Another point in the usage of the rock as a symbol is the understanding that it is both a very unique and very generic object. As much as I intend for the work to be separate from a personal experience of work I believe these symbols represent a crucial part of identity, the need for individuality and the want to fit in. And at a grander scale this contrast is part of the unique problem fueling the divide in American politics. I recently read a great article in The Atlantic about the idea that stated
"The larger context of this isolation and alienation is America’s culture of individualism. It, too, can worsen the despair. Taken to an extreme, self-reliance becomes a cudgel: Those who falter and fail have only themselves to blame. They should have gotten more education. They should have been more prepared. On this score, too, the U.S. deviates from other wealthy nations. America’s frontier spirit of rugged individualism is strong, and it manifests itself differently by race and education level, too.""
This problem is also inherently the backbone of the american southern community, ( and I will only speak of my personal culture as the larger context of Mexican/Hispanic/Black/Asian cultures are something that should be spoken about from the individual culture in question) are generations of farmers and homesteaders who's belief was that failure is a result of only themselves to blame. This rugged individualism as the author states is in large part a catalyst for feelings of isolation and alienation which leads the individuals to support parties and candidates that pander towards that. It is interesting that Rocks occupy this space, the rugged individualism of an individual rock, that is the pattern or the design, the mineral composite, the shade and texture is obvious on further examination but the original understanding of a rock is usually in context of a large grouping.
I feel to some degree the urge as both an artist and an individual to separate myself along these lines. To blend in and then to stand out when the time is decided. The initial contrast of plant life and rock life was a contrast of different perceptions of similar ideas of memory, but also different ideas of emotional understanding and different ideas of personal experience. These differences when paired together make a very unique and wonderful experience, they create a dynamic landscape (be it emotional, political, academic, ect) that encompasses a variety of different ideas.
When people complain about the idea of american politics having a two party system and being un available to a third distinct party I feel they miss the importance of our two party system, the evolution of the two party system is surely political and economic, but at the same time it's inherently cultural. The creation of that system is and was dependent on our cultural evolution. There was no need for the formation of a separate third party because the american people by and large fit into 1 of 2 major categories of believing. This should not be taken lightly, the idea that such a large percentage of the country can be described by a 2 party system and fit so rigidly in those boundaries is both interesting and frighting.
The formation of any third party is only created on the outskirts of the main party. extreme left or right. Interesting enough a party of middleground is not the party that people accept or demand when they expect a third party. It is usually talked about as a further entrenchment of extreme right wing or left wing ideology. (IE tea party, libertarian, green party, democratic socialist) but just as the combination of rocks and plant life create a beautiful composition and landscape the combination of both ideologies would bring us into a completely new and bright political landscape.