Apple & Pear
"What you see is what you get" is a cliché that interests me. How true is it of people? How true is it of people who say this phrase about themselves? I don't have answers, I'm afraid. Today, I have questions.
The idea according to which we're all complicated complex layered human beings whose appearance may not reflect this state of affairs is one I thought true as far back as I can remember.
People talk and sometimes say something which is neither v intelligent nor desperately original, and yet one thinks to oneself "no, it can't be all, there's got to be more to her/him."
Similarly, whenever someone is consistently interesting, funny, all-good-things-etc, one tends to ask the Q: "what's the catch?" or say "if it's too good to be true, it probably is."
And yes I see the merit in this basic speculation vis-à-vis one's inner core, if you'll allow me this Cosmo-Elle-Marie Claire-ism.
But what's been bugging me is: what if one's appearance IS one's core? What if sometimes one's tendency to see something that isn't immediately visible is a fruitless exercise precisely because there's nothing else there?
If you can imagine removing someone's mask only to find the same thing underneath, over and over, ad infinitum, that's what I mean. Or that character Jim Carrey plays in The Mask-- at one point the mask is absorbed by his body and is no longer an "accessory", but a sort of second skin.
Imagine going to a costume party wearing a mask of... your own face.
Why must there always be something else under the scratch card?
I've been finding more and more that ppl's masks are not only an 'incomplete' representation or manifestation of their inner cores, but that, often, much more frequently than I'd previously allowed for, if you scratch the surface you find either nothing under it or you find a larger sample of what is manifest on the surface. Perhaps the example par excellence of what I mean is Michael Jackson. He turned his face into what he perceived himself to be inside, and yet, looking at him, one of the first thoughts that come to me is: he isn't only his appearance. But isn't he his appearance, too? And why are appearances considered as less relevant in the order of things? And I don't even mean it in a superficial way.
3 comments:
Is it possible to be witty and urbane all of the time? I think not. Original thoughts, concepts, sentences are rare I would think given the propensity that someone else, prior, has had the same thought or concept, or compiled those words together in that particular order. But the original premise eludes to a depth of persona that evades the eye to give one a dimensional quality. The efficacy of that premise, and more idioms eluding to it, are to reinforce the notion that we should look beyond the cover. Are there those that cease past the dermis? Sadly, there are. Vain and empty shells whose only purpose is to exist solely on the premise of appearance. Hence another cliché, “all show, no go.” You can look like a lot of things; Statesman, Soldier, Author, Poet, Doctor, Lawyer, Nurse, Baker, Butcher, Engineer. But to actually be those things, is something else altogether. If you scratch the surface and there is an infinite void beneath, then you have your answer. If you scratch the surface and substance begins to ooze forth, then you have found your answer. But it is situational and it will depend on the individual who is scratched. As for Michael Jackson, he transformed his appearance into the image he held for himself. And as with most things it seems, he didn’t improve on nature. We are what we are, for better or worse. Some more, some less, than others. But that is what is unique about us as a species; the differences. We can hold the depth of our convictions, dedications, and passions, despite the housing. But you can’t tell by simply looking. You have to probe and look beyond that façade. You might be disappointed with what you find, if you were expecting something different. So we must keep the mind of an investigator in our analysis of and let the investigation take us where it wants, without jumping ahead, making presumptions, or drawing unsupported conclusions.
Yes; but really, here I'm only talking about one's physical appearance insofar as it becomes a manifestation of one's core (MichaelJackson). My curiosity is about how ppl appear to be, their personalities, what they show of themselves.
Ah. In that regard then, I would say it's truly impossible to actually know someone until you live with them. Otherwise, we only get minute glimpses.
Post a Comment