news while we were gone last Sunday. Excellent. Now I won't have to announce anything in Relief Society - especially because a pregnancy announcement in our ward immediately calls for the Enrichment leaders to throw you a baby shower. It's inevitable. I'd rather not feel like I'm asking for a baby shower...

P.S. The due date is June 10th.

standing ovation

The other night, J and I had a fairly long debate on what standard/type of cultural performance calls for a "standing ovation." The whole conversation began when I complained about the obligatory standing ovation which occurs at every BYU performance in the HFAC. If every performance gets a standing ovation, then what value and significance is imbued in the idea of standing up while clapping? I suppose in attempts to be "Christian" and "charitable," Mormon audiences always given standing ovations - even at sub-standard performances. I think that this not only desecrates the significance of a standing ovation, but it also is downright silly.

J thinks that standing ovations should not only occur at phenomenal performances, but they are also expected for historical performances by famous performers (e.g. the performer will never again perform a certain monologue, concerto, etc.). I asked him if he would give Led Zeppelin a standing ovation at their upcoming reunion-concert this December, and he said that 1) he'd already be standing for a rock concert (good point!), and 2) yes, he would give a standing ovation - not so much to the performance (we all know that Page and Plant aren't living their glory days anymore), but to the shadows of the great band that once existed. I guess I would agree with him.

However, I also think that standing ovations include something more than just showing respect and honor to a great performer. When I have been truly, deeply moved by a performance, I have physically been moved to stand up. It almost is as if my body is so exhilarated and moved that I have to stand up and clap as hard as I can, as if it is the only way to truly express how I feel. I think that the last time I felt the sensation of being lifted to my feet was when I heard the Queen of the Night aria in London, in the spring of 2003.

Has anyone else ever felt that way as well during a performance? I wonder if there are other motivations for standing ovations, besides my emotional motivation and J's historical motivation. Does a standing ovation mean something else to you?

change in perspective

It's interesting how changes in your health can alter your perspective. Normally, I consider a good day to be one where I am able to be 150% effective. I wake up early, work for a few hours, volunteer in the community, get way more homework done than necessary, clean the house, exercise, make an awesome dinner, and still have time for pleasure reading. However, since I've been rather sick lately, I've had quite a change in perspective. I realized this yesterday around 6:00 p.m., when I triumphantly realized that I had kept a grilled cheese sandwich "down."

That was my big accomplishment for the day.

It's funny how feeling woozy can change your perception of what is important. Once I feel better, I'll probably take my health for granted again.

wisdom

I've been thinking a lot lately about what it means to be "wise" in the scriptures. In some places, we are warned about the dangers of "thinking" that you are wise. Being involved in graduate school and the world of academia has really made me realize how dangerous it is to "think" that you are wise. I also have had a recent experience which has made me think a lot about true wisdom in relation to the gospel.

In the scriptures, it seems like there are also two definitions of the word "wise" right in the scriptures. The first definition of "wise" is a lot like the idea of "thinking" that you are wise - they are the people who are puffed up in their learning, wisdom, etc. (see 2 Nephi 9:42). It is explained here that these people must come down in the depths of humility or the Lord will not open the door to them.

Only the people who consider themselves as "fools before God" will be let in - which the Lord defines as true wisdom in the following verse (2 Nephi 9:43). These people are "wise and prudent," and the happiness which is prepared for them will be hidden from those that are puffed up in wisdom.

I never had connected wisdom with humility before. I have thought of wisdom in regards to prudence, temperance, and true knowledge, but I never had thought about humility. I don't know why I hadn't made the connection before, because I often think of humility as an opposite to "prideful wisdom." Therefore, it makes sense to me that humility should be part of true wisdom - in order for an individual to be truly wise, he must accept that he does not know everything, nor can he figure everything out. The logic and mind of God is far beyond the capacity of our mortal minds. We can only hope to one day attain that full knowledge and understanding.

disappointed by David Letterman

I've attached below an email that I sent to CBS regarding David Letterman's interview of Paris Hilton last Friday. If you want to see the interview, click here.

To Whom it May Concern:

I am writing to express my disappointment and disgust at the way Paris Hilton was interviewed by David Letterman last week. It was obvious in the interview that Miss Hilton was invited onto the show to be ridiculed by Mr. Letterman's sarcastic questions regarding her jail experience. I felt that Mr. Letterman's refusal to stop pummeling Miss Hilton with questions regarding her time in jail was also rude and inconsiderate. Listening to the studio audience's howls of laughter during the interview showed me how distanced the American public is from common decency and respect. It obviously isn't right for the media to defame celebrities "behind their back," but it is even more appalling when television invites individuals onto their broadcast with the intention of mocking, scorning, and scoffing at the individual directly.

Although I do not support the actions of Miss Hilton, I feel that the exploitation of her life and experiences on Mr. Letterman's show were inappropriate. Not only has this experience made me decide to stop viewing the Late Night Show, it also has shown me that I do not want to be a person who laughs at people that make mistakes. Located in a country that was founded on Christian principles and behavior, I find that the American media should promote the idea that "pure charity is never glad when others go wrong" (1 Corinthians, chapter 13, Moffatt translation). Even for people who are not Christian in their belief, the idea of mutual respect should be an integral and fundamental part of any functional society. Instead of derailing and satirizing the guests on his show, I find that Mr. Letterman should uphold the principle of mutual respect in his interviews, since he has the opportunity to be a role model for the American public.

Thank you for your time, etc.

career change

I've been avoiding writing on your, dear Blog, because I haven't wanted to create some type of report about my trip to Brazil last month. However, I had the realization this evening that I am not obligated to write anything on here. And so, I won't really say anything about Brazil. If you really want to know, you should ask me. And please, let me know if you want the superficial reply, "Veni, vedi, vici!" or not. I recently waxed too loquacious when someone asked me about the trip, and I quickly realized that he didn't really care about my trip at all.

Anyhow, I want to announce here that I've decided to make a career change. This seems to be one of the most scary types of career change, because I actually haven't started any type of career yet at all (I would recommend graduate school to anyone who doesn't want to start a "real job"yet).

I've been thinking a lot about careers lately, especially since I'm starting my last year of graduate school now. I somehow thought that everything would work itself out when I prepared to graduate with my M.A. - I would suddenly know exactly what I wanted to do with art history, I would know if I wanted to start a family or work for a while, and I would know where J and I are going to move.

But no.

In some ways, I feel more confused now then when I started my degree. I realized that there is a lot of bad Brazilian art in the world (excluding my thesis topic, of course), and that I really wouldn't want to specialize in that (if I ever did get a Ph.D., which I still am not sure about). I don't know when I want to start having children. I don't know where we are going to move after graduation (I feel so anti-NYC after living in Bed-Stuy this summer). And, I don't know if I want to work in a museum anymore.

All that I do know is this: I want to teach.

After teaching 111 this spring, I really realized how passionate I am about teaching. I have always hoped to do something with teaching after graduating, but I always kept stringing the idea of museum work along too. However, I really feel like teaching is my passion. I love getting people excited about art history. I love explaining and verbalizing my own passion for art and why it is such a beautiful, visual representation of the past. I love converting students to the glory and drama of Caravaggio. I love showing people how they can make their own interpretations and conclusions regarding works of art. I love enunciating the most perfect (and sometimes ridiculous) adjectives to describe exactly how a work of art makes me feel. It's so rewarding and fulfilling.

After this realization, working in a museum doesn't seem quite right for me. Even my initial idea of curating and teaching part-time is not as appealing as it used to be. I've been interested in museum work because of the research that is involved, but I don't know if everything else would be fulfilling. Plus, I'm also realizing more and more how I appreciate going to see private collections instead of museums - I don't always like having an exhibition thesis shoved down my throat. And I don't know if I could survive if I spent the rest (wrest) of my life brainstorming and creating such theses.

So, teaching is the plan. Whether that involves a Ph.D. in the future, I'm not sure. Maybe I'll try A.P. Art History (I could be the next Mother Wood!) or a junior college for a while. Or maybe I just won't be able to resist the call of academia...

crime, punishment, and murderers

All of my close friends know that I am really interested in murders. It's not the gory aspects of murder that I like, but rather a more detached, intellectual, psychological aspect that fascinates me. How can a person get so detached from life and humanity that they are able to actually take the life from another human being? It boggles my mind to see the psychological deterioration of some murderers - and it's even more boggling when the people appear to be actually sane.

Such was my experience when reading "Crime and Punishment" this summer. It was fascinating to see the psychological workings of not only the protagonist, Raskolnikov, but also of Dostoevsky himself! irst of all, it is interesting to see how Raskilnikov truly believes that he is justified in murdering the old pawn broker with an axe - nay, he feels as if he has actually done a good deed by killing the old woman!

And...the crazy thing is...Dostoevsky writes in a way that the reader can actually sympathize and understand where Raskilnikov is coming from! It's such a strange psychological twist of events. You hardly seem to know if you should detest the murderer or give him a big hug (and obviously, Sonia doesn't know how to treat him either).

I loved the reoccuring theme of death in the novel, and how death was treated differently each time. For example, you first have the murder of the old woman, which is presented in a cold, heartless, unattached manner. Then you have Marmeladov, the drunkard who gets run over by a carriage. We witness his scene on his deathbed, with people crying and candles burning. We also read the death of a madwoman, Katerina Marmeladov, who dies of consumption with her "certificate of honor" by her side. Svidrigailov (who also was suspected of multiple murders) commits suicide after Dunya tells him that she can never love him. Each death is treated differently, and each death appears to have more meaning and substance because of the different identifications that the reader has with the character.

I found the book to be fascinating. And I loved the ending.