Pull a Heinrich

The Deconstruction of Art. My mother and I started discussing one of my paintings. It's a painting of a japanese crane. I brought up the point of signifiers and signifieds - that I did not paint a picture with the real bird standing right in front of me. I painted a picture of an internet print out of an alleged photograph of the real thing, posted on the internet by an unknown source. Then we started discussing hypothetical situations in which the person who possibly photoshopped the bird from scratch created it without ever seeing any sort of image or representation of that type of bird in their lifetime, and thought they created a new type of bird, when in reality they didn't. Then the question came up of whether or not that photoshopped picture actually is a signifier to the signified, or is it not because that was not the creator's intention, because he/she didn't know the signified even existed? This brought us to color. We both looked at my painting of the bird and called the chemical mix that represented most of the bird "white". But the thing is, every person perceives such chemical mixes differently, even though we call them the same thing. It's just the way our brains and eyes work. Each person sees "white", but what they call "white" could very easily be what someone else would call "red", but they only call it white because that's how they were trained as a child. Our parents point to the chemical mix plastered on a piece of paper and say "this is red", so we call whatever we see that they're pointing at, red. So, to help clarify, lets say I were able to take my own consciousness, and put it into my mother's brain and eyes. I might look at what she and I both called "white" but, seeing it through her eyes and brain's perception, my consciousness might say, "wow, I would totally call that pale yellow". But she calls it white because she was told it was white. So that's how that aspect of signifiers and signifieds came about. Then I began to wonder what the true reality of color is. Since each and every person has a different perception of color, then that means there isn't anyone with a truly objective ability to tell us what each color really is. So, is there such thing as a true reality of color? I mean if they're all just refraction of light from the different mixes of chemicals, does color really exist outside our own perceptions? Because if there's no light, there's no color. So, my mother's reaction to all this was, and I quote, "well, I can't wait for you to go to college, so I don't have to listen the postmodern talk in my house anymore. I have postmodern stress disorder!"

Superposition

After our class discussion I thought the concept of superposition was a pretty cool theory. Then, after watching the youtube video on superposition, the way it was described at the end made it clear to me that this theory is nothing more than relativism. Yes, it started out as a scientific theory, but that was just the starting point of the concept. It was taken and used to develop superposition, which is a theory of relativity, in which we choose what exists and where it exists. To me it sounds like they're trying to make mankind sound like God, which makes me think of the New Age movement. I don't know if New Age philosophy had any influence on superposition or not, so I'm not going to assume anything. I just can't agree with the idea that reality as we know it is only our perception, and that everything is based off of our choice of perception. If superposition were true, then how could we trust that we are all experiencing the same thing? I mean, one person could see the marker by the white board, while someone else sees it on a desk. They both perceived, or measured the location of the marker and thus brought it's solidity into perceptual existence, but they didn't experience the same thing. We would all be living in our own little worlds made up of our own perceptions, which brings us to isolating ourselves, and concentrating on just ourselves because no one else exists in our perceived existence. Being brought back to the concentration on self, as in the self is all that matters, brings me back again to the New Age movement. My first thoughts after watching the video were "woa, trippy". To say that everything is how you make it to be is just something I can't agree with as a Christian.

How much distance is needed between the story teller and the story told?

Well, it's really hard to say. Take actors, for example, they may not support moral impurities, yet they take on the roles of characters that celebrate them. Is that a bad thing? I mean, we know the actor doesn't support those morals, and yet by playing the part in the movie, they are advertizing/portraying that lifestyle as if they supported it because the character supports it. However, i would not have a problem with an actor playing the part of such a character if the point of the movie is to show how that lifestyle is not desirable, or a story of redemption. Also, Ethan brought up a good point in the discussion in that movies don't have such content unless it would be watched, meaning it's already a part of the culture, so it's not going to inject those things into an innocent society and ruin it. It's just artistically portraying the culture we live in. Now I don't really like how undesirable values are portrayed in movies as good lifestyles, even if the actor/actress doesn't agree with them. However, I can't really think of any good solutions that would keep these people employed. And besides, even if these people refused to act out such characters, there are other people who don't have a problem with such characters' morals who would play the part, thus such morals are still being promoted in society anyway. So I come to the conclusion that there should be a definite line between the story and the story teller, but there are so many complications in society today that it's really difficult to determine how thick that line should be.

Interaction with Darkness.

In Adolescence 2, written by Billy Collins, the speaker interacts with different forms of darkness. These different forms are night, the three seal men that glitter like pools of ink under moonlight, the ragged holes at the edge of darkness, and the darkness of night that rests like a ball of fur on her tongue. Why does she interact with these forms of darkness? Well, for starters, it is very difficult to decipher the text and determine what is actually happening in this piece. The whole thing seems very figurative, which leaves us with many theories and possible scinarios for the actual happenings, so I'm not going to go into that. However, I think it is significant that she is interacting with the darkness because we all have to interact with the darkness in our lives. Granted, it might not always be as creepy as the dark figures in Adolescence 2, but everyone has to deal with the dark things in life. I think Collins illustrated our interactions with darkness in the extreme sense in order to create a vividly dark picture. (no puns intended). Also, I believe Collins is expressing how we cannot get rid of the vile darkness because of the line that reads, "Can you feel it yet?...Well, maybe next time," which implies that the dark seal men will keep returning. Furthermore, the line that reads, "Night rests like a ball of for on my tongue" really depicts how we cannot completely get rid of darkness. Notice that the night rests on her tongue, meaning it is unmoved and undisturbed from its position on her tongue, which, to me, means that she cannot get it off of her tongue. Here you can see where I get my conclusion from. My question for this piece, besides what is actually happening, would be "is she doomed to interact with this darkness in this manner forever? Or is there some sort of hope or redemption?" I may never get a straight answer for my question.

Adolescence 2 is Pomo?

Adolescence 2 is EXTREMEMLY Postmodern for vairous reasons. First, the structure itself is postmodern. Nothing rhymes, which can be interpreted as the celebration of the disorder of no rhyme scheme in what seems to be some sort of poem with three-line stanzas. Another celebration of disorder found in Adolescence 2 is the unclarity of what exactly is happening in the piece. For instance, the three sleek figures are not identified. They are addressed as "they" or "the one leaning against the door" and such. It is left up to the reader to identify them as they choose. In conclusion, Adolescence 2 is most definitely postmodern.

What is toast?

In an inadequate system of language the breakdown of words and meaning lies in the lack of sufficient knowledge on our part. For instance, Snowman in Margaret Atwood's "Toast" says, "What is flour? We'll skip that part, it's too complicated," ("Toast"). This represents all of humanity's lack of sufficient knowledge to thoroughly explain something. I would also like to point out that the snowman is named Snowman for a reason. I believe that reason is because Snowman has no significant identity, so as to enable the readers to let Snowman represent themselves, mankind, all of humanity. Putting this all together, humanity lacks the sufficient amount of knowledge to fully explain itself. Also, Snowman states, "Toast cannot be explained by any rational means," ("Toast"). This makes it clear that language cannot fully express something as simple as toast. Our brains cannot find words adequate enough to take on such a task. In conclusion, humanity's lack of knowledge results in an inadequate system of language.

My Victimization to Hyperreality

My victimization to hyperreality took place as a child. When I was a little girl I loved to watch disney princess movies and any other movie that had to do with princesses. These movies told me that I can live "happily ever after" ("Snow White"). I believed that one day I would find my prince in shining armor and live in a giant castle and live happily ever after. I figured he'd come and save me from some great injustice like the hero he is. Also, I believed that I could be as special as a princess when I was little, and have a perfect ending to my story because "All girls are princesses" ("The Little Princess"). In this movie, the little girl wasn't actually a princess, yet she was at the same time. Her Daddy told her she was a little princess, so she was. And in the movie this idea is established in every little girl in the story. The little princess is constantly daydreaming and going into the world in which she is a princess, even though in real life she is being put through harsh treatment as a servant in a girls school. My childhood consisted of fantasizing about how I was a princess who would someday be rescued by my prince in shining armor.

Hyperreality

Hyperreality has greatly affected America's view and expectations of love and relationships. First of all, hyperreality "characterizes the inability of consciousness to distinguish reality from fantasy," (Wikipedia). The two ideas of love and relationships in America have been depicted as something free and having a "happy ending" and no boundaries in today's media. This perception has blurred the reality of these subjects and brought Americans to believe that they can achieve these hyperrealities of a paradise of love and relationships. A good example of a hyperreality is "a magazine photo of a model that has been touched up with a computer," (Wikipedia). The magazine picture shows the hyperreality of a flawless model, where in reality she had some blemishes when the photo was taken. The same goes for love and relationships. The media makes them or their endings look flawlessly achievable, but in reality it can be very difficult to achieve such goals. Hyperreality has hypnotized the American mind into believing that love is free and that relationships can have inexplicable happy endings.

Jack Sparrow

Why is Jack Sparrow postmodern? This pirate is most definitely postmodern because he thrives off of the disorder of his era. He rejects the order of the world, and cannot live without the freedom of piracy. He simply cannot live within the boundaries of the orderly system of the world. He happily celebrates all that is outlawed, which is basically his entire lifestyle. "Take what you need, give nothing back," as Jack Sparrow says it. Also, Jack Sparrow goes through life doing whatever it takes to reach his goal, and whatever he has to do to get there is fine with him. He is an example of moral relativism. However, at the end of Pirates of the Caribbean, At World's End, Jack had the struggle between right and wrong, whether to let another character die and reach his ultimate goal, or to help that character live, and by doing so sacrificing one of his sure plans to ultimate freedom. I'm not going to expand on that any further because of those who might not have seen this movie yet. If you haven't, GO WATCH IT RIGHT NOW! It's really worth watching.

Breaking out of the ant colony

Today I was at Southcenter, and I was there late, so people were closing up their stores and kiosks. On my way out of the mall I saw a woman looking a little confused while trying to put the tarp up on her kiosk for closing, so I decided to help her. I went over and offered my assistence, and she allowed me to help. She was working a toy kiosk. I asked her how she was doing, and if she had any good sales today. She said she did have some good sales, and that she was tired. She had been there from the mall openning time to closing time. I told her my name and shook her hand, and she told me her name was Aiayla (sp?). I said it was really nice to meet her, and she thanked me for my help. Although I didn't feel like I was a ton of help considering she was a little taller than me, so she could've reached the hooks easier than I could have, but I guess I was able to help make sure we were getting the hooks linked to the right rings, and then I was able to help pull it tight on the other side so she could make the ends meet. Anyway, after we had completely finished we said goodbye as she went to go help the short man having to use his chair to reach rings for the hooks on his tarp at the next kiosk over.

Why play "Questions" in a movie about existentialism?

In the movie "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead", the two characters play a game of Questions. This is because existentialism, I believe, is based upon asking questions. Questions like "why am I here?" which lead to deeper questions that lead to existentialism's conclusion that we can only prove so much of our existence to ourselves, and that beyond that there is nothing more. In the movie, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern start realizing that they don't remember their existence at all before the messenger came for them. They kept asking more questions, and came to realize that they themselves don't even know which one of them is Rosencrantz and which one is Guildenstern. I think that their game of Questions was included in the movie for the afore stated reasons, and because it spurred their discoveries about their existence and helped with their thought progression drastically in only one scene. It also shows the thought process put into questioning everything in existence, even ourselves, in order to try and find the right answers.

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern's death

I don't think Horatio has any opinion of approval or disapproval on Rosencrantz and Guildenstern's deaths. He doesn't seem to care because all he says is that one line, yet he cares enough to say it at all. I guess he has to say it because these were people who died, even though they don't have any significant purpose. And their insignificance is exactly why there is not much of an opinion on Horatio's part. Horatio had no relationship with these two men anyway, and they aren't needed in the story, thus Horatio has no opinion either way on their deaths being good or bad. This also ties in with Hamlet's lines that we focused on today. With the fall of the sparrow and how there is an inevitability. Death is inevitable. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern's deaths were inevitable, and their disappearance from the story does not make the play lose anything in its structure or quality. In the end, I guess what I'm trying to say is that these two aren't important enough to me missed or to have their deaths considered bad, and considering all the circumstances of the play and Horatio's role and interaction with these two being none, zero, nothing, there is no way that I can see Horatio having an opinion on these two strangers.