NOTICE: PLEASE WIPE YOUR FATE (thank you)

(WARNING: AUTHOR HAS NO IDEA WHERE THIS BLOGPOST MAY GO, SO PREPARE YOUR "IM OFFENDED" FACES)

        Thinking about it now, wouldn't it be fantastic if our lives were already pre-written? and there was a way we could find out exactly what was going to happen to us? I can just imagine it now.... (cue thought bubble) walking into your local fate clinic (similar to a doctors office),  Taking a seat in the colourfully painted, overly sanitary, crying infant-filled waiting room. Filling out your proof of insurance form (Im assuming fate would probably be some form of preventive care), and then waiting for your turn to see the fateologist. and waiting. and waiting. AND WAITING. Ironically wasting a good chunk of your life to see your future. Finally! The fateologist will see you now. This fateologist (probably some older man (or woman) with wrinkly but firm hands) hooks you up to the fateomotron via suction diddleys and doodleys placed on your chest, also perhaps an ice cream stick looking gadgeridoo that slides (uncomfortably) into your mouth. All in the name of accurate fate prediction. Suddenly, your fate appears on the large fateomotron ocular presentation device (also known as a screen) 

Oh my god!! its you waiting for your more predictions! What a future you've  got ahead of you!!

  Now that that extremely anticlimactic, and seemingly pointless intros over, time to move onto the meat of the post. 

       Fate is not something I think about often, but when i do, i get pretty heated about it. So be prepared. 

      The concept of Fate is something described in many different mythologies/ religions as some higher judgement (not implying that religion is mythology) (just trying to look out for my hide) but anyone can craft a fate for someone else. Take the witches in macbeth for example, they could just be some decrepit looking old hags that love toying with youthful, muscleheads. There was no evidence to their claim. So when they presented Macbeths so called "fate" to him (murdering king duncan), The docile Macbeth, who hadn't even thought of putting the sharp end of blade anywhere near, let alone murdering the king, was now convinced that he was going to murder the king and that it was unavoidable. The idea had become firmly "planted" in his head. 

The witches could have said anything at all from reading a good book, to eating a pile of cats for dinner, it doesn't matter. Once the idea of unavoidable fate was planted in his mind, he was inclined to go about making decisions towards fulfilling his pseudo-mind-implanted-fate. 

TL;DR Fate is not real, it is simply the very human power of suggestion

      Keeping my latest conclusion in mind, I do not believe that shakespeare believed in fate. True, he was from a time where witches, magic and all thinks supernatural existed. But in the story, while macbeth learnt of his crowny-throney-king of glamis-fate, so did banquos son. Why would two different people receive the same fate? Alright, alright that could happen maybe. but Banquos son never did become King. Surely if it was his fate and fate was 100% supernatural superstition (supernaturastition) He would've became king eventually. Conclusion? Shakespeare did not believe in fate.
(unless im missing some facts that may invalidate this entire paragraph, and if so, please leave some harshly worded criticism in the comment section)

(Youve made it to the last paragraph congratulations!)

    Well here it is, the personal connection paragraph. Time for my official stance on the matter. . But first, ill write this disclaimer just incase i go on a semi offensive tangent. (You never know) Is everyone disclaimed? Good.

    Moving on: As for me, I used to be a big chinese food eater (Actually that was a lie i still am) anyway, when ever my family and i would gather around the dining room table for the eating of said chinese we would make it a ceremony to read out our fortune cookies. Going around the table each of us would individually unwrap our fortune cookies and read for the rest of the eager beavers at the table. After each reading, my mother would immediately jump on each of the fates and relate them to your life, for example if my fate was "Money will be the way of lint this month" (in your pocket) She would say ooh! its so right! you'll be receiving pocket money soon! or ooh! your birthdays only in 8 and 3/4 months! She would also bring up the fortune every single time me or money was involved in anything. She thoroughly believed the fate prescribed by this almighty fortune cookie. I was along with it myself, truly some divine power with an omniscient knowledge of everything and anything had crafted this mystical cookie. But no fortune cookie could predict me, whilst strolling past a shop in asheville, witness a local man typing out fortune cookies on his macbook. Was this the conductor? the controller? the almighty omniscient being of lore?

Nope.
This was a just a person. A person who gets up every morning and (hopefully) puts on a new pair of underwear like me, a person that loves a good back-scratch like me, a person that thoroughly enjoys the movie "pulp fiction" (who doesnt) like me.

     Now i dont know if this man was a prophet scribe, or had some inside Nostradamus-esque visions, but this man was controlling people like my mother with these "fates" that he was prescribing. It made me realize that changing a persons view on their life is as easy as typing a prediction, and anonymously sliding it in a cookie for them to open, contemplate, and apply to their own life. This power, "the power of suggestion" is a brilliant thing in that way.

     Drawing upon my past conclusion from previous paragraphs, Yes, i beleive fate is a completely manmade construction. But that does not mean it is an all bad thing. When presented with a Fate, in the end, is what YOU make of it, if YOU are presented with a negative one YOU have two choices, either accept your negative prescribed fate and just let it happen. Or YOU try to change your fate for the better.

(drags soapbox slowly and clumsily offstage)

Give me a (paintbrush) long enough and a (canvas) on which to place it, and I will (paint) the world. - (ART)imedes (This is a blogpost about Art)

Step 1: walk through entire exhibit.

          As I walked through that entire exhibit (Which exhibit was not identified in the question so i'm just assuming the entire museum) (Btw NOT TRYING to make a dig on any of Mrs Gs instructions) I was astounded by the use of various mediums. Modern art can be expressed through so many different forms and technologies that new styles of art, much like a faceful of pubescent zits, seem to pop up almost overnight. I found many of the art pieces combining 21st century technology like video and live cameras and digital surround sound to be extremely entertaining and innovative, and serve as a brilliant way to captivate the minds of people (young children, angsty Teenagers not in class)  who arent necessarily interested in staring at a canvas or statue for more than 5 seconds. So congratulations columbian artists. 

       The feeling I got from this "entire exhibit" was not a jovial one. Like many modern-day-pieces of art depicting real life, there was a sense of being unhappy with the world around us. I think this is due to the self evaluating/reflecting nature of the current generation. Constantly examining the faults in the world (such as loss of cultural identity and assimilation or climate change) leaves you (anybody) feeling quite morose for the future. The use of washed out colours and grayscale emphasizes this.

Step 2: (If you havent bawled your eyes out yet)

     I chose to examine Stacey L. Kirbys PARTicipate. I found this to be by far the most interesting piece as it was an interactive, performance (interactaformance) piece (or performative interaction piece if your name is Stacey L. Kirby) 

Step 3: The Analysis

(BEN citation): PARTicipate - Stacey L. Kirby - furniture and performers (medium) - Varying depending on location (size)

          The "piece" is quite modern in style, making an attempt to emulate those bureaucratic offices that we know and love. Although it is "modern" it is not too modern. The multitude of technology used in the actual piece is from all different ages of bureaucracy. There are typewriters from the 50s and radios, clocks and time stamps from all across the 20th century. This makes pinpointing the actual time period of this piece quite difficult. So im just going to say its "modern" (in other words, its from the grey-office-building-cubicle-generation).
      The subject of the piece would be the declaration of your on-person belongings. To elaborate, The woman in the exhibit handed out notary slips that the "viewer" or "audience" (you) would then list their (your) personal belongings and place the slip in a well organized bureaucratic file cabinet.
The idea behind this declaration was to have people think about what they have on their person at all times. This could be your wallet, your socks, belly button lint, 2014 AFI list of the top 250 movies, and for someone who really wants to engage the main idea/concept. Something ideological.
This leads me to the main idea/concept. The main idea was to declare what ideas/ experiences made you unique from the rest of the people in that room.  (I realize that there were other things going on in the room at the time, with other main ideas but i didn't ask questions/partake in those. Also i dont want to write an E-book on this. Saying that, I should probably stop typing this side note)
This "style" of interactaformance involving the audience writing things on paper while actors act a part is not a new concept by any means (Just think about any theme park where people dress up in those less than sanitary character costumes) but it is an interesting and artistic take on it.

Step 4: (Final part i promise)

This piece seems to have many different layers of meaning to it, making for a rather wordy summarization. (hint hint) We all know about the concept of declaring our "personal belongings" making us consider our preconceived biases, our characters, our histories, and all other things we "bring" into the room. However, This concept is only one part of the big idea. Other aspects of this "big idea" include the entire look of the room. Its all bureaucratic and cubicle-y. This cubicalness serves as a bit of a protest against the common desk job and the loss of individuality. By having us declare our personalities in the most un-creative fashion possibleand assigning us a registry number to represent us, it illustrates how de-individualizing modern day business culture is. and therefore showing how unimportant and meaningless modern culture makes us. A thought that makes any modern day office-working, swivel-chair-sitting baby boomer shed an oh-so tiny tear from their dull, dull eyes.

So the message Stacey L. Kirbys trying to portray? All work and no play makes Jack (or Jill) a dull boy (or girl).
And on that jovial note, good night.