Back in early May I wrote a journal entry about my general dislike for Reality TV. I mostly wrote it in response to the pleasure I derived from finding out that “The Real Cancun” had flopped at the box office. Well, last night I had another experience with reality TV, as I had the opportunity to watch a co-worker of mine in one of those reality-dating TV shows that he was in. I’ll talk a bit more about this in a second, but the general purpose of this journal entry will be to explain why I find the whole concept of Reality TV to be totally fallacious.

My co-worker was on this show called “Perfect Match”. This is one of those shows where they get an attractive, successful person and have two of his/her friends along with a relationship expert pick 3 members of the opposite sex to pair their friend up with. Their friend then spends a week with each of these people, getting to know them, and the hope is that by the end one of these three is his/her “perfect match.” As it turns out, my coworker was one of the 20 guys in the pool, he made it into the top 3, and then was chosen by the girl at the end.

This is a pretty typical reality show. The idea is that you get a “real” person, which I suppose in this circumstance means someone who is not an actor, and throw them into some situation while a camera follows them around. What could be more real than that?

Indeed, what could be LESS real than that? My biggest problem with reality TV is that it’s anything but reality. Let’s use this show as an example, then I’ll compare a few other well-known reality shows to see if this is just an exception to the rule. Despite my general hatred for reality shows, I actually liked this show, but mostly because someone I know was in it, which made it pretty hilarious.

Okay, so you understand the premise of this show. Does it depict reality? I don’t know about you, but it sure doesn’t for my life. First of all, my friends generally don’t pick who I date, and I certainly don’t consult a relationship expert beforehand. Secondly, (though you may find it shocking) at any given time, I usually don’t have a pool of 20 women clawing at the bit trying to date me. Not to mention the fact that, in real life, not everyone is fairly good looking. Thirdly, when I do meet a girl I don’t know and could potentially be interested in, I’m not exactly going to ask her to move into my apartment for a week to see how we get along. And even if I did, I certainly wouldn’t then ask her to move out so that I could live with two other girls for a week to make sure that I really like her most.

But, of course, that’s not all. Reality was also ignored in the details of the show. For example, for their first date, my co-worker and this girl flew down to Miami to spend a few days. I don’t know about you, but my first dates tend to be a touch less extravagant. Another interesting difference that I picked up on is that, although the people in the reality shows are not actors, they generally know that a camera is following them around, so they’re hardly their usual selves. They’ll certainly act a little differently with a camera on them than if it wasn’t. Moreover, most of these shows are a game of sorts. In this game, the object was to be the guy that the girl picks. There were definitely times that I have a hunch that my co-worker was exaggerating things in order to be the winner. Not that I blame him, as I’m certain I would do exactly the same thing in his shoes. You want to be the winner when America is watching.

Alright, so this show is far, far from being reality. What about others? How real is Survivor? Well, I’m generally not stuck on an island in the middle of nowhere without luxury items. And even if I somehow was, I hardly think that every week we would “vote someone off the island.” How about American Idol? Well, in real life, if you’re a singer looking for a record deal, you’ll never be critiqued by a panel of 3 people who know almost nothing about singing and then have America decide if you should win the record deal. I mean, no one on American Idol even performs an entire song – it’s always like a 2-3 minute segment of a song. How about a show like The Osbornes? Sweet lord, if that’s reality, get me the hell outta here.

Obviously I could go on. I’m just not sure why they even call it “reality” TV, because there’s nothing “real” about it. Maybe if they called it “regular people TV”, that would be a little more acceptable. Because it does feature “regular people”, but you can’t say that they aren’t acting, because so long as they know that a camera is on them, they will hardly be themselves. So they take regular people, put them in outlandish situations and see how they’ll act with a camera in front of them within those situations. Sure it’s real – real stupid.

Isn’t it redundant to call something an “unsolved mystery”? If it were solved, wouldn’t it no longer be a mystery?

I wrote an entry not too long ago about the infamous kiss between Britney and Madonna at the most recent MTV Video Music Awards ceremony. At that time, other than having some thoughts and opinions about the kiss itself, I also began to think about how the relationship between entertainers like Madonna, Britney, and the entertainment industry really works. In particular, I think it might be surprising to determine who is actually in control, and what that means for the artists.

Before delving into this question, I need to make some clarifications so that what follows can be simpler and clearer. In what follows I will use Madonna as the stereotypical entertainer that I am referring to. It is not necessary, however, that I use Madonna. Basically, what Madonna stands for in what follows is being a very large pop-culture icon who has little actual talent, but mostly consists of product and sensationalism which satisfies and solidifies her fan-base. So other entertainers like Britney Spears, the Spice Girls, Avril Lavigne, NSYNC, and even older groups like the Monkeys, Cher, and probably even the Beatles. The idea is that, while I am not claiming that these entertainers have no talent, they do not have nearly as much talent as one would think considering the success that they have had. Moreover, the group of entertainers that I am referring to are the biggest players in the industry, to the extent that it might even appear that they have significant control shaping and directing the path of the entertainment industry.

Okay, so the question, put more clearly is this: Does the entertainment industry control Madonna or does Madonna control the entertainment industry. I think most people would assume the latter. They would think, “Well, Madonna has been around forever. And she has such a solid and important part in the industry, that she must have lots of control with what she does and what she wants to happen with the industry. After all, she’s got hundreds of millions of dollars. She can really make things happen.” I’m not so sure.

For starters, let’s talk about money. Yes, Madonna has hundreds of millions of dollars. Few entertainers have as much as her, but for now, let’s forget about that fact and consider celebrities with a great amount of money, say 50+ million. Doesn’t this kind of money insure that you are going to get the respect you deserve? You could create your own production company if you needed to.

I think that an individual entertainer’s money, however, does not necessarily help him/her in dealing with the entertainment industry. The reason for this is because the entertainment industry is a trillion dollar per year industry. Throwing around a few million here or there is not going to make them blink. The only exception to this rule is the one that I kind of touched upon, wherein an entertainer might take a more significant role in the industry than just entertainer by creating a production company. P. Diddy, for example, has had a fair amount of success doing this, as has Dr. Dre. But I would argue, however, that when some entertainers do this, if the industry disagrees with the direction that the entertainer is going, they will kill the company, and they have the power to do so. In the cases of rappers, this part of the entertainment industry was so young, and so potentially profitable, that there is little doubt that the industry welcomed them with open arms, and even if they weren’t thrilled, they probably did not have significant enough power over the hip-hop sector to stop it.

So money can’t buy you respect. But what about experience and success? Surely Madonna has her fair share of both. As a result, can she pretty much make whatever calls she wants? Maybe to some extent, but there are times when the entertainment industry might not agree with the calls she’s making or the direction she wants it to go. Then what? She’ll lose.

One good example of this is that period in Madonna’s career when she began to really cross the line. You remember that sex book? That music video where everyone’s wearing leather and it’s like a weird sex show (“Human Nature”, I think.)? This began probably the most significant lull that Madonna’s career had ever seen. The only way she managed to break out of it was by coming back into the mainstream with dance club hits like “Ray of Light” and her subsequent music. She was able to make the decision to stray into that odd area, but when she got there, she realized that it wasn’t a particularly worthwhile place to be if she wanted to keep her career.

Next, think about that kiss on MTV. Let’s say Madonna (as a married woman with children) really didn’t want to do it. Would she have? I think so: she would have had to. She wouldn’t have had to in the literal sense. She’s Madonna, she could have told MTV to take a hike. But then they might have axed her performance entirely, as they have that power. Then where would she be? She would have missed out on an opportunity to be the spectacle at one of the largest pop-culture events of the year. Surely the two possible outcomes are completely different. As a result, she chose to be a pawn in the entertainment industry’s game and engage in the kiss.

I find this to be a major problem with the entertainment industry. It’s extraordinarily difficult to be successful in it and not cater to its every whim. A few have managed to do so, but even they mostly started their careers by being at the entertainment industry’s mercy, and then breaking away when they had enough money to do so, while maintaining a loyal fan base. A good example of such an entertainer is Prince.

What results is a situation where the artist does not have the freedom to express him or herself as s/he pleases. This is ironic, as with art, there is nothing more important than artistic freedom. What is creativity without freedom? As a result, most of the artists of today who take part in the entertainment industry do very little that is truly novel, but continue to contribute to the status quo. This is problematic, because the entertainment industry is stifling creativity and artistic progress.

This problem is even more disturbing if you consider the fact that I was only considering the artists who are important enough to the industry that they might have some control. If they can’t do anything about it, imagine how powerless the average or new artists would be. How can this problem be solved? It probably can’t, or at least not by a few people. Our society on a whole would have to make a conscious decision not to allow the entertainment industry to continue to exploit artists. Perhaps a widespread boycott would do the trick, but then you also hurt the artists. To be honest, it’s a very serious problem, and I do not see any plausible solution coming surfacing during my lifetime.

Isn’t it a bit odd that the place I work would have ads for “Careerbuilder.com”, a website for finding a new job, in the elevators?

I have touched upon aesthetics quite a number of times within this journal, since aesthetics is one of my favorite topics within philosophy, and philosophy is one of my favorite topics to think and write about. But within these journal entries I have not taken any very strong stands because when it comes to aesthetics, quite frankly, no argument has been so persuasive that I accept it in entirety. As a result, I have wavered back and forth in regard to the question of whether or not beauty in aesthetics is objective or subjective. Today that will all change.

As it turns out, the comments in response to the journal entry I wrote on Thursday about extremely ugly people is what brought on my realization, and I touched upon this in a response to some of these comments. It figures that a tongue-in-cheek, partly facetious journal entry would lead to my discovering something I consider to be quite important.

Let me reiterate how this happened. Basically, I wrote a journal entry complaining about ugly people. Someone responded that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Seeing this maxim in juxtaposition with my entry about the opposite of beauty not being in the eye of the beholder it made me realize the answer: Aesthetic beauty is objective, but in a much simpler way than most people would think.

In order to illustrate this, it might help to tell you a story. My roommate used to have a system for rating girls’ physical attractiveness. I know some girls will say that this is horrible, etc. But trust me, all guys do it and so do girls, even if subconsciously. It’s just that some people actually make it a conscious matter. At any rate, his system was possibly the simplest system there was. Either they were attractive enough to sleep with, or they were not. The former category of women received a rating of “1” the latter a rating of “0”. Binary at its finest.

The reason I told this story is because judgment of aesthetic beauty works in almost exactly the same way. Within considerations of aesthetic beauty there should be no talk of degrees. The reason for this is because an aesthetic judgment is a purely sensory-driven process. Now some people might disagree with me about this. Some might say that aesthetic beauty should include more than just sensory perception, which might seem like a fair objection. I would argue, however, that if you want to consider more than this then you are going beyond the realm of what I am referring to and the beauty you speak of is no longer simply aesthetic. So I will set aside that objection, though noting it, and move on to explain what I mean about there being no degrees.

When someone asks if something is beautiful, s/he does not ask how beautiful it is. This is a very different question, and one that I would argue aesthetics cannot answer, because it is not equip to do so. To illustrate this, think about other sensory perceptions besides visual beauty. The two most powerful examples are hearing and smelling, which consider sound and scent, respectively. As simply as I can put it, something is either pleasing to the ear or it is not. Similarly, something is either pleasing to the nose or it is not.

What do I mean when I say “pleasing”? Well, this is actually a very low standard. I am asserting that either something creates pleasure or displeasure to the senses. If something smells horribly, then it is clearly unpleasant, even painful. If something does not smell badly, it is not unpleasant; thus, it has the capacity to be beautiful. In some sense, I am defining beauty by explaining what is not beautiful. I think that this works.

It works because it provides a basic criterion to determine what is beautiful and what is not beautiful. It also lowers the standard of beauty compared to what most people probably consider beautiful. For instance, what is now considered beautiful is whatever one does not find difficult to bear through the senses, whatever has the capacity to exude beauty.

Another looming objection is probably the comment that the senses might be indifferent at times. The thing is that I don’t think they really are. Right now, I don’t smell anything. That, however, is different from saying that I am indifferent to what I smell. Let’s say I smell something and I say, “That’s not bad”. Well then it’s good. If I say something like, “Eww, that’s not good.” Then it’s bad. But if I smell something and say, “I don’t smell anything; it has no scent.” Then that means that it lacks the property which would give it aesthetic standing, so it cannot be considered in regard to this aesthetic standard.

“Surely”, one might comment, “You still need degrees of beauty in order for things like art to be meaningful.” Of course, I would never argue otherwise. Instead, I would assert that aesthetics is not concerned with how these degrees are determined, but that these degrees are determined by essentially environmental factors that are necessarily subjective. The interesting claim that I am making is that the initial decision about what is beautiful is not subjective, but objectively determined by the senses.

Let’s get a little less theoretical and consider a practical example of this theory in action. Since I know almost everyone cares mostly about visual beauty, let’s consider the two girls sitting in an outdoor café rating the guys who are walking by. In order to do so, I will list the guy’s name and their thoughts on his appearance:

Bob: Not a bad looking guy, he could lose a few pounds, I wouldn’t date him, but he has potential.
John: Good look, cute smile, definitely dating material.
Rob: Bad hair, way too thin, and just altogether not attractive. Stay away!

So above, Bob and John would pass the criterion and be considered pleasant to eyes, while Rob would be considered unpleasant to the eyes. Now, due to individual factors, these girls probably prefer John over Bob, even though both are attractive, because they in this case the object that they are evaluating aesthetically (the male) is a complex one. As a result, the whole is equal to the aesthetic score of its parts. For instance, eyes, skin, hair, etc. could all have separate aesthetic ratings which contribute to an overall rating. But finding some parts of Bob more pleasant than those which are unpleasant to the eyes is different than saying that they find Bob visually unpleasant overall, which would put him in a different aesthetic category.

I’m not sure how convincing that example was, and to be honest, when it comes to people, this gets complex, because people have so many visual characteristics to be considered. As a result, it does not seem completely intuitive unless someone is so bad looking that virtually every characteristic is unpleasant to one’s senses. Luckily, few people are that poorly endowed. It is much easier, however, when it comes to something like visual art, with fewer visual complexities.

Next there is the issue of what some might think is responsible for aesthetic evaluation: environmental norms. Other theories of aesthetic beauty claim that beauty is defined by social norms and aesthetic paradigms which are constantly changing. While it would take quite some time to consider this in regard to my own theory, my claim is, simply, that in the actual decision of aesthetic beauty, which I consider a “black or white issue”, is purely objective, no matter what culture or social paradigm one is a slave to. The only thing that social paradigms might do is affect the degree factors after beauty or non-beauty has been determined through the pleasure or displeasure that the object brings to the given sense. Again, a greater explanation is warranted with this issue, and that may be undertaken at some point, but right now I just want to provide the general outline for my theory while briefly responding to a few possible objections like this one.

Finally, I would like to address the possibility of the really bizarre people who just cannot agree with most reasonable people about what is pleasant and unpleasant to the senses. I would first assert that these people are rarer than you think. Think about the smell of ammonia, for instance. Almost no one would call that a pleasant smell. I would further argue that those who do either have a physical aberration or a seriously skewed perception due to a truly abnormal environmental factor. For example, maybe this person had parents who beat him. His only happiness was when he went to his aunt’s house to stay for a few days, and his aunt used an excessive amount of ammonia when cleaning. Thus, he developed a liking towards the scent even through his natural inclination is to hate it. I am not saying that people cannot be conditioned to have their senses react differently from their natural inclination; I am saying that there is a natural inclination which most reasonable people adhere to and would agree with when it comes to the judgment of sensory perception. This leads to an objective judgment.

To reiterate, I am suggesting that aesthetic beauty is objective. Whether or not something is considered aesthetically beautiful is a simple “yes or no” question, and should not involve judgments concerned with degrees of beauty. Degrees, I believe are subjective, because they are based on environmental factors that shape specific preferences of what characteristics are most preferred. Now I am not saying that this theory is perfect, but I think that it is an interesting idea, and a step in the right direction.

Now that I know the difference between Jam and Jelly due to a mysterious note left by someone at work (see below), why would anyone prefer Jelly over Jam, if given the option of choosing between the two?

Jelly: A soft, semisolid food substance with a resilient consistency, made by the setting of a liquid containing pectin or gelatin or by the addition of gelatin to a liquid, especially such a substance made of fruit juice containing pectin boiled with sugar

Jam: A preserve made from whole fruit boiled to a pulp with sugar.

I don’t smoke; I have never smoked; I will never smoke. Yet, I believe in a person’s right to smoke cigarettes if s/he chooses, so long as it does not offend those in a near enough proximity to be bothered by the secondhand smoke. I also believe that lawsuits that intend to sue the tobacco industry are just plain ridiculous. People have known for decades that smoking is harmful; yet, they choose to continue do so anyway. These days, as a kid you’re taught the dangers of smoking from like 2nd grade onwards.

Because cigarettes are clearly harmful, the tobacco industry has a guilty conscious about their product. Well, maybe they don’t, but they must want to make it appear to the public that they do. As a result, they have begun running these bizarre commercials that attempt to make the big tobacco companies look not all that bad. Let me explain in case you haven’t seen one.

I saw one the other night on TV. The commercial went like this. It showed a convenience store with magazines and a narrator said something to the effect of: “In an effort to prevent children from seeing our ads as easily, we have removed all tobacco ads from the back covers of magazines.” It may have mentioned some other efforts that they’ve made to be more socially conscious tobacco companies, whatever that means.

First of all, let’s talk for a minute about this specific commercial, and how stupid it is. Now tobacco ads aren’t on the back of magazine ads. Yet, can’t kids just open up the magazines and see them? I mean, kids under the age of 18 do to tend to read magazines that could potentially have cigarette ads – magazines like “People”, “Time”, “Rolling Stone”, etc. So what are they really accomplishing? And do any kids really decide to start smoking by seeing an ad on the back of a magazine that they do not purchase (and thus, do not open up to see the other ads inside)? That sounds extraordinarily far-fetched to me.

Okay, so that commercial was dumb. But what about these types of commercials in general? I have seen quite a few different kinds of commercials by the tobacco companies dedicated to trying to give them have a better name in the eyes of the public. I find this extremely odd.

Here’s why: They haven’t really changed anything. Okay, maybe they are making sure they aren’t marketing to children. Fine. But their product still kills people, and I think that’s the major objection that most people have towards the existence of tobacco companies, if they have an objection.

What I find strange is the fact that they are expressing some apologist sentiment, trying to show that they aren’t as immoral as you think, but then continuing to carry on doing something that almost all people consider extremely immoral – making a product that will kill people. A more flagrant example was a commercial I saw about how much money they give to charity every year, or something like that. Yes, they’re really good people, even if they do make a product that will kill you if you use it for long enough. Sure.

But as I mentioned, what if their efforts for this marketing was based solely on trying to convince people that they are no longer trying to get kids to smoke. I still don’t get it – alcohol commercials surely don’t try to prevent underage kids from seeing their advertisements. On the contrary, most teenagers love beer commercials. And yet, alcohol can be just as dangerous as cigarettes, and it is just as illegal for those younger than 21 to drink as it is for those younger than 18 to smoke. Yet, alcohol companies do not have this apologist attitude that the tobacco companies have. Sure they run a commercial about not drinking and driving every once in a while, but I don’t see them talking about killing brain cells or doing liver damage – which are actually the unavoidable effects of their product with long-term abuse.

So what’s my point? I think that the tobacco company is wasting their time and money with these commercials. If they aren’t proud of what they’re producing for consumers, then they should get out of the business. If they don’t care that their products are dangerous, then they shouldn’t bother with these asinine commercials. After all, those who are offended by tobacco companies aren’t going to suddenly start smoking because they see these commercials that partially apologize for the wrongs of the tobacco industry. (“Ya know Bob, those tobacco industries are really trying to do better. Maybe I’ll buy a pack of cigarettes tomorrow to see how I like them.”) So who exactly are they trying to impress? How is it going to help their business? If they continue this kind of behavior, wasting their resources and money, then they will end up driving themselves out of business without even needing help of the billion dollar frivolous lawsuits that seem to be providing a slow but certain death for their industry.

Why is it that so many activisty people (especially in New York City) smoke? Aren’t big bad firms like the tobacco companies exactly what they claim they are trying to stop?

You know, the other day I was walking down the street in Manhattan and something occurred to me: There are a lot of ugly-ass people. I’m not just talking about people who you’d rather not date because they’re only on the cusp of being attractive enough to date. I’m talking about genuinely mirror shattering, turn you into stone, aesthetically frightful, ultra homely people who are so ugly that no amount of alcohol would induce you to take them home because they look like their parents beat them with an ugly stick every day of their life.

I don’t know why I haven’t noticed how many ugly people there are before now, but DAMN. One possibility is that it’s a New York City thing. I actually wouldn’t be surprised if living in a northern city like this is harder on your physical appearance than living somewhere like, say, a suburb in South Florida. But then again, isn’t sun damage supposed to be bad for skin, i.e. making you ugly? And the sun damage is surely worse in a tropical climate than a northern one. So I suppose that this theory might not be correct.

So how did these people get so incredibly ugly? Could it have something to do with their quality of life being low? Like maybe malnutrition and/or lack of physical activity makes you ugly. Or maybe it’s just poor genetics. But I guess this raises the question of whether or not they were ugly-ass kids too. I find this plausible, but it’s surely hard to tell. I guess the only way to find out would be to start walking up to people who make my eyes hurt and ask: “So were you always this ugly, or did you get uglier as time went on?” Now there’s a good pick-up line to use in a bar.

Another way to figure this out, however, might be to see what approximate percentage of younger people is ugly compared to people, say 10 and then 20 years older than them. This seems plausible, but I could never do it, because it would involve staring at too many ugly people. It’s kind of like deciding which bathroom smells the worst. And it’s also kind of difficult to tell an ugly person’s age, because often times, ugly people look older. I’m not sure why that is, but it tends to be the case – think about it.

See the weird thing about ugly people is that you really can’t stop their proliferation. Even if you were to pass a law requiring the sterilization of ugly people, that wouldn’t do the trick. The reason for this is that I’ve seen some really attractive people with some really ugly-ass parents; I’ve also seen some really ugly-ass people with attractive parents. So it’s really a bizarre genetic outcome when it comes to attractiveness.

On one hand, it would make sense for ugly people to date and marry each other, because it would surely make more sense for two ugly people to end up together than an ugly person and a good looking person. Yet, is there anything more disgusting than seeing two ugly people making out in public? I mean, it’s totally obscene. I’d rather see an attractive gay couple making out in public than a truly ugly-ass heterosexual couple making out. It’s enough to cause someone to lose their lunch. So maybe they should marry each other, but only display their affection behind closed doors. That sounds like a good plan.

What can be done about the problem of ugly people in general? How can these ugly people stop marring the aesthetic splendor of the human form? Masks are one possibility; plastic surgery is definitely a step in the right direction; giving them their own island is an interesting idea. But sadly, these would all be fairly discriminatory. And yet, isn’t discrimination okay if it enhances the life of most people? Probably not, but what if?

(Environmentalists love trees; trees are used to make toilet paper; toilet paper is used to wipe one’s ass after expelling solid waste; if you wipe your ass with something after expelling solid waste, you must really hate that thing because it’s pretty nasty.)

How can environmentalists really claim to love trees if they wipe their asses with them?