Metacognition: Jane Eyre Mash-Up Project

The first day Mr. Allen introduced the idea of having a "mash-up" based assignment to test our understanding of Jane Eyre, I was confused. What's a mash-up? How can that show our understanding of a book? Questions flooded into my head as to how this would actually end up working out, especially since I was quite unfamiliar with the concept of a "mash-up". As Mr. Allen explained it further though, the idea began to grow on me. It seemed kinda cool...and different. The idea of creatively putting together a bunch of seemingly random sources and creating this unique, binding result sounded different from anything I had ever done. And not having to actually write anything of your own seemed like a relief- but also a challenge.

As Nour and I got started on our project [our topic being "Love"], the whole "mash up" concept really became appealing to me. The whole concept of linking together the ideas and insights we gained from Jane Eyre with a plethora of other sources was effective for my understanding of Jane Eyre, and was fun too. Instead of just having to stick inside the text and be trapped in the confines of ONLY Jane Eyre, I was able to broaden my thinking and take it to a whole new level. The linking process forced my brain to constantly search for connections. This enabled me to remember many useful concepts I had learned from previous years in different classes and in everyday life- stuff that was really worth remembering, but was hidden in my brain, waiting to be re-looked at. I was able to connect Jane Eyre to things that I couldn't believe I even remembered...it was just really cool to see how much a theme from a classical book could resonate and mesh with sources from all over.

Additionally, this mash-up project opened the doors for great collaboration. It was really interesting and entertaining working with Nour, thinking out loud together to try to work out possible sources for the mash-up as well as the "line-up" for the project. Putting our background knowledge together, we were really able to come up with great results for the mash-up project!

Though I thought that I would face a fair amount of obstacles with this project- both mentally and time-wise- there were very few. There were, certainly, moments where Nour and I had trouble putting the puzzle pieces together and really figuring out what we wanted the mash-up to signify and how we wanted it to be put together, but the rest came easily. Finding sources was relatively painless- with all of our background knowledge, it wasn't too hard coming up with connections to "love". And overall, I'm very happy with our result and with the whole "mash-up" technique. I found it to be a very unique and effective way to challenge my brain and make meaningful and lasting conclusions about Jane Eyre.

360 Degrees: "The Son of Man"

This painting, "The Son of Man" was painted by Rene Magritte in 1964. At first glance, many would think this painting is purely simplistic- one of those "random" paintings that has unexplainable qualities. Just a painting you look at and then forget about.

But if you take a look at this long enough, there is actually plenty to be examined and thought about. Yes, many of these aspects will most likely be left unanswered, but I definitely would say that this painting should not be overlooked!

Magritte used a very interesting technique behind this, I think. She uses simple concepts and presents them somewhat clearly in the painting itself. Not every aspect will pop out at you, but if you look close enough, they're right there in front of you. The peculiar thing though, is that these concepts don't have a specific meaning or purpose. Many of these aspects will make you think "Why is this here? What is the significance?" That is why I love this painting. It's composed of little details that really make the painting the way it is. It looks simple, but once you examine it, every little aspect of the painting gives it's own, unique insight on the poem.

Right off the bat, I notice several things. Most clearly placed is the apple in the middle of this man's face. This is quite bizarre. Why is that apple there? Why is the apple green [not red]? Is it floating there? Or is the man biting on it? Why is the man's eye peeking out? Why is he staring blankly? Does he not see the apple?

Also, I notice that this man is standing very rigidly. His hands are right at his sides, his hat is perfectly centered, and his tie is centered and tightly tied. But if you look closely at his jacket [unfortunately it is almost impossible to see on this photograph I posted], you will see that only two of his suit jacket buttons have been buttoned. One button is unbuttoned. If he is so rigid and proper, why hasn't he buttoned all of the buttons?

Then, I took a look at the background. I would think that the background would be the most overlooked, since the man is really the most obvious subject. There is a lot to be seen in the background though. For example, we see that he is standing by an ocean. He is separated by a stone threshold. What kind of body of water is it? An ocean? A pond? And look at the sky. Is there a storm brewing? Do these things connect to how this man is feeling?

Those are just some questions/observations that come to mind when I look at this painting. What I love though, is that those are not the only ones. This painting, though seemingly simple, is actually jam-packed with twists, insights, and hidden details!

360 Degrees: Vegetarianism

Should I be eating meat or should I not? That is a question that has been on my mind lately. I've struggled through the guilt of eating meat for several years now, trying to figure out if it's better to just...give it up.

For me personally, meat has never been something I've loved. Sure there are some things that contain meat that I would say I like, but for the most part, I really don't like it that much. I've given up meat several times throughout my life, many of those times being for Lent [or events/reasons like that]. Not eating meat was great in the short run- I never felt guilty about supporting the killing of animals and I actually physically felt better. But I was never really able to stick with it.

On this last Late Arrival Day morning, I turned on the TV and ran into a special Oprah was doing about slaughterhouses and the methods [many labeled by these slaughterhouses as 'humane'] used to kill these animals for consumption. At one point, Oprah's TV crew went into an actual slaughterhouse and filmed parts of process. They were not able to film the actual killing of the animals because that was too graphic but they showed much of the rest of the process: the cows being led through tight, winding conveyor belts, essentially, to their deaths, handling the bloody animals, etc. Additionally, the crew interviewed the workers at the slaughterhouse, who described how the cows were killed: essentially, they shot a metal rod into the cow's head, which dislocated it from the body. Then, the body gets reeled over to be handled by the workers.

Honestly, I don't think anyone who would have watched this episode would leave feeling good about eating meat. For me personally, I started to think about where the meat I was eating came from. Was it from a slaughterhouse like this? Did the animal die unhappy? What were the conditions in which it was raised in? All of these questions started flooding into my mind and I figured that I had most certainly eaten meat [many times, at that] from animals mistreated as badly as I saw in Oprah's show.

So why do people eat meat? We obviously know why vegetarians don't eat meat: no guilt of killing an animal, not enjoying the taste of it, to be pushed to eat healthy fruits and vegetables, etc. But there are so many more meat-eaters than vegetarians out there. So what is it? Well first off- meat is convenient. It's easy protein and it's everywhere. Also, you can do so much with it [cooking-wise, that it]. Even further, though it is not necessarily healthy, meat does possess certain health qualities that you can't obtain through vegetables or meat substitutes. As we can see, there are benefits to eating meat...and that's why so many people eat it!

Do the pros outweigh the cons, though? Should we keep slaughtering animals like this? Is it justifiable? I don't know the answer to those questions. I feel like it depends on the person. Some say that eating meat is natural- that we're just part of the food chain and there's nothing wrong with it. I mean, I know animals die, that's inevitable. But is it necessarily to kill so many animals to eat them? Personally, I don't think so. I'm convinced that if I would give up meat, I could live a healthy life and have a good diet that doesn't lack any important nutrients. I'm just not sure if I can look at a piece of meat the same way again and feel good about eating it.

That said, the question of whether or not it's good to eat meat is rather complex. As we've seen, there are pros and cons to both. And I suppose it's up to the person to decide what is more important to them. I don't think the world will ever become a place where humans don't eat meat- it's too popular and too convenient. But I also think many people don't know the actual horrors of how the meat they eat is produced. I feel like if people had watched what I had watched, they would not be able to eat meat without feeling guilty or disgusted. For me, I'm going to learn how I can live a healthy life without eating meat and hopefully, once I've got a good understanding about it, I will be able to become a vegetarian for good.

Dialectics: Organization and Clutter

I'll admit it. I'm kind of a neat freak-sometimes. But this craving to keep things tidy and organized does not just come from no where. There must be some sort of push, a type of factor, to make me want to be organized. That is why I would say that organization and clutter go hand in hand.

Take my room as an example. Yes, it's not always clean. Honestly, it's usually not clean. Either it's my desk that begins to pile up with books and worksheets or it's my closet where clothes begin to get off the hangers and go into heaps on the ground. Clutter is inevitable. I don't think I've ever met someone or been to anyone's house where their room is always clean. It's just not realistic. Things get put off to the side and many of us decide not to find time in our busy lives to take the time and organize/clean the messes we've created.

So, mess is inevitable. But completely solvable. That is why I see a connection between these two opposites. They depend on each other. Without a mess, there wouldn't be an organization process, and without organization, there wouldn't be messes. For example, if I never witnessed my room going from an organized to a cluttered state, I would never take the time to say "Hey, I think that I should clean my room" or "I think I'm going to go through the things on my desk and organize it". It just wouldn't happen. You need to have a mess to let you realize and push you to cleaning it up. And flipping that the other way, without actually organizing your things and creating a clean environment, 'messes' wouldn't exist. We just wouldn't associate it that way.

Therefore, I'd like to think that people can't just be "neat" all the time or "messy" all the time. Being on either of those spectrums had to result from a push from being on the opposite side of the spectrum. Someone who has an extremely neat room usually entails that they had presided over a messy room, which pushed them to organize and make it neat. Conversely, someone who has a messy room probably had presided over a considerably neat room, and thus managed to fall over to the complete opposite.

All in all, my point is that you can't have organization without having clutter. Neither of those terms would exist if the other did not. We would just have some sort of medium, another term, to describe the level of organization. We would not have extremes, using my thinking, because they depend on each other.

So next time you think of labeling someone as a "neat freak" or a "slob" just remember that they probably became that way from presiding in an atmosphere the complete opposite.

360 Degrees: Fast Food Controversy

Fast food. It's a concept that we all know and are accustomed to. McDonald's, Wendy's, Subway, Taco Bell, Burger King, Pizza Hut, Arby's....the list never ends. It's a global takeover. Everywhere you turn, almost anywhere in the world, you can bet on seeing at least one of these restaurants close by [click HERE to see McDonald's international websites....you'll find that they're all over the world]. But as the popularity of these eateries has grown monumentally, so have the controversies.

Restaurants like McDonald's and Wendy's are institutions reliant on advertisement. I don't know many people who would disagree with that statement. It's the characters, the commercials, the flawless pictures, the cheap deals that appeal to the people and really how they create the "frequent customer". Many of us grew up with the Happy Meals, the prizes/toys, the smiling, trademark characters, and the in-restaurant play areas. Yet as we grew up...so did these chains....and instead of just chains, they became superchains.

But as something gains popularity, it will also inevitably gain a sect of criticism and hate. As fast food became the norm and the "first choice" to most individuals worldwide, bad things started to circulate about these restaurants. What's the quality of this food? Is it as healthy of a choice as it's advertised to be? What are the nutritional facts and why can't I find them? How is this food manufactured to supply such a high demand?

None the less, movies like Super Size Me and Fast Food Nation, books, studies, and lawsuits started popping up regarding the issue. People were starting to get concerned about the credibility of what fast food chains are telling us. And after all these studies, we've learned. Fast food is not good for you. It's not. We can see the nutrition labels, we can see how it's made. It's not a healthy choice. Yes, the companies lied. But how many companies do we know that don't stretch the truth every once in a while? Look at commercials! Everything is unnatural. Snapshots of food, clothing, models....it's fake! Or at least airbrushed. But that's what advertising is, right? It's making things look appealing. If we took a picture of an actual Big Mac and put it on TV, no one would want to eat it. But if we make a beautiful, computer-generated representation of one, with perfectly red tomatoes, crispy lettuce [with water droplets STILL on it] and a perfectly puffy bun, who wouldn't want it? You'd go to McDonald's, get it, realize it looks different, and eat it anyways. And let's face it- most people will like what they're tasting, and the commercialized photo will be non-existant in their brain after that. But that image brought them in- and that's all that matters right?

So anyways, that's great. People learned the truth about fast food. We know it's bad. So why does the fast food chain keep growing? Here's my problem. You read these stories about people suing companies like McDonald's and Burger King and blaming them for making them obese and selling them unhealthy, low quality food. In my opinion, yes, it's terrible that these companies lied and seemed to hide this information from us, but wasn't it your choice to eat there in the first place? Life is like that- people are going to try to lure you into doing things by making whatever it is sound appealing. But they're not forcing you. It's ultimately your decision. I understand that they might say that they thought the food was healthy....but I have a hard time buying that excuse. When has a burger, fries, and soda ever been healthy? Maybe it's just me, but I feel like this is common sense. And when you hear the word "fast food", don't you understand that the food is mass produced and cheaply made? Did you think that Burger King's $1 burger was made with premium, top-notch ingredients? I know they said that's what it's made from, but use common sense people! We eat fast food because we like how it tastes. We know the consequences- so I don't think we should blame others for our own issues of restraint. If you eat at McDonald's every day, you probably will become sick and obese. But that was your choice. There are many other options out there, and if you can't learn to change your diet, that is not the company's problem.

But I understand where some are coming from when they say that fast food chains have lied to them. That is understandable and we should get the facts. But we can't initiate frivolous lawsuits blaming companies for our own misfortunes because it is, in the end, our own fault.

To me, this controversy brings up many questions. Should fast food chains be responsible for the obesity and health conditions of people who eat their food? When is it the company's fault and when is it the consumer's fault? Is common sense a valid excuse against the consumer? Is it a crime for restaurants/food chains to enhance their photos, beef up their advertising, and not publicizing all nutritional information? Is connecting newfound obesity/health conditions to fast food eating a valid connection? Or is that too sketchy? Do people really think fast food is healthy? Is that why people eat it?

Best of Week: The Power of One Word

While talking about the short story "Cathedral" in English class on Friday, we touched on many interesting aspects of short stories. One of the most prominent ones that I felt really made an impact on me was the title. Yes- just the title. It sounds like it's really not a big deal, the title, just something that's there just because every story needs a title. I know that I'm not the only one who typically overlooks the title and sometimes just completely disregards it- so this piece of insight was really beneficial to me.

First off, the word "cathedral" itself has specific connotations. As we discussed in class, it is the principal church of a diocese [very grand, intricate, and large] with which the bishop is officially associated. It has several associations, including religion, grandness, faith, etc. So, we can already get a glimpse at what may literally or figuratively happen in the story, just by looking at the title. Because the title is not just there for no reason, it gives a snapshot into the most significant part of the story.

As we started to look into the ending of the story where the narrator first mentions the cathedrals, we see a lot of parallels between the title and the actual story. For one, they're actually talking about, watching, and drawing cathedrals. That would be the more literal aspect of it and could easily be figured out by the reader without over-thinking it. But, we also starting talking about the more figurative connection between the title and the story. I felt like we started to get into this in English class, which sparked my thinking about it, so I'm sure we're going to discuss this even more tomorrow in class.

Thinking about the connotations about the word "cathedral", in class, we mentioned that it has connotations related to religion, faith, etc. The narrator, in the story, tells Robert that he has a hard time believing in and committing to religion. As they start drawing the cathedrals though, he is instructed by Robert to close his eyes and keep drawing, as if he's "blind". Our narrator had thought that this would be extremely difficult and became frustrated and skeptical, but soon embraced the feeling of having this blindness and remarked that it was "really something" to feel like he "was not inside anything". To that, we can see a parallel between the title "Cathedral" and this experience. We can connect it and say that what the narrator experienced right there was faith and religion. We would say that Robert was the priest and the narrator was the person that is religious. In this moment, the narrator is realizing that though he can see fine, he is blind to faith.

Talking about the power of just one word really sparked this insight for me and made me appreciate the aspects of a story that may seem so simple that I should just skip past them. Just by acknowledging the title and giving it a bit of thought, it spurred all of this insight and thought in my mind. So it was really beneficial for me to see all of these little details in short stories that though seemingly simple, have very profound impacts upon the story. Knowing this will really enrich my experiences of reading any type of story and will help me come to more complex conclusions and parallels.

iMedia: "The Scream"

Yet another painting to blog about...I believe this is my third? I suppose I just enjoy the iMedia prompt.

Anyways, this painting is called "The Scream" and was painted by artist Edvard Munch in 1893. To give a little bit of background, this was painted in Oslo, Norway, and the landscape in the background is actually Oslofjord [a bay in the south-east of Norway] seen from the hill of Ekeberg.

Though very abstract, I find that this painting is thought-provoking, to say the least. We see this person [or creature] who is agonized, worried and fearful of something. The person/creature itself is abstract: we cannot completely tell if it is a human or whether it is a male or female. His/her features are minimal; we only see eyes, a nose, a mouth, hands, and the outline of the rest of the body. Two people are behind him/her, strolling, and are seemingly calm and unaffected by whatever is bothering the main creature.

The sky is painted in fiery reds and oranges which counteracts the cool, deep blues of the water below it. In my opinion, the sky seems to be one of the mist peculiar components in the painting. The color choices are pronounced, no doubt. And the swirls along with these colors are reminiscent of a fire or some sort of explosion [like, a volcanic eruption, perhaps?]. Looking at the sky and its intensity already gives off a frantic and distraught feeling to the observer.

For me personally, I just enjoy looking at this painting. Many paintings I've seen before that I would consider "thought-provoking" were detailed, with many hidden images or messages. But "The Scream" is just so abstract. Looking and thinking about it generates so many questions that I can't answer. For example, what is bothering this creature that is making him/her so incredibly petrified? Why are the two others not affected? Is it in his/her head? Why are the surroundings distorted? Does he/she have a disorder that distorts his/her perception or his/her thinking? Why is the sky red? Why did Munch choose to leave the creature visually genderless? Did Munch find himself as this creature? What was his inspiration?

The list never ends. But that's definitely a cool thing about this painting. Who would think that such an abstract piece of art could provoke this many questions? What I also find extremely interesting is that face- at first glance, the face of that creature is the first thing your eye goes to. And it gets to you. Personally, when I first saw this, looking at that face just brought me to think about what really agonizes me, what truly worries me. That's why I think this painting can really lead to deep connections and unique perceptions by each individual. Each viewer notices something different, and there's always going to be one thing in the painting that gets to you, whether it's the creatures face, the fiery sky, the unaffected pedestrians, or the wavy distortions. And that one thing will bring some sort of deep, personal connection that helps the viewer understand the painting in a unique way.

That is my thinking, at least. I infer that Munch painted "The Scream" after either experiencing something agonizing or just dealing with something that really irritated him. And I feel like each part of the painting [the peculiar color of the sky, the unaffected people in the background, and the expression on the creature's face] has some sort of tie to a widowed image in Munch's brain. Feeling as that is possible, it seems like the whole painting is just a culmination of many widowed images, put together into one. So not only can you look at the painting and find deep meaning and connections for yourself, but also, one can infer and understand the strong emotions and experience of the painter himself.