360 Degrees: "City Landscape"

Having recently taken a trip down to the Art Institute of Chicago, I was able to view many interesting artistic works, some very, very different from each other. I would go from detailed, intricate Renaissance art to quirky photography and then to simplistic, thought-provoking Modern sculptures. It was definitely an interesting experience for me. For looking at so many paintings, pictures and sculptures, though, I didn't think that any one work of art would stand out to me. But to my surprise, one did. It was the painting posted to the left of this text: City Landscape painted in 1955 by Joan Mitchell, an American artist and member of the first generation of Abstract Expressionists.

I saw this painting in the Contemporary Art gallery and vividly remember my reaction when I first saw it: confusion. Yes, I wish I could tell you that I had some sort of momentous revelation once I laid eyes on this painting, but then I would be lying. I was just confused. I didn't really know what to think of it. Should I be confused? Is that the point? If not, how should I be viewing this? Is there even a specific emotion or thought I should be getting out of this? But the burning thought in my mind, even upon leaving the museum was "I wonder what other people thought or said when they saw this painting." Was I the only one who was confused when I saw this? I mean, in many ways, it's pretty controversial, in the ways it can 'strike' someone. So I figured, this would be a great prompt to explore the many ways this painting could be viewed.

Let's start off at the primary source: the painter, of course! Even when seeing this painting for the first time, I knew Joan Mitchell had to have a purpose in mind for this painting. As abstract as it is, there must have been an idea, a vision, or meaning behind it. Through some research, I learned that Mitchell's general interest [artistically] was to create art about urban areas. The strands of solid, bright colors were painted to evoke memories of the bustling cities that Mitchell herself visited during her travels in the Midwest. In the painting, the feelings of a vibrant city were tangled in a clump of pinks, reds, blues, and mustards and the effect is actually not much different in the city streets and city architecture, where traffic and pedestrians bolt between the structures of the buildings.

Upon learning this, I gained much more appreciation for this painting. There was really some deep thought put into it and I was happy to have not passed up this painting once learning about the meaning behind it. I'm sure there are some people who view this painting who are very educated in this type of contemporary art and can quickly find deep meaning of their own in the painting or make their own connections to it, but I was certainly not one of those people. However, I believe that I would fall under a distinct category of people seeing this painting: a person that, even though they're not educated about these works of art or cannot really find a meaning in the painting, has an open mind about it and accepts that there is definitely value to the painting, to the painter and others. Whether this person leaves it at that or does research afterwards like I did, I think that there were more people than just me who would feel the same way about this painting.

Now, let's move on the the fourth and fifth perspectives that I have thought of. The fourth perspective that I thought of, would be someone who would look at it, see a jumble of colors, and walk away. Not that it's a bad thing, but I'm sure there are plenty of people who had that perspective. They saw colors, thought it was...interesting...and decided not to give it much other thought. No positive or negative reaction. Just a casual "I'm just here to look around one-dimensionally, I'm not planning on exploring the layers of this and I certainly can't see anything right off the bat." Lastly, my fifth perspective is one that's really popular and one that I definitely heard when I was at the museum. That would be the negative, defensive perspective. People who see nothing, assume it's nothing, and are instantly infuriated by the fact that it's in a museum. I heard a couple comments actually, like "What is this?! My four year old could probably do the same thing!" or "If I took a bed sheet and some paint and brushes, I could do the EXACT SAME THING! So why is this in a museum?" I respect everyone's opinions, but at the same time, it kind of makes me sad when I hear these things. People make flat-out assumptions about things they don't fully understand and could end up totally missing out on the purpose or meaning of something. In this case, these people missed out on learning about the meaning behind the painting, the stories and reflection of the painter in each line and stripe. It makes me sad that someone's lack of understanding about something could prevent them from seeing things between the lines, things that are so interesting and things that could definitely make you appreciate the thing ten times more than you initially did. Even more, it's sad that someone's disinterest in a painting could make them voice their negative opinion to influence others or make sweeping generalizations about the painter, even though they don't even mildly know the least bit behind what they've created.

Hence, is there a relationship among these perspectives? Well, I think there is. I think it depends upon your level of tolerance, your education about the subject, and the amount of interest you have in exploring the topic. What I see is that if you're interested, educated, or tolerant about a subject, you will be able to understand abstract things, like City Landscape with little thinking or some research. But if you decide to view things one-dimensionally or decide not to provoke the subject with thought, you will become infuriated with simple things and you won't be able to use your imagination or your thoughts to figure things out or come to interesting conclusions. And what if you did that? What if you always viewed things one-dimensionally? How would your life be then? I presume it would be boring. You wouldn't be able to understand complex ideas or make your own connections to contemporary or modern/abstract things. That's why I decided to take the route for the open-minded. I may not know a whole lot about a subject, but with a little bit of thought and a little bit of research, I was able to educate myself about something new and gain a whole new appreciation for contemporary art. And that, in my opinion, was well worth it.

Metacognition: Kite Runner Essay

As I opened my new Word document page to begin my Kite Runner essay, the first thing that popped into my mind was "How are all my thoughts going to fit into this essay?" I had my thesis statement, my Evidence Plan, everything! And with that, I had a mind full of connections, thoughts, and comments ready to be processed and put into my essay. The most tedious part of the essay was mostly done with, but my challenge at this point was to put it all together, a difficult task indeed.

By exploring the thoughts that came out of writing my essay and the actual essay itself, I definitely learned something about my writing. To start off, I put high priority in crafting an interesting introductory paragraph. In my eyes, if the reader begins any sort of text on a boring note, they won't be as interested in reading the rest as opposed to starting off with a great introduction. With the intro, I let my ideas flow so as to make it creative and interesting, avoiding too much structure and order. When there is too much structure, it makes it hard for you to try to sound like you're using your own voice and make any connection to the reader. I wanted my voice to be present and for it to seem like I'm reciting my own thoughts, not just the book's thoughts or copy/pasted information.

When writing essays, I find that my thoughts are usually scattered all over the place. I have so many ideas: some being great, some not so great, some completely relevant, some not as relevant. And they're all scattered around, waiting to be analyzed and formulated. There are so many thoughts that sometimes it's hard to even think and make the effort to analyze them and figure out what's worth writing..and to put it down on paper. But also, I notice that in the beginning of my writing, I don't have many ideas flowing and often have to sit and think for a period of time until I can actually get going. That said, it usually takes me a long time to start an essay, but the pace picks up after about the first paragraph. Once I get going though, then ideas start flowing. But sometimes, there are too many ideas. Often times I have so many ideas running around my brain I have to just write them down so that I have enough time to process them. As I write, my mind is always coming up with more and more ideas, connections, or comments to add into my writing, which is sometimes a hassle. It's great because I usually never run out of things to say or find that I'm at a lack of words on a certain subject, but at other times, I have so many connections and comments that I don't know when to stop. And then, I have to make sure I'm keeping my focus on the thesis and keeping it all concise at the same time....not getting drowned in my thoughts and going off topic.

I think it's interesting, none the less, of the mind's ability to come up with so many ongoing connections, sometimes without consciously wanting to come up with connections. It surprises me that I can think of so many things in a matter of minutes regarding a thesis or subject. It's really nice to have that ability, to connect and connect and make comments until you run out of room, and it sure makes for a unique, thought-filled essay. But at the same time, it's an area I would like to work on. I'd like to work on keeping my thoughts and connections concise and controlled, so that I can recognize and use my awesome connections, disregard my not-so-great connections, and keep everything relevant and interesting. I don't believe that 'the more you write, the better' but that it's rather how valuable or how powerful the thoughts are. A three-thousand word essay stating boring facts or one-dimentional observations about a book is far less valuable [in my opinion] than a seven hundred word essay with great voice and unique observations or claims. So I'd like to learn how to grasp my thoughts more effectively and put them together in a way that's effective but concise at the same time.

In conclusion, writing the Kite Runner essay and writing this blog post has really helped me in analyzing my writing and understanding what's good and what needs improvement in my thoughts and writing styles. I hope that this can help me retain what I think is good about my thinking and fix what's not so great about my thinking so that I can become an even better thinker and writer!

Blogging Around

Today I was able to read several blog posts by fellow Academy students. There were so many great and insightful posts that it was difficult to pick out the ones I wanted to comment on. But here were a couple of my favorites:

The first one I commented on was Faith's post titled "Metacognition: The Kite Runner."

Faith-

I really liked this blog post because of the way you were able to incorporate all of your factual information and connections you wanted to make but also add in your own voice into it. It made the blog post more interesting to read and it felt like you really took time to think out what you were going to say instead of just listing all of your connections and insights. But as for the actual content in the blog, there were definitely several points you mentioned that were very interesting to me. First off, I can definitely connect to what you said about your reexamination of the book and newfound approach to understanding Hosseini's writing. When I first started reading Kite Runner, I basically just read it to read it, not to examine it. I viewed it one-dimentionally, in a way: not looking out for underlying themes or anything other than the actual text. But as we started discussing it in class, I started realizing new things in the book [like you mentioned: themes with character interaction, specific punctuation to show emotion, etc. And as I continued reading, it started coming more naturally to me.

Another thing I found interesting was your insight about complex relationships and your connection to mind maps. I honestly never thought mind maps would ever come up again, to be honest. It was just such an out-of-the-box concept [but still interesting and a fun project] that I never knew when it could ever be connected again. But clearly, you connected it to this, and effectively! What you said about the 'theoretical' mind map of Amir that discusses his relationships really broadened my view on the book and really helped me bring together all my thoughts on the relationships displayed in Kite Runner. It really makes me value the idea of Mind Maps and makes me wonder if maybe even mentally visualizing a Mind Map to summarize aspects in novels could help gather your thoughts about important ideas in books. This post has brightened my view on Mind Maps and has left me with a new possible technique to understanding big concepts in novels, specifically character interactions/relationships.

The second blog post I commented on was Erika's blog and this one was titled "Captured Thought: Multi-Tasking"

Erika-

I really liked this blog post because of the witty insight and pleasant-to-read style of the post. First off I can say that, though I'm not proud of it, I can definitely be a multi-tasker, and a procrastinator. Though these are bad habits [and trust me, I know they're bad habits], sometimes they're hard things to break- especially on days where you have TOO much homework and not enough time. I think your insight about the fault in multi-tasking is really eye-opening. Now that I think about it, multi-tasking can definitely be much less effective than doing things the right way [in the long run]. I can definitely connect that with my Freshman math class. The class was easy for me- the content was easy because I had retained the information from previous courses, and I found myself being able to figure out problems in class just by 'doing what I remember.' At home, I chose not to do homework in depth, because I figured it was too easy anyways, and that I probably didn't need the practice-besides, I had plenty of other work to do that afternoon anyways. When I finally went to take the test...and when I got it back, I found that I made some stupid mistakes that could have been avoided if I would have just did the homework to reinforce what I already knew. Although it doesn't directly connect to multi-tasking, I think it's a good example for your idea of "Do the job right and do it well the first time, because if you don't it will come back to haunt you in the long run." This really reminds me of my learning experience and definitely makes me less apt to multi-task, procrastinate, or do half-done work. The way you voiced this 'aha' moment was really powerful and really made me want to fix my bad work-related habits.

Connection: Postmodernism on Television

Postmodernism is a concept that has been discussed thoroughly in class this week. Postmodernism is described as a world where space has been corrupted or is ambiguous. It is typically said to tell of the modern world, which is our world post World War II.

Postmodernism came into our class discussions because of a specific part in Kite Runner where Khaled Hosseini described a postmodern world. It was the part where the stoning in the soccer stadium took place. That instance showed how the soccer stadium was being corrupted for other unintended, disconnected actions. The concept of half-time with entertainment in a stadium meant for sports was corrupted and instead the entertainment was substituted with the stoning and the stadiums purpose was also corrupted. It's original purpose was for sports but was converted into a place for things rather thought of as 'politics'.

When I heard about the idea of 'postmodernism' and gave it a bit of thought, I started making several connections to television. There are many shows on television that many of us watch everyday that fit the definition of postmodernism. Two types of shows come to mind: law and court shows [i.e. People's Court, Judge Judy, etc] and police chases/crime shows [i.e. C.O.P.S, Mall Cops, etc]. If you think about it, there are many ways these types of shows can be thought of as 'products' or examples of a postmodern lifestyle.

The connection between Postmodernism and television probably came to me because I am one of those people who watches shows like People's Court or C.O.P.S, so with a little bit of thought, I saw how these things could be thought of as 'something where space has been corrupted' [one of the characteristics of postmodernism].

Let's take People's Court or Judge Judy for example. These types of shows are based on court-room cases that are real lawful ordeals. But when you think about it, we watch it on television for entertainment. Thus, the space where it's taking place, the court-room is being corrupted. When it's normally for serious, lawful affairs, it's instead being used for entertainment for the people. Also, the judge, which is usually a specific and strict job, is not just the only important factor for the television judge. On the show, the judges are also being hired to act as 'actors' and 'entertainers'. So the purpose of the 'judge' is also corrupted in that sense.

Now let's think about the cop shows or criminal chase shows like C.O.P.S. It's about the same deal. Cop chases are very serious, important matters, but once again the idea and action of that is being corrupted for the entertainment of watchers. The cops must have an air for entertainment and 'comedy' almost, and they have to perform their duties with a camera crew. If you think about that, the typical purpose for this is corrupted and wrong in a way.

I think recognizing this and understanding this relationship between Postmodernism and television informs us on the effects and examples of postmodernism in our world today. Many people, I believe, don't exactly understand what Postmodernism is really like and especially how it affects us through our everyday lives and especially in our media. It's important for us to understand it so that when we see shows like People's Court or C.O.P.S, we recognize that it is corrupted [to an extent] and that what we see is not really the true intention or true interpretation of it.

Best of Week: Form is Content

"Form is content:" this is a concept that I've been thinking about throughout this week, not only to Kite Runner but also to other aspects of life where 'form is content' can be applied to. To start off, I have to be honest and say that the idea of 'form is content' has never crossed my mind until Mr. Allen introduced the idea. Well, that is to say, never in an obvious way. I've never read a passage of a book or look at something and say "Oh! That's a good example of 'form is content" until now. But as I reflect back upon it, this idea has been indirectly running through my mind for years.

The idea of 'Form is Content' is EVERYWHERE. I mean it! Think about it: the way people dress or make themselves look is an example of 'form is content.' The way someone communicates to you: phone call, email, written letter, a text, meeting in person, Skyping...those are all examples of 'form is content'. How? Let's take the difference between a written letter and a Skype chat. If someone writes an email to you, that shows that they want to send you something personal [with the logic that a written letter is more personal than something typed on the computer] but they are not interested or willing to talk in person, or they do not find it vital to hear your voice or see you to have this conversation. With the Skype chat, it shows that the person is technologically advanced [to some degree] and wants to converse in a more intimate way by seeing the other person and being almost 'face to face.' Lastly, the person who would prefer to have a Skype chat is probably more outgoing and comfortable with the idea of talking to people in person and having a conversation with them, whether it's a stranger or a peer. The person who writes the letter is probably less outgoing, preferring a more distant way of communication, but still sustaining the personal aspect to it by writing out a letter as opposed to an email. To some this observation may seem like I'm looking way too much into the matter, but I personally find it really interesting to find almost a hidden message in the way people interact.

Let's take the example of the way people dress. Think about it: two women walk in for a job interview. One woman is wearing nice clothes, has her hair done, and walks in with a smile on her face. The other woman is wearing a simple white tee-shirt with ripped jeans and flip flops, has uncombed hair around her face, and looks like she just woke up. These things make impressions on people and shows how this person wants to be perceived. Form is content: the way content is shown! Connecting this to the example, the first woman probably cared about the way people saw her at the interview. It's clear that she woke up in the morning knowing what she was going to wear and that she spent time on her appearance. She probably believed that the way she looked would influence the way people would think about her. Even more, she probably believed that the way she acted in general was a way of her, herself, being shown to others, so the things she did would need to be appropriate or just in her eyes. The second woman probably believed that looks don't matter. She probably thought that as long as they see her personality, the way she would dress was just a superficial aspect that didn't matter for the job interview. Her values were most likely to be herself: that included the way she dresses, acts, etc. Dressing up would be something abnormal for her, thus being a shallow way of expressing herself.

But besides the everyday examples of 'form is content', it can also be seen in the books we read. Kite Runner is a great example of that. The language, punctuation, spacing, capitalizing, lowercasing, bold, italics....EVERYTHING, every aspect of the book is an example of 'form is content.' Every little aspect of the book was thought about and analyzed to really portray the emotion in the book. Since books are written, it's hard to express emotion and feeling since there is nothing but text. So, the author must rely on the little things mentioned above to show the feeling of characters in their book.

Something to note about 'form is content' in literature is that it can often times be perceived as 'incorrect writing' or 'grammatically incorrect.' Unfortunately, in my opinion, many student believe that the only way to write well is to follow the rules. And sadly, they're often taught that. When reading a work of literature by a student, 'form is content' can many times be taught as an error. And yes, sometimes it could just be an error. But I think it's important for us to realize that sometimes the best parts in literature or the best works of writing are achieved only by breaking the 'laws of writing' to achieve those great emotions...to achieve the 'form is content.'

This gets me right to the importance of understanding 'Form is Content': as a reader, a writer, or even just a person. The idea of 'Form is Content' really lets you dig deep into things, and lets you realize things that you may have never realized before. Getting 'Form is Content' can do a lot for you. It can teach you WHY an author writes the way he/she does; why they did what they did in a book. It can help you write a great essay or story that will get your reader saying "Wow, I don't know what they did or how they did it, but I really felt the emotion in her. I can hear their voice!". It can teach you about people: how the different things people do reflect who they are as a person.

So, like I said, the idea of 'Form is Content' is everywhere: in your environment, your friends, books, movies, music, etc. You just have to look for it. So, where can you find it?

iMedia: Lost Generation

"Lost Generation" is a student-made video created for an AARP contest in which it placed second. I first saw this video in Freshman Academy last year, but it has made a lasting impression on me that keeps bringing me back to this video to watch over and over again.

This video, in my opinion, is affective and moving to whoever watches. The first time I saw the video, I was mostly just amazed by the sheer brilliance in the 'reversal' aspect to the story. But the more I watched it, the more I dug deep into it to figure out the meaning in it.

To me, I found complete truth in the simplicity of reversing your world view. That's obviously conveyed in the video by how the narrator reversed her story, still using the same words, just in a reversed structure, and completely changed the meaning of it. But though it seems simple, I found that to society, the first story is easier to follow and live by, because it is broadcasted to us through the media and our "Mother Culture" [Ishmael term!!]. This, in turn, shapes our beliefs and goals, whether we like it or not. You may think: "Oh yeah, what do you mean? I would NEVER live like that...and I know many people who wouldn't! That's absurd.." But come on, look at what our world is coming to.

How many people work solely for money, not the satisfaction? How many people believe that having a high-paying job will make them happy...and that's the first thing they look for when they're trying to find a job [before seeing if they'll actually like doing the job!]? Hmm...liking the job....that matters too, right?

And the divorce rates, according to nationmaster.com, are the highest in the United States compared to any other country in the world.

Oh, and environmental destruction? I don't think there's anyone who wouldn't say that our environmental issues are piling up higher and higher as the years pass by.

That said, I think it's rational to say that the first portion of this video definitely brings up some painful truth, or better yet, painful predictions, to the future's world view. That is, the future world view if we don't do anything about it. But, I think the second portion of the video shows how, if we just reverse what the media and Mother Culture is telling us, live by what we think is justified [which would be categorized as non-conformist, according to the conformist world view (a.k.a first portion of the video)]then we can make a difference.

That's why I think this video is important for the youth and coming generations to see and realize that, although what we're seeing and hearing on TV, on the radio, or from others may make us think "Wow, there's no hope, or at least, I can't do anything about this. I guess I'll just have to live like this for the rest of my life", there is hope. There is hope as long as we believe that each of us can make a difference in our own way and better ourselves through what we believe is right, not what others tell us is right.

This video makes me think that things can change through a chain reaction: as long as one person starts the chain and makes it seen that they started it, others will follow along. In this case, the creator of this video started the chain, and is trying to spread it. And now, even though I'm just one person, one blogger, one little individual on this great big planet, I believe that if I reverse that conformist world view and reverse what is coming at me that seems like doom for my generation, I can make a change and spread the word to others. And if I spread the word to others, the chain reaction will keep going, and we will all be able to come together and change what we're supposedly doomed to live in.

That said, I'm blogging about this story in hopes that you, the reader, will watch this video and get the same view-atering experience as I did, and share it with someone else. To continue the chain reaction and help us not become a lost generation.