Communities are based upon their togetherness and likeness of each other.  In order to be a considered a community people must have many of the same ideologies and feelings for what is around them. If a community does not have the “togetherness factor,” this is most likely due to huge differences in opinions that cannot be compromised or solved, which will lead to the dissolving of the pre-existing community.

 A community is made up of multiple people, which leads to many differences and much diversity within the culture. Because we are humans, we tend to group everyone together into these communities and assume that their ideas, thoughts, and actions are all alike. We think their motivations and goals are all similar and we assume that the people within this community will always stay within this community. We also tend to believe that people just belong to one group versus being part of many different groups as we have discovered in class. This is largely due to the fact that it is much easier for our brains to comprehend our surroundings if we lump everything together in large groups. As babies, one of the first surroundings we may learn about is a dog. Because dogs are furry and stand on four legs, many children are led to believe that cats, horses, and goats are also dogs. It is not until we learn differently or allow our minds to think about these categories that we make smaller groups within these groups.

This is the exact same with different cultures. Although there are many subgroups and people function quite differently within one community, we tend to only focus on the main group which we see because this makes it much easier. Every group has its own differences and each person within the group, although belonging to the group, is their own person.

Discourse Communities

Inventory of Groups

*Miller Family *Pryor Family *Roommates at the UC *Chamber Orchestra- Villa Lobos cellists/singer *Cellists *CCPA Cellists/musicians *Strings *Classical music listeners *classical music players *RU *Chicagoans *Columbians *Missourians *Wendy Warner’s Students *Freshman Cellists *freshman at CCPA/RU *Sevgi’s 8am piano class *Dr. Hussey’s 9:30am theory *Art history class *CCPA Orchestra *Performer for CCPA composition stuff *English class *Performance class  *RBHS people *RBHS orchestra *Group of really close friends from back home *Silly partying friends back home *MOSSYO *Student of Kirk Trevor’s *Student of Mary Manulik’s *Student of Darry Dolezal’s *MU Chamber Seminar friends *NHSMI people *Cello friends from here *All State friends *Colleen’s piano students *RBHS Theory program people *Rock music listeners *fans of Apocalyptica *fans of a LOT of other bands *fans of Stephen King * A LOT MORE that I don’t want to come up with!!

Rules that Govern Groups

When I had to think about which groups have some unspoken rules, however silly it may be, the first thing I thought of was Bach. I HATE Bach with a passion. I think he is one of the most lame, boring composers that ever walked the face of the earth. All of his music sounds basically the same, nothing weird about it at all and it always seems to be something calm, which I can’t relate to. So this makes it veeeeeerrrrrrrryyyy difficult to play and let alone perform because I have no connection to the music. Now I have been known to be extremely open about this fact if the chance is given to me, but there are certain groups that if I were ever to mention Bach, I would need to be very very careful with which words I choose. Basically, this applies to half of the groups I am associated with. I am finally at the point with Kirk, Darry, and Mary, that they just know without me even having to mention that I absolutely despise Bach. But with MOSSYO, All State, MU Chamber, CCPA cellists, Wendy, and any theory class ever, I really should keep my trap shut. Some people take great offence… The people who were in my AP Theory class at RBHS were all really wonderful people and great musicians. There were only four other kids in that class with me and they were all seniors when I was a junior. I already felt as though I was walking on egg shells. I didn’t want to seem less mature or knowledgeable, I wanted to prove myself as up to the “senior standards” or something like that. Anyway, there was this one guy in the class that was SUPER good at theory… and he loved Bach. Like more than I have ever loved any composer. He would literally sit down and completely analyze a Bach Choral for the hell of it. He loved the different conventions used and was a big supporter and lover of counter point. This really does go hand in hand with pretty much every theory class ever, which is especially why I couldn’t just shout out in the middle of class “I HATE BACH AND I THINK HE’S THE WORST THING THAT HAPPENED TO CELLISTS SINCE PACHELBEL’S CANON!!!!!!!!!!!” See, this would just end up badly. We’re talking about arguing with a guy who got angry when we started to work on 20^th century numerical ways of composing, I mean, not too open minded and happy with the new style. I wouldn’t ever dare to speak the yelling above to any of the judges in my jury coming up, or any of the grad student cellists. I might just mention, hey, not a huge fan of Bach, but I would never ever tell them the full extent of my hatred. Even writing this seems as though it might be bad news because Jessica and Spencer (fellow cellists) may possibly read it. There are many little things like this which I have to kind of filter before I say anything.

Gaining Membership

One of the newest, and in my opinion, most important groups that I had to gain membership to would have to be the CCPA cellists. I was absolutely scared to death that it would be an intense, cut throat environment when I got here, but it has actually turned out to be pretty calm and friendly. There is still an intense pressure to prove yourself as a cellist though. Because we are in the same ensembles and studios as many graduate cellists, there is an intense pressure to be seen as a good cellist.  I feel as though there is a slight unspoken way about us as musicians. If you play and don’t sound very good at a particular performance or rehearsal, you are looked down on. People normally won’t act very different towards you, but the group’s opinion of you as a whole has lowered significantly. On the other hand, if one were to perform and play amazingly well, you are treated more as part of the group. The older students embrace you more so as one of their own and you kind gain an official membership to the group. Those who are in kind of a place of power in the group are either the students who have been here for a while, or the ones who have been in school in general for a while (such as any first year grad student). Through doing a decent job in my auditions in the beginning for seating, my performance in performance class, my performance for the composition recital, and my involvement in a few extra ensembles, I feel as though I have begun the process of proving myself and being truly accepted as one of the cellists. In the music world, it seems like it is a whole process of building up your reputation as a person, performer, and a hard worker that gets you far and will gain you connections and gigs.

The Advertisement.

The advertisement has a picture of a girl who is very dressed up and seems to almost be camping… while wearing a pair of fancy heels. This does not seem at all right, almost a complete contradiction in itself. The opposite side of the add has a close up of the shoes showing almost an old school western look with another pair of modern, fancy heels. This shows a complete contrast between the styles and could almost resemble conflict. The woman is in a pensive pose, looking off into the distance, seeming to be contemplating something. She is wearing clothing that has very earthy colors, but is shiny and very chic. There is a sleeping bag and a massive tent behind her. It almost seems to try and tell us that we can have the best of both worlds? Be modern, yet still be close to nature and be down to earth. Maybe this picture could be taken as the struggle between these two extremes.

My topic which I discussed during the in class writing was my discovery of my fear of failure concerning music. It has to do with the complete conflict between my love of music and how I am afraid of losing it. I am afraid to completely put myself out there because I do not want to lose something I care about so much. Maybe this picture could resemble the conflict between my love and almost fear for music. Like nature and the modern stylish clothing, they are conflicting. Maybe the girl can represent how I am not sure how to combine these two extremes. She is trying to discover what to do and where the line is between these extremes. She is going through the extreme conflict and discovery of her problem and could easily resemble the moment of my understanding of my conflicting ideas.

blog about a blog

Claim: In order to feel as though we better understand another culture which we know nothing about, we sometimes unknowingly make our view of them (our frames) incredibly small and vague.

                So I was incredibly interested in the part of the graphic novel Persepolis that we read the other day and thought that I would try to see what else there was out there about Iran and Iranians as far as blogs go.  I stumbled across this blog http://land-of-persia.blogspot.com/ and only had time to watch the first video (yes, it is a blog with videos containing writing and pictures) due to procrastination, but right off the bat, many of my misconceptions were changed. First of all, I had always thought of many of the Middle Eastern countries to be really dry and hot all the time and NEVER having snow. I also for some reason never thought that the people and history of Iran would be in any way shape or form progressive, now or any time in the past. I was wrong! There was evidence of religious freedom equality between men and women in the work place, and hell, they even invented poker!

                I was enjoying myself watching the video, and then something totally changed my mood.  I saw that many of the Iranian people, despite police trying to disperse the groups, spent much time after 9/11 mourning. There are pictures of them standing with candles at night for the victims of the attacks. The images made me feel incredibly sad. Not so much for the memory of 9/11, but for the fact that I never knew they cared. And then I started thinking, well why exactly as a little 4^th grader did I not know that they cared? Because I was never told or introduced to the idea that people in the Middle East (for that is always how I learned to classify them in my mind) cared. And why was I never told? Probably because our media is shit and as Americans we rarely seek out what reality and the truth is on our own? Is it a cultural thing where somewhere down the road our ancestors decided that we should care about such things, and so it was not taught to seek out the truth and have a wider view and openness to what we do not know??

                It is this dilemma which infuriates me. I like to think of myself as an incredibly open and constantly in thought individual. I try to figure out the world around me, try to figure out why people are how they are, and until I watched this video, such a thing never occurred to me. I believe this is probably due to that fact that when I was first introduced to the stigma that goes along with the Middle East in general, I was quite young. So what other stupid frames have I not questioned yet due to what I have learned from school, media, and everyone around me? Why exactly are our frames so limited?

Response 2

I really liked this story. I’m not quite sure what all of it meant, and I’m not too good with my names of dictators and political leaders, but it made me think. I thought about how politics interact with religion, women’s rights, and what exactly imperialism is. Most of all, it made me feel something, intense sorrow and hopelessness I believe, at the very end when God did not come back to talk to the little girl. In fact, while I was getting ready to go to my first class just a couple minutes ago, one of the pieces that I am working on with my private instructor popped into my head, Lalo’s cello concerto, first movement. I always try to match stories either from my life or what is going on around me in order to really get to the deep emotional level in any piece I play and these two stories seem to fit perfectly. This piece is an emotional roller coaster, but no matter the emotion, it is full of passion. I can see at the very beginning in the almost cadenza part of the piece a struggle. I can see the little girl trying to figure out where exactly she stands between the world of politics and what society expects and religion. There is an intensity, but not quite a rebellion. When the main theme of the piece comes in, it fits perfectly with the little girl’s declaration of protesting, going to the political side of things. It is loud, in your face, and full of what almost seems to be anger. But between these parts of intensity, there is a change. Something sweeter, innocent, and a sort of longing is introduced. I’m still not quite sure if this would represent her wanting that part of her life back (religion and being close to god) that is gone, or if this is more of a sorrow for the path she has chosen because she understands she cannot lead both lives. Or maybe it is just sheer confusion, for it may seem to the little girl that everyone else is living the life of religion and taking a side in these revolutions and politics, so why can’t she? She is probably trying to grasp whether or not it is possible to meld these two worlds together. Here lies the true dilemma and conflict within the piece and story. There is quite obviously no way for these two lives to work together. Religion, at the base of them all, is about doing good, being peaceful, working to improve the world around you, and loving one another. The politics, wars, and revolutions of countries are all about power, control, and winning. There are multiple sides to politics, and only one true base to religion. I think this story gets at the heart of the innocence of what the little girl believed, what all little children believe in the beginning, and how it is corrupted and changed. Good intentions somehow grow up and mature into something that is not so. I must say, I am still slightly confused by all of this.

Response to "Ways of Seeing"

First of all, I do not believe that photographs or cameras have absolutely no meaning at all. Yes, they can sometimes devalue things (can’t any statement, even paintings??), but they can also be extremely artistic and have a meaning and a point within themselves. If done in an artful and meaningful manner, you can capture the image. When someone takes a photograph, they are putting their own interpretation of the scene into it, just as Hals did with the painting “Regentesses of the Old Men’s Alms House” and “Regents of the Old Men’s Alms House.” In both of these paintings, he is projecting his own ideas and interpretations of the scene he sees before him. When a photographer chooses what they shall take a picture of, what angle, what they should include, where the focus should be, they themselves are also interpreting the surroundings.

                So, I do not believe that we are devaluing something just because we take a picture of it. I think it is the intent behind the picture, what the meaning is to the photographer, that would set the mood and the meaning to the people if they truly look. Also, a big part of this is how the image is used. Let’s say you take a photograph of Picasso’s  woagueaohu, and use this reproduction to explain the true meaning, how intense this time period and this war was at the time, no importance of the painting is lost.

Guernica and the Evolution of Consciousness- Picasso

Of course the true beauty and magnificence of the painting is not seen, but it still is able to send much of the original message of the true painting.  I do not believe that a painting’s meaning becomes transmittable unless the people who take and use the pictures try and attempt to make the picture into something it is not. This problem is far from a problem of cameras being evil or anything like that, but is more an issue of society and how easily we devalue things that have great meaning. As a society, we get too wrapped up in the monetary value of things or what we can get out of it. We attempt to manipulate the images to fit our own needs and situations. This is not, however the only way that the interpretation of these paintings changes. As long as there is a person viewing the painting other than the artist themself, the image’s “meaning is either modified or totally changed.” This is just part of what we call context.  Depending on the audience, their views, their past, their knowledge of history, they can interpret Picasso’s painting in many different ways. They will put emphasis on one part of the painting rather on than on another, which may, or may not be the original intent of the artist. For example, I know a bit of the history of this painting from my Spanish class a few years ago. This influences how I see the painting. Although I have information about the actual event in history, the painting would still be interpreted in a completely different way by someone who has been in war or have seen the repercussions of it. Although the picture I have put above is a reproduction, does it still not have a significant message?

Social Classes

I found the article whole section “Class Matters” of the New York Times to be extremely interesting. It talks of how far we have come in respect to certain matters segregating class, yet how we still seem to be further away from social equality even with supposedly fewer clear lines to segregate.  Class can no longer be determined by looking at what a person buys, their religion, their ethnicity, or their political views. All different classes have become more of a melting pot over the last several decades. It is my opinion that the diversity within the different classes is what matters, rather than conforming to a socialist way of life.

By keeping up exactly what we are doing (whatever we are exactly doing, I am not sure that anyone knows), we will further mix up the different previous “class determining factors” which made it so easy to tell who belonged to what social class. I believe the important thing is that we are on our way to completely erasing these lines of religion, political beliefs, and ethnicity between the classes. There is absolutely no doubt that the higher you climb the latter, the more influence you have upon those around you and the more of a possibility it is for you to change how things are. By the people on the top rungs of this latter representing all different walks of life, this will lead to a more democratic society. Although this is a much more balanced possibility, this does not deal with the exact matter of social class, but would completely erase the lines by which you could attempt to measure who is in what social class besides directly looking at their jobs, education, and income. I am not completely sure how to speed up the process of the integration of all religions, ethnicities, etc., into all classes, but time will surely allow this complete integration.

I do realize that this is not really discussing the matter of social classes and how to get rid of them, rather it is discussing how to get rid of any possible social injustices that could allow the playing field to slant in any one direction.  As long as we are living in a democratic, capitalistic society, there will always be social classes. There will constantly be people trying to get ahead, those who can succeed with flying colors, and those who just weren’t able to acquire the position which they wished. Due to the nature of capitalism, this is something we cannot escape. And due to the nature of human beings to want to achieve all that they possibly can (whether it be through some internal drive referred to by Krishnamurti, or by greed), there is truly no way to have a completely class free world without there being a Utopia.

I believe it is impossible to ever allow every person the same chances to reach the top as those around them. Some people will just happen to know the right people, others will get the right things and connections from their parents who are in the upper class. In order to make it just as possible for every person, I believe our biggest flaw, and biggest area to work on is our education. Our schools are where we pick up many of our ideas of how the world works. If we could have all social classes learn in the same way that Anyon presents the upper classes learn, everyone would start out with many more of the same chances than in today’s society.

My Elementary School

(Sorry this is late, I’m sick! Finally forced enough energy out of myself to sit up and type this! Sorry if it doesn't make any sense at all... :/)

                I grew up in a small college town, which for the most part is an extremely affluent and sophisticated society. Although Columbia, Missouri has several wealthy neighborhoods, the majority of its population seems to be upper middle class. The elementary school that I went to was supposedly at the top of its game as far as public schools in the area went. The only school we would hear about that the kids were “so much smarter” at was Columbia Independent School.

                Mill Creek Elementary School was by far my favorite school of all that I had attended. In general, the school would always promote an idea that every individual matters and we must strive to achieve our full potential.  Starting from kindergarten, we were always working on little projects hands on projects either to learn the basics or to express something that we learned from a story we recently read in class. We would always be encouraged to make the projects our own and would always get the chance to share our creation with the class or another “partner” once we were done. We were often encouraged to be immersed within what we were learning. We had a full day in fifth grade where we were not allowed to use anything that the pioneers didn’t have on their trip across the west in honor of learning about the Organ Trail.

                In Mill Creek, we were always encouraged to work as a big group, as a community, but also to let our individuality show and share it. It was always a creative environment and would seek to engage us in learning as much as possible. I remember that our kindergarten class raised a few caterpillars and released them once they turned into butterflies. This was the general mentalitly of the school, to keep the children interested and keep their world creative. Our writing assignments (up until about third grade) were always left open ended and allowed us to write about pretty much anything we wanted in whatever way we wanted.

 Although the classes were very open and encouraging, we were rarely pushed as far as learning went. We never delved into anything as deeply as the “Executive Elite School” according to Anyon, but we were always encouraged individually as students if we took the initiative to do something a little bit harder or more challenging than what was assigned to the class. In this way, I was quite often picking harder books to read, more complex explanations for things during social studies, science, and reading. I felt that the environment was always flexible as Anyon describes and we were always kept engaged as much as possible. We would go walk around the school grounds collecting things for a science class or would bring things from home to share with others. There was always flexibility between the teachers and we never felt completely rushed. This would occasionally allow for times when the classes would “be too noisy”. The teachers would then resort to the more strict and almost judgmental ways seen in the Middle Class Schools in Anyon’s research. At this point, the classrooms would generally lose their sense of learning and creativeness which Mill Creek was based upon.

http://service.columbia.k12.mo.us/millcreek/  also, thought it was interesting that I still almost have this memorized… http://www.columbia.k12.mo.us/mce/pledgepage.htm

Connection between Freire and Krishnamurti

Upon reading from the writings of Freire and Krishnamurti, it is quite obvious that these philosophers believe many of the same things. They seem to agree on the fact that they do not like the world now, or how we are being raised to be in this world and also on the fact that our society musty radically change in order to fix the great problems it is suffering.

One of the main points that both authors talk about, is the changing of education. They both seem to indicate that “learning” begins at a young age in schools from teachers and parents. This supposed learning eventually shapes us into the person that we will be in society. We learn how to act, respond, and how the world works, just by what our teachers, parents, and peers have told us is wrong, right, bad, or good. In the words of Freire, “The educated individual is the adapted person, because she or he is better “fit” for the world.” We are taught to not question how the world works, even though it is quite imperfect, but rather exactly how to fit into it and not mess with the system at all. Both seem to agree that the objective of our educational systems now is to create a world where the students can easily fit in without questioning the system at all.

Both authors allude to the idea of people’s lives being taken away from them by this process. Krishnamurti describes it as conforming to the general path of going to school, getting a job, getting married, having kids, etc. while Freire explains it as taking away people’s lives and turning them into objects. Both get the point across that by blindly following this method of education, being told what to do and how to think, we are “approaching line mechanically.” Both texts explain that because people lack to think for themselves, they conform to materialistic things and ideas, such as power in order to feel as though they are truly fulfilling their lives.

In the end, both authors are strongly trying to push change. They believe that our education, school systems, parents, and society in general are “indoctrinating [people] to adapt to the world of oppression.” They believe that the only way to accomplish such a change in education and overall living, is by flat out rejecting the current method of education. Krishnamurti spoke of how it was impossible for a person to change who they are as a person without becoming aware of themselves and how they were, what they were. Freire explains it in a way that consciousness is being conscious of consciousness. Either way, these two authors believe in the idea that the only way to change education, is for the individuals to change, and the only way for individuals to change, is for the individual to become conscious of themselves, who they are, and why they are. By people becoming aware of this, each person will be challenged and “their response to the challenge evokes new challenges, followed by new understanding.” This is also explained by Krishnamurti in the way of people being pushed forward to learn without “ambition.” The belief of both people is that society must radically change, without being forced to, but by choosing to as individuals and as a whole.

Questions About Writing

How do you think about writing? What is it to you?


I have always though that writing was a great art form. I have never particularly felt attached to it, or like I was good at it in any way, but I admire people who are quite good at it. I guess I am not as enthralled with writing as I am reading. Reading has always been something I love to do. It opens up your mind to different ideas and worlds which you otherwise may never have thought of. My favorite author of all time is Stephen King. Although I am sure that there are many more writers out there who have crafted much better pieces of work, King has always been able to reach me. He understands the basic fears and vulnerabilities of humans and plays on those weaknesses as much as he can. I don’t know if anyone (besides a musician or composer) who has ever quite moved me and made me feel so much through their work as with King’s The Green Mile. This book has permanently changed the way I think and feel about some things. For example, I can no longer hear the word “brine” without freaking out and having a gruesome image of an electrocution. I can’t get the ending of the book out of my head and every time I think about it, I feel the same intense sting as the same time I finished the book. To me, writing is the connection between the writer and the reader to express feelings. There are a million ways to reach another human being, and if used well, writing can be one of the most effective ways.

What has your experience with writing been like?

I have always had pretty mixed feelings about writing. Pretty much, it dates back all the way to first grade and stupid “creative spelling” or whatever the hell it was called. We were encouraged to spell words how we thought they were supposed to be spelled… but once spelling tests came around, this creative approach made me feel like I was doing everything completely wrong because my spelling was so terrible. So that was the first negative. As I began to get a little older, I was not nearly as easily amused or nearly as willing to do just anything, and writing the 20th story about my family, house, and pets just was no longer interesting. This began my intense dislike for writing in a school sense. Responding to prompts which half the time you couldn’t give two shits about strongly turned me off from writing and the fact that it was always so subjective when it came to grading. It was not until recently that I ever considered that writing could be done without it being required. Within the past couple of years, I have started to use writing as a way to vent my feelings when they are just WAY too difficult to keep to myself, and I don’t want to share them with anyone else. SO, I now keep a journal of sorts that I have loads of yelling, scribbles, and a complete spilling out of my feelings of that exact moment.



What people, events, or experiences have shaped these ideas of writing?

Well, when I was in 3rd grade I believe, I had one of my first prompt writing “tests”. I really had absolutely no clue what to expect, or how these things worked at all. So, I think I can easily say that my best and least influenced writing by anyone else was this one. It came straight from the heart, a story about my dear dog Austrea and her last few hours before we had to put her to sleep. I genuinely loved her, grew up with her, and I think this came through in the writing. So, once I got the paper back and had a grade of 4 (four being the highest), I began to wonder “oh, how do I make sure to get a good grade on writing assignments in the future?” This was the beginning of my crappy and meaningless writing. Since that point, I’ve noticed that some of my most B.S. papers have gotten the best grades and that a lot of it has to do with who is grading it. I’ve been told that I’m very far ahead with my writing skills compared to my other classmates and also told that I should come in before and after school to get extra help on that writing assignment. If it weren’t for music and my belief that if done right, you can express yourself and make others feel the same feelings that you feel, I would have totally said “screw you” to writing years ago. Because of a few books I have read and many poetic song lyrics, I have not completely given up on writing and just assume that it’s all writing to do with school that sucks rather than writing in general!