Friday, 25 April 2008
Girl: #7
keep your room clean; keep your bathroom clean; don't leave papers lying around; don't leave books where they can get wet; don't smack your gum; don't chew with your mouth open; be nice to your sister; do your homework; eat all the food on your plate; remember what you have to bring; take your dishes to the sink; tie your shoe; brush your teeth; don't pick your nose; don't stay up late; this is how you make noodles; this is how you make eggs; this is how you do the laundry; this is how you wash the table; sweep the floor; be polite to people you don't know; tie your other shoe; keep up, don't wander off; don't lose your temper even when the other person deserves it; bring your dirty clothes up, don't leave them on the floor; don't talk back; this is how you sit at a fancy restaurant; speak clearly; get up on time; keep your shower clean; don't tell secrets; don't pick fights; don't give in to peer pressure; don't buy things you don't need; this is how you use the oven; this is how you braid your hair; write legibly; don't smoke; don't do drugs; listen when I talk to you; don't spend all day on the computer; wash the cheese off the bowls; respect others; don't draw on yourself; wear your bands; wear your retainer; just kill the spider, it won't hurt you
Wednesday, 16 April 2008
''Manliness''
Even according to Mansfield's definition of manliness, then no, it and sensitivity are not incompatible. Mansfield defines manliness as 'gallant', 'protective', 'courageous', 'aggressive', 'confident', 'frank'. He defines sensitivity as understanding and sympathizing with other's mindsets. The two definitions are not mutually exclusive. Nowhere does it say that you can't be both, say, sympathetic and courageous, or understanding and confident. The word aggressive might be a little more difficult to be along with sensitive. Of course, that doesn't mean all men are both 'manly' and sensitive. Look at Eustace Conway. He fits the definition of manly. He can be gallant (charming, courteous) if he chooses. He's protective of the environment and of his land and ideas. He's courageous-you don't go fighting with wild animals unless you are. He's definitely confident and aggressive, and he's also direct and honest- frank. However, he's not sensitive. He doesn't understand people, especially women, and how to understand and get along with them. He can't sympathize with anyone- he think if everyone acts like him, then all will be well and doesn't understand that not everyone is like him. So, while manliness and sensitivity according to Mansfield can be traits of the same person, they don't have to be.
The Last American Man
Gilbert believes that Eustace is the last American man because he lives in the way that traditionally is defined as the true role of American men. He lives in the wild, carving his way to what he wants through strength, self-sufficiency and guile. In the past, that's what defined an American man- when he went out west and built a log house and ate deer and fought off bandits. Literally, men don't do that anymore. Figuratively, some still do- their strength is in maybe athletics, their self-sufficiency isn't literal but motivational or financial (they rely on themselves to find their way in life and pay for it) and their intelligence is in a college degree or a career skill. But not everyone does this and not everyone thinks of it as similar to the pioneer man.
Thursday, 3 April 2008
Tocqueville
According to Tocqueville, the Americans make their women 'equal' by protecting and assuming they (women) are virtuous and give them separate roles in life*. He says that men should be heads of households and do physical labor and politics and business, but women are equal because they do housework and nothing else. He also describes in detail how American women are equal because they are virtuous and American men keep them that way because it makes them morally equal. He says that on the contrary, Europeans don't respect women's virtue (he talks about rape cases here) and that in Europe men easily are influenced by women while women like to pretend to be weak. (At least, I think that's what he says. That whole paragraph confused me).
*Something odd I thought of while writing this- when I was writing that sentence, I almost wrote and so they make them separate but equal and then I realized that that was the reasoning stated behind segregation practices way back when. So. I just found that interesting.
*Something odd I thought of while writing this- when I was writing that sentence, I almost wrote and so they make them separate but equal and then I realized that that was the reasoning stated behind segregation practices way back when. So. I just found that interesting.
Fairy Tale
The story I chose is the real, not Disneyfied version of the Little Mermaid. The value I got out of it while thinking about it wasn't exactly gender-specific in my mind, but I suppose it might be to others.
Anyway, the real version is not at all like the Disney version. The mermaid has to marry the prince to achieve an immortal soul or die. Then at the last moment, she gets an option- to kill the prince and live for 3 hundred years without such a soul. She chooses to die and because of her good deeds becomes a 'daughter of the air' and has to serve 3 hundred years doing good deeds. Then she will get a soul.
The value, or sort of value, I got from this was - be a good person and all will turn out (mostly) all right in the end, even if not completely, or not the way you thought it would. It turned out all right for her- after 3 hundred years she gets half her deepest wish- to get a soul. The story is sad, but it doesn't have a completely sad ending. I didn't think that when I was a little kid and read it, but I see it now. I think that sentiment applies to all fairy tales and so forth, though. We discussed this in class, too. When you are a little kid, you don't analyze anything. You just read/watch/listen to whatever story it is and are usually entertained by it. Anyway, I sort of disagree with what I learned from it. Things don't turn out all right just because you are a good person. But that's what the story is saying.
Anyway, the real version is not at all like the Disney version. The mermaid has to marry the prince to achieve an immortal soul or die. Then at the last moment, she gets an option- to kill the prince and live for 3 hundred years without such a soul. She chooses to die and because of her good deeds becomes a 'daughter of the air' and has to serve 3 hundred years doing good deeds. Then she will get a soul.
The value, or sort of value, I got from this was - be a good person and all will turn out (mostly) all right in the end, even if not completely, or not the way you thought it would. It turned out all right for her- after 3 hundred years she gets half her deepest wish- to get a soul. The story is sad, but it doesn't have a completely sad ending. I didn't think that when I was a little kid and read it, but I see it now. I think that sentiment applies to all fairy tales and so forth, though. We discussed this in class, too. When you are a little kid, you don't analyze anything. You just read/watch/listen to whatever story it is and are usually entertained by it. Anyway, I sort of disagree with what I learned from it. Things don't turn out all right just because you are a good person. But that's what the story is saying.
Emerson on Nature
I know we were only supposed to do 2 lines, but I have sort of a lot, because Emerson writes the longest, most drawn-out flowery phrases for the simplest things. Anyway:
So. Basically Emerson is saying that you should remake the world the way you want it- rid it of bad things and eveil things- and rule nature (because you are nature, if one takes into account what he says before in the essay.) in a good way. Now, what first struck me about this is the bolded part. It reminds me of global warming and how different Emerson sees the warming and 'greening' of the world than (some) people do today. This is most likely because of science and so forth, but I still found it interesting. He thinks when snow melts and bad things recede (odd how he says swine- doesn't that mean pigs?-don't people eat pigs?-is he a vegetarian?) then good things will fill in everything. Now, we are more scientifically savvy and know that when you remove or alter part of a system (eco or otherwise) it alters good things as well- we all have niches we must fill. Most specifically, this applies to his statement of 'swine, spiders, snakes, pests'. Also, he assumes that if man desires and achieves a certain amount of control (or coexistence) with nature and thus himself, he'll get rid of crime. This makes it seem as if he believes in the innate goodness of human nature. Something I disagree with.Anyway, this whole passage is about man fixing things to make it better- it is my opinion that he should just leave it as it is- it is better that way.
As fast as you conform your life to the pure idea in your mind, that will unfold its great proportions. A correspondent revolution in things will attend the influx of the spirit. So fast will disagreeable appearances, swine, spiders, snakes, pests, madhouses, prisons, enemies, vanish; they are temporary and shall be no more seen. The sordor and filths of nature, the sun shall dry up, and the wind exhale. As when the summer comes from the south; the snow-banks melt, and the face of the earth becomes green before it, so shall the advancing spirit create its ornaments along its path, and carry with it the beauty it visits, and the song which enchants it; it shall draw beautiful faces, warm hearts, wise discourse, and heroic acts, around its way, until evil is no more seen. The kingdom of man over nature, which cometh not with observation, -- a dominion such as now is beyond his dream of God,-- he shall enter without more wonder than the blind man feels who is gradually restored to perfect sight.'
So. Basically Emerson is saying that you should remake the world the way you want it- rid it of bad things and eveil things- and rule nature (because you are nature, if one takes into account what he says before in the essay.) in a good way. Now, what first struck me about this is the bolded part. It reminds me of global warming and how different Emerson sees the warming and 'greening' of the world than (some) people do today. This is most likely because of science and so forth, but I still found it interesting. He thinks when snow melts and bad things recede (odd how he says swine- doesn't that mean pigs?-don't people eat pigs?-is he a vegetarian?) then good things will fill in everything. Now, we are more scientifically savvy and know that when you remove or alter part of a system (eco or otherwise) it alters good things as well- we all have niches we must fill. Most specifically, this applies to his statement of 'swine, spiders, snakes, pests'. Also, he assumes that if man desires and achieves a certain amount of control (or coexistence) with nature and thus himself, he'll get rid of crime. This makes it seem as if he believes in the innate goodness of human nature. Something I disagree with.Anyway, this whole passage is about man fixing things to make it better- it is my opinion that he should just leave it as it is- it is better that way.
Friday, 21 March 2008
Art
I found it very difficult to find an art piece I 'connect' with, simply because I can't connect with pictures. My mind works in words- I can relate to writing, but pictures are just, well, pictures. Just images, just colours (or hues, if black and white and gray) on a surface. Sculpture is sort of the same. I admire people who can create art- but I can't connect with it. Therefore, I have chosen this piece:
I have no emotional connection to this painting. It does bring a memory to mind. My art teacher once told us that a famous artist (I forget who) drew a dot on a blank sheet and it sold for millions of dollars. At the time, I didn't really think much about it- I was more concerned with chewing on my fingernails. Now, it strikes me as unfair that normal people scorn the idea of buying a dot and that normal people wouldn't be able to do that. The things fame can do for you seem unfair. Even the disadvantages of fame (paparazzi, etc.) can't counteract all the good things it can do. Rich or famous? some people ask. The obvious answer is that if you're famous, it's easy to get rich (unless you're famous for being Gandhi or you're posthumously famous). When you're rich, unless you're also famous, it's not as easy to get famous, unless you're VERY rich. Wealth has degrees.
Also, I think it's a sign of my disconnect from the artistic world, that I was scornful of and amused at the description of the picture, which reads:
Newman proclaimed Onement, I to be his artistic breakthrough, giving the work an importance belied by its modest size. This is the first time the artist used a vertical band to define the spatial structure of his work. This band, later dubbed a "zip," became Newman's signature mark. The artist applied the light cadmium red zip atop a strip of masking tape with a palette knife. This thick, irregular band on the smooth field of Indian Red simultaneously divides and unites the composition.
I noticed several things. First: how on earth is a line on a page an artistic breakthrough? Anyone, even me, with no artistic talent, could do that. Second, it says 'belied by its modest size'. Size? Not belied by its simplicity, but its size? To me, that's very strange, that small paintings could be considered less important, but lines are not. Third, I find it very silly that people honour this painting for being the first to have a vertical line in it. Also, the last sentence seems overanalytical and also very silly. A line 'simultaneously divides and unites the composition'? Of course it divides: the page in half. You'd have to be stretching to get the unites though. Or at least, that's how it seems to me.
I suppose you could continue to wax philosophical about it: say it represents a small part of a larger, hidden or secret whole, that it represents contrast and simplicity....etc. To me, though, it represents my general confusion, disinterest and (occasionally) scorn at art.
(And I wrote a lot about nothing, too, it seems)
I have no emotional connection to this painting. It does bring a memory to mind. My art teacher once told us that a famous artist (I forget who) drew a dot on a blank sheet and it sold for millions of dollars. At the time, I didn't really think much about it- I was more concerned with chewing on my fingernails. Now, it strikes me as unfair that normal people scorn the idea of buying a dot and that normal people wouldn't be able to do that. The things fame can do for you seem unfair. Even the disadvantages of fame (paparazzi, etc.) can't counteract all the good things it can do. Rich or famous? some people ask. The obvious answer is that if you're famous, it's easy to get rich (unless you're famous for being Gandhi or you're posthumously famous). When you're rich, unless you're also famous, it's not as easy to get famous, unless you're VERY rich. Wealth has degrees.
Also, I think it's a sign of my disconnect from the artistic world, that I was scornful of and amused at the description of the picture, which reads:
Newman proclaimed Onement, I to be his artistic breakthrough, giving the work an importance belied by its modest size. This is the first time the artist used a vertical band to define the spatial structure of his work. This band, later dubbed a "zip," became Newman's signature mark. The artist applied the light cadmium red zip atop a strip of masking tape with a palette knife. This thick, irregular band on the smooth field of Indian Red simultaneously divides and unites the composition.
I noticed several things. First: how on earth is a line on a page an artistic breakthrough? Anyone, even me, with no artistic talent, could do that. Second, it says 'belied by its modest size'. Size? Not belied by its simplicity, but its size? To me, that's very strange, that small paintings could be considered less important, but lines are not. Third, I find it very silly that people honour this painting for being the first to have a vertical line in it. Also, the last sentence seems overanalytical and also very silly. A line 'simultaneously divides and unites the composition'? Of course it divides: the page in half. You'd have to be stretching to get the unites though. Or at least, that's how it seems to me.
I suppose you could continue to wax philosophical about it: say it represents a small part of a larger, hidden or secret whole, that it represents contrast and simplicity....etc. To me, though, it represents my general confusion, disinterest and (occasionally) scorn at art.
(And I wrote a lot about nothing, too, it seems)
End
What is Wright’s realization at the end of the novel? Do you agree with it?
His realization is that he has to try and explain what he's been through and try to make people realize what is going on and unite them to fix it. He also realizes he's basically on his own to do this because no one else sees the world the way he does. He thinks that this is a struggle maybe a lot of people go through, though he doesn't know any. Do I agree that he should do this? Of course. He shouldn't just give in to the system. No one should, if they believe they can do something about it.
His realization is that he has to try and explain what he's been through and try to make people realize what is going on and unite them to fix it. He also realizes he's basically on his own to do this because no one else sees the world the way he does. He thinks that this is a struggle maybe a lot of people go through, though he doesn't know any. Do I agree that he should do this? Of course. He shouldn't just give in to the system. No one should, if they believe they can do something about it.
Artists and politicians
Do you agree with Wright’s theory that artists and politicians stand at opposite poles?
No. It depends on the artist and politician. Those communists in the book obviously didn't get along with the artists. However, like anything else, it depends on the person. A more artistically-minded politician could in fact have things in common with an artist. I think they would have to agree politically, and the politician would have to have some liking for art(ists), but it's not impossible that they'd work together. For example, if a politician really does have his constituents' best interests at heart (ie he isn't corrupt or inefficient) and he wants to do something for the community, he can commission artwork like murals, paintings, etc. A politician's job is supposed to be to help out the community. If he does that with an open mind, there is no reason his ideas would conflict with artists'.
No. It depends on the artist and politician. Those communists in the book obviously didn't get along with the artists. However, like anything else, it depends on the person. A more artistically-minded politician could in fact have things in common with an artist. I think they would have to agree politically, and the politician would have to have some liking for art(ists), but it's not impossible that they'd work together. For example, if a politician really does have his constituents' best interests at heart (ie he isn't corrupt or inefficient) and he wants to do something for the community, he can commission artwork like murals, paintings, etc. A politician's job is supposed to be to help out the community. If he does that with an open mind, there is no reason his ideas would conflict with artists'.
Thursday, 13 March 2008
Crowd
Ch. 17-18, Blog – Can one voice move a crowd to action?
Yes, but it depends on who that voice is and what the crowd is. In the book, we see Wright realizing that the Communists can't reach the black population because they speak in high ideals and metaphors and things that aren't common knowledge in the impoverished black population. So the Communist speakers can't move that crowd to action. However, as seen by the fact that they can recruit successfully, a speaker can reach other crowds, like whites and 'intellectuals' and people like Wright.
Yes, but it depends on who that voice is and what the crowd is. In the book, we see Wright realizing that the Communists can't reach the black population because they speak in high ideals and metaphors and things that aren't common knowledge in the impoverished black population. So the Communist speakers can't move that crowd to action. However, as seen by the fact that they can recruit successfully, a speaker can reach other crowds, like whites and 'intellectuals' and people like Wright.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
