I've noticed the same phenomenon that another journal I read commented upon- the more I do in real life, the less I have to talk about. It's not that my days aren't full, it's just that they aren't full of the things which inspire contemplation. And, lacking time, I can't afford the luxury of contemplating on occurences that lack concreteness or require keen observation. Blah, blah, I wrote the budget for QU tonight. Blah, blah, I spent an hour looking through internship files to find a job today. Blah, blah, I had meetings today. You get the idea. I'm not functioning on a metaphysical level here.

For another thing, I've picked up the annoying usage of the word "folks" from the director of residential life, my boss' boss. It's almost as if my entire lexicon has become a mask, of "folks" and "wacky" and "that's unfortunate" and "how amusing" and "mildly entertaining" and on and on, comprised of words that were not mine, but are gleaned from others until the speech that spews forth from my mouth carries my meaning pressed into the form of a more universal stylistic aesthetic.

I'm listening to an opera by Meredith Monk; I checked it out from the library and fell in love in one listening. It's of experimental form, comprised mostly of wordless improvisational vocalisations, with very few recognizable utterances. As I listen, I learn the harmonic pattern and begin to sing along with the performers. They have exceptionally clear tone, haunting, with very little vibrato, a vocal style which mine very closely approximates, excepting, of course, in quality. Though lacking in words, the music has no shortages of emotional intensity or story-telling ability.

An experimental film festival this past weekend provoked thought, on the anomaly of film as art. In most forms of visual art, the image is static, changing only if the viewer desires to change perspective. A work of art is that one unchanging image, the paint stuck to the very fibers of the canvas. In film, however, the artist has control of the changing process, and the work of art consists of not one, but a series of images. Thus instead of finding meaning or beauty in a single image, film causes the viewer to experience art as the changing of images, and the accumulating meaning thereof. I surely don't possess the precise vocabulary to express what it is that I'm thinking in correct art jargon, but still I am in awe at the complexity of the art form.