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?