Blah blabbady blah
Today, after a couple of hours working I found myself wont for things to do there. It would appear that most of the things I've been working on are ready for a final stage that I have no control over, so I left and called my boss after eating some lunch. He told me he'd get back to me when I explained that the only thing I have left to do is scuff up a front fender to ready it for painting. Tomorrow, as if to make up for a lazy Wednesday, there is probably a day's worth of work to be done on a Toyota Prius - the car for which I harbor the most hate of any car. So today I rest up for now and blog away.
Just in case it's not already obvious, I do collision repair. My boss is a religion teacher here at the school, but for 46 years he's been buying totaled cars, fixing them, then selling them. Somehow, I've acquired sufficient knowledge and skills to do this kind of work (or at least enough to convince someone that I can learn this kind of work). It's satisfying some of the time, but only when you finish a difficult project. Other times, the work can be a little tedious or just plain frustrating. Those characteristics are part of living though. Most of life is difficult to deal with, but there are moments that casually come along that make all the frustration worth dealing with. So life doesn't have to be a majority pleasant to be worth living, it just has to be worth it in the end - and you're definition of the end can make or break that argument. For me, the end is far beyond death, but that subject is for another time.
What I really wanted to discuss today is, more or less, art vs. science. The circumstance that gave birth to this competition of concept is the nature of my current job and most of the other jobs I've had. Currently, I fix cars. It's very direct and objective oriented work. There is latitude for creative thinking, and it extends only to how to go about fixing something and the shaping of metal parts back to their original condition. In the end, I find that the work is not entirely suited to my natural dispositions. I've always focused more on the creative and the abstract; collision repair is neither.
So there is this conflict. Will I die a "death of a salesman"? Will I seek to be good at something my whole life that is contrary to my nature and God-given talents? Hopefully not, but something very important - opposition - is created with the inclusion of both the art and science in one's life. They serve to oppose one another, and each bring the individual to want the other, whereas if there was only one, motivation to action in either of the two would be all but extant. Without the two, there is no opposition to serve the ambition of the individual, and with no ambition, there is no action. Without action, do we really exist?
Therefore, the argument is not really art vs. science; there is no argument. There is only art unto science or science unto art. The challenge is balance. One should motivate a person to the other.
Just in case it's not already obvious, I do collision repair. My boss is a religion teacher here at the school, but for 46 years he's been buying totaled cars, fixing them, then selling them. Somehow, I've acquired sufficient knowledge and skills to do this kind of work (or at least enough to convince someone that I can learn this kind of work). It's satisfying some of the time, but only when you finish a difficult project. Other times, the work can be a little tedious or just plain frustrating. Those characteristics are part of living though. Most of life is difficult to deal with, but there are moments that casually come along that make all the frustration worth dealing with. So life doesn't have to be a majority pleasant to be worth living, it just has to be worth it in the end - and you're definition of the end can make or break that argument. For me, the end is far beyond death, but that subject is for another time.
What I really wanted to discuss today is, more or less, art vs. science. The circumstance that gave birth to this competition of concept is the nature of my current job and most of the other jobs I've had. Currently, I fix cars. It's very direct and objective oriented work. There is latitude for creative thinking, and it extends only to how to go about fixing something and the shaping of metal parts back to their original condition. In the end, I find that the work is not entirely suited to my natural dispositions. I've always focused more on the creative and the abstract; collision repair is neither.
So there is this conflict. Will I die a "death of a salesman"? Will I seek to be good at something my whole life that is contrary to my nature and God-given talents? Hopefully not, but something very important - opposition - is created with the inclusion of both the art and science in one's life. They serve to oppose one another, and each bring the individual to want the other, whereas if there was only one, motivation to action in either of the two would be all but extant. Without the two, there is no opposition to serve the ambition of the individual, and with no ambition, there is no action. Without action, do we really exist?
Therefore, the argument is not really art vs. science; there is no argument. There is only art unto science or science unto art. The challenge is balance. One should motivate a person to the other.
that's a big question and an interesting discussion about it. as always, I enjoy your musings.
ReplyDeleteps. love your comment about the Prius. it's classic Patrick.
pps. I now drive a Prius. I know, I know. I've crossed over.
ppps. no I didn't. my sister and I play "shoot the Prius" in the car instead of the slugbug game.