On Lawyering, Intelligence, and Quitting Art School

I met Ben, who used to be provide random debate coaching support back when I was an itty bitty debater in yellow, at Drew&Napier! But then again, considering how much of the debating population graduates into the legal service - probably not another Act of God.

Increasingly, I'm feeling like lawyering isn't too different from debating - the knowing that victory may be divorced from truth. Distance from my mentor (I've been outsourced to other lawyers!), whose discipline pervades space like a glowing halo, makes me feel that this industry is dark. Everybody somewhat lies, and the side that presents itself best wins. I felt that a little too strongly for comfort at the High Courts today, and it makes me wonder if Justice belongs to this world. I vow never to flex my intellectual muscles with ill intent.

Many of us from this educational and social circle, myself included and especially, graduated to find that our "grades and intelligence were secondary" in the real world. But in the courts today, Philip Jeyaratnam (double firsts from Cambridge) and his team of elite lawyers, together with pedigree Mr Ong Tze Boon, cross-examined a team of (poly graduate) designers, who paled in every aspect of analysis, eloquence and sharpness. It was very obvious that intelligence mattered. Very much. I believe the reason why so many of us fresh graduates were so impressed is because we did not realise just how small a minority we are. And since we were being shown a culture vastly different from our experience, the shocking contrast made us give too much focus to it. The world is made up of intelligent and not-so-intelligent people, I know now. And both have their places in the world.

Lim Tzu, a woman who retired to smell the flowers, asked me today after class why I wasn't going to pursue literature, film, theatre, art (I think she meant the Arts in general) further. After two lessons, she already found it strange (as everyone else has) that I proclaimed my plans to study Law so firmly. I swear I never told her about my Arts-Law dilemma - I guess I'm just too readable. I found that I no longer needed to scour for an answer. I will enjoy studying law. As my mentor puts it, Law is no rocket science, but it does require a specific disposition. I have that disposition. I suppose I am multi-talented :P

Sometimes I find it easier to pretend to be a struggling, suffering artist oppressed by social expectations, and wail that my parents would kick me out of the house if I choose to pursue Art instead. I still suspect my parents will not disappoint, but I know now that isn't my reason. But it is difficult to explain to someone that you also enjoy academic rigour and professional discipline. It will be tedious and trying sometimes, I have no doubt, but any self-respecting artist will tell you that Art (in fact, any other profession) is no bed of roses either.

Contrary to all expectations, I am now more sure than ever that I will always write and make art. Turning away from formal art education is not synonymous to turning away from art. I agree that for the artistic talent to be nurtured, it requires study, and there are great benefits to be reaped from an education in Tisch or Goldsmith etc. But to flourish, all it needs is dedication - in leaving school, leaving the co-erced discipline of formal (art) education, I have found that the very way I live is already inextricable from Art. I am practicing every single day of my life. And it helps that the increasing number of intensive, professional courses now available to the public keep me on my toes until I can find time to put on my mortar hat and lock myself up in a garret.

But I know one thing for certain - I will enjoy my life.