spring exhibition - movement

i probably didn't really tell you that at last i found a group of creative people to hang out with. it's weird,  i'm no longer compelled in the same way to share every aspect of my analogue life here (probably because i spend a lot less time alone in a hotel room). but i have indeed found a group of creative people to spend time with. yesterday, i helped out with setting up for the spring exhibition, which takes place today. i mostly helped out by photographing the process and then sharing it on facebook and encouraging people to attend.

i don't have anything of my own in the exhibition. i have to admit that since the vast majority of the group are painters, i didn't feel like anything i might have contributed would fit. i hadn't really seen one of their exhibitions before, so i also wanted to get the lay of the land before jumping in. that, and i've been very busy with work-related things of late. i know. that's quite a collection of excuses. but suffice it to say that i didn't feel ready to be part of the exhibition this time around.

but i will be the next time. because if there's one thing that i learned, it's that there is an enormous variety of styles involved. the theme this time around is "movement" (bevægelse), so i could easily have contributed photos of horse feet, nicely framed. i also had an idea of making a whole lot of teeny tiny origami birds and hanging them by threads, so that they would move when people passed by. but all of the writing i've been doing this week on various projects and proposals prevented that idea from materializing.  (hmm, there's those excuses again.) i am content to be the official event photographer.

there are talented painters and some less talented, but what's common to all is that they dare to show their work and that the group is open to everyone's level. all of the works were cheerfully accepted and something positive was seen in all of them. they have been carefully hung to their best advantage and today, there will be a reception where friends, family and the whole town can come and have a look. they represent a diversity of styles and passions and i find it comforting to be involved with a group where there is room and a welcoming spirit for all. it's so refreshing and it's what this whole culture house thing is really about.

next year, i'm definitely going to show some of my work too. who knows, maybe i'll even paint something!

welcome to denmark, now shut up and eat your smørrebrød

there are a lot of things i don't understand.

like how if slightly older men present something and you ask questions about it, they try, almost immediately, to write you off as a.) a woman, b.) a foreigner and if those don't work, c.) a bitch. you are present at the meeting on the same footing as they are and should therefore have the same rights they do to be part of the process and ask questions. in fact, that's the whole idea. the idea is to have a well thought-through decision made, based on good information and good arguments. and not just hand the design of the building to the chairman of the group. (or have i somehow misunderstood?)

i also have trouble understanding how someone can go on and on about the fabulous design of a new library/culture house in copenhagen and then when it's discussed that the group go to look at such buildings in other towns, and you suggest the much-praised building, the whole room recoils in horror. because it's in...(gasp) copenhagen. and that's (gasp) on the devil's island, which may as well be the moon, or possibly the very inner circle of hell.

and further, i utterly fail to grasp how someone can say, when you are in fact, an immigrant, that the aforementioned building (which he brought up in the first place) isn't relevant because it has to serve (gasp) immigrants. and i should note that the word "immigrant" - invanderer - in danish has taken on an extremely negative connotation in the past decade.

one more thing i fail to grasp is how you can fail to bring enough copies of a really important document to the meeting, when you know ahead of time precisely how many people will be attending the meeting. and how when you, in fact, are ONE copy short, you are entirely unapologetic about it and when asked, at the end of the meeting, if you're going to send a copy to the person who didn't get one, you refer to her as an "old witch" to her face. 

so let's review - i'm an old witch of a damn foreigner.

welcome to denmark.

but to get serious for a moment, why on earth is it even still possible more than a decade into the 21st century, for men to be able to write off the intelligent questions of an intelligent woman and brand her a bitch for asking them? and what can we (and by we i mean me) do about it?

edited:  this makes me feel so much better. thank odin for the new york times.

democracy is ugly

as an american, it shouldn't surprise me that democracy is ugly, i have but to harken back to the 2000 election and the hanging chads and the wrong guy ending up sitting in the oval office, book held upside down, reading to small florida children on september 11. but aside from eating pickled eggs in a dingy bar in wagner, south dakota while my dad campaigned for the state legislature as a child, i've not really been that involved in democracy first hand (other than as a chicago voter, where it's a tradition to vote as many times as you want). by which i'm trying to say that i've never run for office.

so it was a bit of an experience last week when i presented myself as a candidate for a new board that will create a new "culture house" here in the little town where i live. the new board was created at a public meeting, where the by-laws that are to govern it were read and approved by those assembled. after the by-laws were approved by the assembly of interested local citizens, paper was handed around and everyone could nominate the candidates they wished to be on the board. then, all of the names were put up in a powerpoint and the people who were present got the chance to say whether they wanted to be on the board or not. a good 30+ names were on the list and after people had had their say, it was whittled down to ten. with a board consisting of 7 people and 2 alternates, this meant that nearly everyone who wanted to be on the board would be, in fact, only one person would be left out.

everyone who remained got a chance to stand up, introduce themselves to the assembled 75 people and give a little campaign speech. i went 3rd to last and will admit my heart was pounding by the time it was my turn. not only did i have to suddenly speak in front of 74 people, only a handful of which i knew, but i had to do so in a language not my own. i probably made some small mistakes (those et/en are impossible in danish), but i felt i conveyed what i wanted to say with a sufficient level of charm. and i must have, because i was elected - in fact, when they announced the results, they read my name first, which was nice, because then there was no waiting on pins and needles to see if i had been chosen. (oh, the horror of rejection!)

but throughout the evening, as points were debated during the reading (and adjusting) of the by-laws, i observed that when it comes down to it, people are actually pretty pissy about democracy. those in the majority are impatient with the petty concerns of the minority and the minority are grumbling aloud that they're not really being heard.

as you all know, earlier this year, i joined the local group that plans the activities and events that are going on in the local culture house. i did so because i want there to be stuff going on in my local community. no less than 5 members of this group presented themselves for election (including myself) that evening. two of them had been part of the planning all along and had been part of writing the preliminary by-laws. i had been asked by several different parties before the meeting to present myself as a candidate and the other two just volunteered that evening, out of interest.

as it happened, myself and the two who had been involved were elected. one of the other two became an alternate and the last one was the lone person not elected that evening. this leaves a bad taste in the mouths of those who were ostensibly the losers. they feel that democracy failed them - they're looking for ways in which the election wasn't fair. there were even tears. and one decided to pack his toys and go home - leaving the activity-planning group as well after not being selected for the new group.

which leaves me feeling that people ultimately don't trust the democratic system. it was in place, it functioned, people ran,  people won and people lost. and the losers looked for some way in which it wasn't fair and the cards were stacked against them. they didn't use the opportunity to reflect, they just cried and quit (respectively). they didn't at all let the light of democracy shine on them and say, "hmm, why was it that i wasn't chosen?" which leads me back to the notion that democracy is basically an ugly thing.