February 4, 2012
I'm reading a lot about Autobiography, which is probably due to the fact that I have a class on the subject, and it turns out that there is very little in this world that is not autobiographical – at least in some context. I got the idea that the national flag, the concept of which rose during the era labelled as the "Rise of Nations," is, or can be, an autobiographical material. Its usage or means within a statement is an exemplification of the individual.
So what the hell does that mean? Or, better yet, why should anyone care? Welps, the citizen is separate from the state, bu is also a participant. As Rousseau more or less aid, the state represents the general will of these collected individuals, and so the flag is their manifested visual identity, rendered in a very simple and succinct way.
Being so straightforward and graphic, the flag can be altered to fit a ton of different formats (ie garments, stamps, patches, stickers, permutations specific to stations or branches of service). The flag is then carried by the citizen, who, as I just told, is an individual. The citizen continues to individualize the flag, altering it in his or her way. In a way, they further imbue the flag with manifest identity.
So I'm not saying the idea of the national flag is Autobiographical, or a statement of the individual. Rather, I'm suggesting that the flag starts as a collection of individual dreams, aspirations, and selves which are then applied to an idea, which is then put through a series of tubes, and is then rendered unto the common people, who then make it an Autobiographical statement.
A flag, in whichever way a person chooses to display it, is a symbol a single person's relationship to an identity equally as abstract as its own.
∼ Continue Reading ∼
• • •