From what I have gathered, postmodernism is the most current ‘era,’ one might say, of contemporary culture. The term, ‘postmodernism,’ is a play on the ‘modernist’ movement of objectivity and progress that is often related with the Enlightenment. Chronologically, the postmodern way of thinking and cultural forms of art, music, architecture, literature, etc., includes anything developed or created after the closing of World War II. If you thought about it, anything from Elvis Presley’s rock and roll repertoire, to J. K. Rowling’s fantastic wizard world of Harry Potter and the Hogwarts school, to the pop art works of Andy Warhol, or the creepy cinematic adventures of Alfred Hitchcock can all be collectively considered as ‘postmodernist.’ Another way to describe postmodernism is that it goes against modernism- it goes against the grain, you could say. “Stepping outside the box,” and not following the rules or guidelines previously set is what postmodernism is about. As we read in “Postmodern Architecture,” new age architects are said to have actually began the postmodernism movement, by going against the “retro, ancient, cluttered, nineteenth century styles. No more custom. No more inherited designs” would be followed. In doing this, they jet set a completely new style of culture that would inspire the rest of the art-world to follow. In this, I do believe that Kurt Vonnegut’s Cat’s Cradle should be considered a postmodernist text. Despite the fact that it was written in 1963, automatically ‘categorizing’ it as postmodern, since it followed World War II, the content of the book actually makes it postmodernist. For example, when Castle is asked why he mentioned Jesus Christ just minutes before, he first didn’t recall the name, then went on to say, “People have to talk about something just to keep their voice boxes in working order, so they’ll have good boxes in case there’s ever anything really meaningful to say.” In this, he is saying that people just talk to make sure they still can, because there is nothing important to say anymore. This is obviously going against the grain, but it still makes sense in displaying postmodernism, because it shows what may happen to society in the time to come, and makes a critique on ‘modernism,’ and what used to be the norm as opposed to what will be the norm.
PS: sorry about the beginning. I really needed to clarify to myself what postmodernism really is.
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Thursday, November 4, 2010
blaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhgggggg
Thinking of a topic for the next essay pertaining to Brave New World, by Aldous Huxley, I think I am going to go with a topic that would connect the novel to our world today, and the similarities, but obviously more the contradictions between our world and the Ford worshiping world. I can use George Orwell’s 1984 to draw similarities between those two worlds, and also to see how the two reflect the opposite spectrum of what our world is today, and how we see it. Both of the stories relate in that their societies are completely manipulated by government control, leaving the citizens stripped of rights that they don’t even know they should have. Reading both, and seeing how the majority of the societies react to their poor treatment is absurd to me, because they don’t even know what a true life is like. It’s like they are simply Barbie dolls being manipulated, without any sense of feeling or direction. They just do what they are trained and told to do and what they know to do. The video we watched from Sir Ken Robinson would also be a useful outside work that can help me draw contrasts and comparisons as well, to our world today, and the education system. He feels that children are being pushed through their schooling almost robot like, very similar to the Bokanovsky process in Brave New World. Kids are just told things and tested on them, without really learning much of anything, except how to guess on a Scantron. In Brave New World, the people just go through what they call their life after first being almost injected with knowledge that they must use to ‘live their life.’ SIr Ken Robinson uses a brilliant illustration to better prove exemplify his theories on the current educational system, which was created and designed along the same time as America, itself.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Educacion
This video that we watched was actually quite interesting, once you get past the squeaky noises at the beginning. The way it was presented obviously made the speech more interesting and easy to follow, which was good because it portrayed the otherwise slightly boring stream of words in a more upbeat visual aspect, which actually helped his message in the long run.
In regards to the relation of Sir Ken Robinson’s observations and Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, there are many similarities, but at the same time, they are at different ends of the spectrum for whatever it is. For example, Sir Robinson comments on the ‘epidemic,’ it seems, of ADHD, in which children across America are just fed pills such as Ritalin or Adderall, in order to strengthen their focus in school and help them pay attention better. In comparison, this relates to the soma in Brave New World, because it is, in essence, a drug that helps the people to all think alike and focus on the same thing: losing themselves in pleasure and happiness.
Another similarity between the two is when Sir Ken Robinson describes the ‘date of manufacture,‘ which is what kids are grouped and labeled as. This is similar in Brave New World, as a “bokanovskified egg will bud, will proliferate, will divide…[producing] from eight to ninety-six… embryos.” These embryos grow up into people, technically as huge sets of twins, worked like machines all living near the same lives. Their ‘date of manufacture, as Sir Robinson would describe, would be when they were concocted like a Bokonovsky science experiment, emerging out of the tubes they will have spent eight months ‘growing’ in.
In regards to the relation of Sir Ken Robinson’s observations and Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, there are many similarities, but at the same time, they are at different ends of the spectrum for whatever it is. For example, Sir Robinson comments on the ‘epidemic,’ it seems, of ADHD, in which children across America are just fed pills such as Ritalin or Adderall, in order to strengthen their focus in school and help them pay attention better. In comparison, this relates to the soma in Brave New World, because it is, in essence, a drug that helps the people to all think alike and focus on the same thing: losing themselves in pleasure and happiness.
Another similarity between the two is when Sir Ken Robinson describes the ‘date of manufacture,‘ which is what kids are grouped and labeled as. This is similar in Brave New World, as a “bokanovskified egg will bud, will proliferate, will divide…[producing] from eight to ninety-six… embryos.” These embryos grow up into people, technically as huge sets of twins, worked like machines all living near the same lives. Their ‘date of manufacture, as Sir Robinson would describe, would be when they were concocted like a Bokonovsky science experiment, emerging out of the tubes they will have spent eight months ‘growing’ in.
Monday, October 18, 2010
My neighbors just brought some homemade butterscotch cream pie, just so you know.
"Wheels must turn steadily, but can not turn untended. There must be men to tend them, men as sturdy as the wheels upon their axles, sane men, obedient men, stable in contentment."
This passage from chapter three of Brave New World is describing the value system in that warped society. It is referencing the mechanical and somewhat robotic system of life that they live by, making sure to note the men that are used to make sure this mechanical way of life runs smoothly.Their society is basically a system of robots, in human form. The people are literaly created, as if to be science experiments, and raised to be used and manipulated in their specific role in society, wherever they are placed. Once they are too old to function or unneeded, they are merely disposed of. This form of life is not really living. They are not to experience true love or marriage, or really any other form of feeling. I can only really relate it to a human robot, because they have figured out a way to produce in massive numbers, whenever they please. There really is no point in living for them, because they really are not living, yet they have no sense of this, because this is all they know.
“Or the Caste System. Constantly proposed, constantly rejected. There was something called democracy. As though men were more than physico-chemically equal.”
This quote references the past, prior to the days of Ford’s presidency, and it proves that what they know as life is completely normal to them, rather than actually being people and being able to live your life freely with thoughts and feelings. It refers to democracy as something in the distant past that was more of like an idea or myth, as if it didn’t really happen. This is because they have no idea; the idea of democracy was long gone, as well as the idea of being able to express yourself as person or human being, not just a physical entity that was created to serve a specific purpose.
This passage from chapter three of Brave New World is describing the value system in that warped society. It is referencing the mechanical and somewhat robotic system of life that they live by, making sure to note the men that are used to make sure this mechanical way of life runs smoothly.Their society is basically a system of robots, in human form. The people are literaly created, as if to be science experiments, and raised to be used and manipulated in their specific role in society, wherever they are placed. Once they are too old to function or unneeded, they are merely disposed of. This form of life is not really living. They are not to experience true love or marriage, or really any other form of feeling. I can only really relate it to a human robot, because they have figured out a way to produce in massive numbers, whenever they please. There really is no point in living for them, because they really are not living, yet they have no sense of this, because this is all they know.
“Or the Caste System. Constantly proposed, constantly rejected. There was something called democracy. As though men were more than physico-chemically equal.”
This quote references the past, prior to the days of Ford’s presidency, and it proves that what they know as life is completely normal to them, rather than actually being people and being able to live your life freely with thoughts and feelings. It refers to democracy as something in the distant past that was more of like an idea or myth, as if it didn’t really happen. This is because they have no idea; the idea of democracy was long gone, as well as the idea of being able to express yourself as person or human being, not just a physical entity that was created to serve a specific purpose.
Sunday, October 3, 2010
Discussion?
Happy October! :)
Ok, so The Tempest.
Last week, in the literary analysis essays between Stephen Greenblatt and George Will, we learned that there are different opinions on literary analyisis. Pertaining to the Tempest by William Shakespeare, there can be over analyzation, just as with anything, but there are some rather obvious points to consider. The main concepts referring to Prospero, and how he basically took over the island that was rightfully Caliban's, as well as manipulating and controlling Caliban. Regarding this, I automatically think of the story of Pocohontas. The Native Americans being Caliban, and Prospero representing the English visitors that feel they have the right to take over the land from the "savages," as Caliban is often referred to. Aime Cesaire's A Tempest depicts just this in a play depicts the unfairness and brutality from Shakespeare's original work, in order to further his efforts to restore the cultural identity of black Africans. The play is a simplified version of Shakespeare's classic without such elevated language, and the second scene of act I and first scene of act II blatantly depict the controlling Prospero in his attempts to change and perhaps colonize the native Caliban, who technically owns and should reign the entire island.
In this portrayal of a classic, one could argue that this is the main point of Shakespeare and the sole purpose of the play is to explain colonialism, and George Will would most likely agree However, this may not be true. Stephen Greenblatt would argue that although this a good analysis, it may not be the author's sole intent; therefore, by ignoring any other analysis or ideas of the play, this could be described as over analyzation. Greenblatt feels that literature should be open to more than one interpretation, especially since there is no real way of understanding the original author's original intent.
Ok, so The Tempest.
Last week, in the literary analysis essays between Stephen Greenblatt and George Will, we learned that there are different opinions on literary analyisis. Pertaining to the Tempest by William Shakespeare, there can be over analyzation, just as with anything, but there are some rather obvious points to consider. The main concepts referring to Prospero, and how he basically took over the island that was rightfully Caliban's, as well as manipulating and controlling Caliban. Regarding this, I automatically think of the story of Pocohontas. The Native Americans being Caliban, and Prospero representing the English visitors that feel they have the right to take over the land from the "savages," as Caliban is often referred to. Aime Cesaire's A Tempest depicts just this in a play depicts the unfairness and brutality from Shakespeare's original work, in order to further his efforts to restore the cultural identity of black Africans. The play is a simplified version of Shakespeare's classic without such elevated language, and the second scene of act I and first scene of act II blatantly depict the controlling Prospero in his attempts to change and perhaps colonize the native Caliban, who technically owns and should reign the entire island.
In this portrayal of a classic, one could argue that this is the main point of Shakespeare and the sole purpose of the play is to explain colonialism, and George Will would most likely agree However, this may not be true. Stephen Greenblatt would argue that although this a good analysis, it may not be the author's sole intent; therefore, by ignoring any other analysis or ideas of the play, this could be described as over analyzation. Greenblatt feels that literature should be open to more than one interpretation, especially since there is no real way of understanding the original author's original intent.
Monday, September 27, 2010
Literary Debate!
Since the beginning of time, there has never really been a right or wrong answer to anything. This is purely apparent when it comes to literature. No two people will ever comprehend and view a piece of literature exactly the same as their companion. Literature is written with open interpretations and different sides that can be presented and represented. The literary debate between Stephen Greenblatt and George Will is a prime example of just this. In both essays, Will’s, “Literary Politics,” and Greenblatt’s, “The Best Way to Kill Our Literary Inheritance is to Turn It Into a Decorous Celebration of the New World Order,” the authors find their argument and stand by it, analyzing works of literature. As easy as this may be for them with their predetermined views, this may not be the intent of the original author. Take Shakespeare, for example. His intent on writing the thirty six plays in his lifetime was for them to be performed on a stage, not read and analyzed in a classroom. However, that is not the case.
George Will feels that an author has a set intent and focus in his or her writing, which is critically over analyzed. Because of this, he feels the critics force some of their own political biases into the original work, that may or may not be true to the original author. He says that “as esthetic judgments are politicized, political judgments are estheticized…” meaning that judgments are formed to please the audience on a political bias.
Stephen Greenblatt blatantly disagrees with Mr. Will. “A love of literature may help to forge community, but it is a community founded on imaginative freedom, the play of language, and scholarly honesty, and not on flag waving, boosterism, and conformity.” He feels that works of literature are open to different interpretations as well as different lessons to be learned and points to understand.
I agree with Stephen Greenblatt’s argument that literature is open to different interpretations through analyzation, and there are many lessons to be learned and different reasonings. On the other hand, I can also agree with George Will in that over analyzing can ruin the intent and vision of the original author. With nearly every writing, like Shakespeare, we will never be able to clearly understand the sole purpose and focus the author was trying to make.
George Will feels that an author has a set intent and focus in his or her writing, which is critically over analyzed. Because of this, he feels the critics force some of their own political biases into the original work, that may or may not be true to the original author. He says that “as esthetic judgments are politicized, political judgments are estheticized…” meaning that judgments are formed to please the audience on a political bias.
Stephen Greenblatt blatantly disagrees with Mr. Will. “A love of literature may help to forge community, but it is a community founded on imaginative freedom, the play of language, and scholarly honesty, and not on flag waving, boosterism, and conformity.” He feels that works of literature are open to different interpretations as well as different lessons to be learned and points to understand.
I agree with Stephen Greenblatt’s argument that literature is open to different interpretations through analyzation, and there are many lessons to be learned and different reasonings. On the other hand, I can also agree with George Will in that over analyzing can ruin the intent and vision of the original author. With nearly every writing, like Shakespeare, we will never be able to clearly understand the sole purpose and focus the author was trying to make.
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Native Anericans?
"A nation that does not know its history has no future."
-Russel Means, "How Hollywood Stereotyped the Native Americans" video. Seeing this video, as well as reading the chapter from Cultural Studies: Postcolonialism, African-American Criticism and Queer Theory and understanding and analyzing Caliban’s character in the second and third acts of Shakespeare’s, The Tempest, this quote comes to life. This video portrayed to me the fact that white males have always been and most likely will always be portrayed as the ‘hero,’ in a sense. The video elaborates on the chapter from Cultural Studies, especially when it discusses the hegemony of a culture being predominately white males. “For people of color… Native Americans, females, gays and lesbians, and a host of others, the traditional answer has already been articulated by the dominant class and its accompanying hegemony: silence. Live quietly, work quietly, think quietly.” In this, the author is trying to convey the idea that minority groups (meaning all but Anglo-Saxon males) are just manipulated by the dominate class, and therefore have no little or no status in society. To tie this in with The Tempest, in the first act, we learn that Caliban believes that “This island is [his] by Sycorax, [his] mother,” but as we know, he serves as Prospero’s servant. In the second scene of Act II, Caliban is victim of torment and teasing by Trinculo, the jester from the shipwreck. Caliban would be a native to the island, and should have rights, but we see this is not true. Caliban is subject to being tormented because the others, the white males of the situation, feel they have the right to do so. By doing this, Shakespeare is exemplifying the postcolonial beliefs that are discussed in chapter ten of the book, as well as the “Native Americans” video.
-Russel Means, "How Hollywood Stereotyped the Native Americans" video. Seeing this video, as well as reading the chapter from Cultural Studies: Postcolonialism, African-American Criticism and Queer Theory and understanding and analyzing Caliban’s character in the second and third acts of Shakespeare’s, The Tempest, this quote comes to life. This video portrayed to me the fact that white males have always been and most likely will always be portrayed as the ‘hero,’ in a sense. The video elaborates on the chapter from Cultural Studies, especially when it discusses the hegemony of a culture being predominately white males. “For people of color… Native Americans, females, gays and lesbians, and a host of others, the traditional answer has already been articulated by the dominant class and its accompanying hegemony: silence. Live quietly, work quietly, think quietly.” In this, the author is trying to convey the idea that minority groups (meaning all but Anglo-Saxon males) are just manipulated by the dominate class, and therefore have no little or no status in society. To tie this in with The Tempest, in the first act, we learn that Caliban believes that “This island is [his] by Sycorax, [his] mother,” but as we know, he serves as Prospero’s servant. In the second scene of Act II, Caliban is victim of torment and teasing by Trinculo, the jester from the shipwreck. Caliban would be a native to the island, and should have rights, but we see this is not true. Caliban is subject to being tormented because the others, the white males of the situation, feel they have the right to do so. By doing this, Shakespeare is exemplifying the postcolonial beliefs that are discussed in chapter ten of the book, as well as the “Native Americans” video.
Monday, September 13, 2010
I heart Shakespeare. (The Tempest, Act I)
The Tempest,By William Shakespeare.
In Act I of the Tempest, we meet Prospero and his daughter Miranda. Prospero immediately shows manipulation in the opening act of the play, most evidently through the conjuring of the storm, but also in mental manipulation through his words. Specifically and initially, when Miranda asks her father to stop the storm, he merely replies,
"No harm.
I have done nothing but in care of thee,
Of thee, my dear one—thee my daughter, who
Art ignorant of what thou art, naught knowing
Of whence I am, nor that I am more better
Than Prospero, master of a full poor cell
And thy no greater father."
In doing this, Prospero uses cautious words to portray himself as innocent, while completely avoiding the questions and concerns of his daughter, Miranda. Additionally, we learn that Prospero has never really discussed with Miranda the true story of his past and who she really is. She says,
“You have often
Begun to tell me what I am, but stopped
And left me to a bootless inquisition,
Concluding, 'Stay. Not yet.'"
to which he merely shakes off and ignores, and finally begins to discuss his past with her; however, it is a slightly different story than that he later tells to Ariel. With Miranda, he is sure to discuss the story of his past in a light mood in the nicest way possible, being sure to speak of her mother in the nicest way. When speaking to Ariel, his helper, Prospero is crude and ruthless, describing with sords such as “sunken-eyed hag,” and “groans [that] made wolves howl.” It can be said that Prospero has a way with words. He knows who he is speaking to and knows exactly what words will affect that person emotionally. In doing this, he has a power of rhetoric that can manipulate people into believing what he wishes and portrays to them.
In Act I of the Tempest, we meet Prospero and his daughter Miranda. Prospero immediately shows manipulation in the opening act of the play, most evidently through the conjuring of the storm, but also in mental manipulation through his words. Specifically and initially, when Miranda asks her father to stop the storm, he merely replies,
"No harm.
I have done nothing but in care of thee,
Of thee, my dear one—thee my daughter, who
Art ignorant of what thou art, naught knowing
Of whence I am, nor that I am more better
Than Prospero, master of a full poor cell
And thy no greater father."
In doing this, Prospero uses cautious words to portray himself as innocent, while completely avoiding the questions and concerns of his daughter, Miranda. Additionally, we learn that Prospero has never really discussed with Miranda the true story of his past and who she really is. She says,
“You have often
Begun to tell me what I am, but stopped
And left me to a bootless inquisition,
Concluding, 'Stay. Not yet.'"
to which he merely shakes off and ignores, and finally begins to discuss his past with her; however, it is a slightly different story than that he later tells to Ariel. With Miranda, he is sure to discuss the story of his past in a light mood in the nicest way possible, being sure to speak of her mother in the nicest way. When speaking to Ariel, his helper, Prospero is crude and ruthless, describing with sords such as “sunken-eyed hag,” and “groans [that] made wolves howl.” It can be said that Prospero has a way with words. He knows who he is speaking to and knows exactly what words will affect that person emotionally. In doing this, he has a power of rhetoric that can manipulate people into believing what he wishes and portrays to them.
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Socratic Circle
This week's socratic circle was interesting... To say the least. I had never experienced a socratic circle before, but I rather enjoyed it, which is why I chose to reflect on it more this week.
The first half of the circle seemed to be more of an interesting topic to cover, dealing with opionions and biases in textbooks, specifucally in Texas, while the second half (where I was part of the discussion) was supposed to deal with ways of learning history and if students should be required to analyze the thought processes and procedures of the past. Reading the article in my seat, before the circle formed, I felt that students should not be required to analyze history, since we get analytical skills through literature and Englis, etc... but sitting in the circle and hearing the few things that were said relating to our specific topic, my views changed. I learned that it is necessary for students to be able to analyze what happens in history, because the entire point to learning about history in school is so that students know what happened in the past, and we can prevent the bad things from repeating themselves. To learn from other people's mistakes, in a sense...
The first half of the circle seemed to be more of an interesting topic to cover, dealing with opionions and biases in textbooks, specifucally in Texas, while the second half (where I was part of the discussion) was supposed to deal with ways of learning history and if students should be required to analyze the thought processes and procedures of the past. Reading the article in my seat, before the circle formed, I felt that students should not be required to analyze history, since we get analytical skills through literature and Englis, etc... but sitting in the circle and hearing the few things that were said relating to our specific topic, my views changed. I learned that it is necessary for students to be able to analyze what happens in history, because the entire point to learning about history in school is so that students know what happened in the past, and we can prevent the bad things from repeating themselves. To learn from other people's mistakes, in a sense...
Saturday, August 28, 2010
Frozen Yogurt
So I just had peach frozen yogurt. I am really tired because I was up until after 4am this morning...
This is a picture of my sister and I at pismo. Her name is Hannah and she is six years old.
This is a picture of my sister and I at pismo. Her name is Hannah and she is six years old.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)