The video essays this week were extremely interesting! The main one I watched was Mangoes. Admittedly, I felt a bit awkward getting such an intimate view into how this man is taking care of his baby. To some degree, I felt like I was seeing too deep into his special relationship to his family. However, I know that is something more in line with what I am personally distressed by, and others probably don't see it quite the same way.
His actual point about gender stereotypes was very poignant and strong, and I really found myself interested in what it had to say. As usual, he made it very clear that we put far too much emphasis on gender as a way to force certain people into certain roles for absolutely arbitrary reasons. There's no reason the dad should feel embarrassed by wearing his baby on his chest, yet that's the society we live in today. It's a very powerful piece with a message that we deserve to see over and over again until it starts making a difference.
Wednesday, December 11, 2013
Blog Post #12-Creative Response to Gertrude Stein.
In responding to Gertrude Stein's "The Geographical History of America," I decided to create a Lyric essay response, influenced by the books style:
In the beyond of the notion of fear lies the greatest of centuries past we create with a burden of guilt wrought by hellish descent. There is no hope in finding how, not when there lies creations end. With fire's freeze the hellish noise and cinder crushing all hopes flight.
Not when humanity fights for the cause can they open the eye of the sword ripped in water destroy any wish for survival just doom by the end of the day its a plain of the damned. Nothing can unmake the human inner voice compelling us to do as evil calls us to when all has made the madness all the omnipresent is there something left still sane? When they continue down the barren steps of evil they can never know the burdening agony as nothing but wreckage remains there's only death to pay the twists of metal steel and blood torment the earth.
Logic wants the man to know his limits yet his voice compels a true distinction aiming for a great walled death seclusion riding valiantly through hypocritical descents to allowance. There is only a distinction that man strives for never searching past the truth of soul. Binded Blinded courted and elated thwarted never ending mortem only hell awaits.
The connection is real, but the balance is tight, and the line grows ever vaguer.
In the beyond of the notion of fear lies the greatest of centuries past we create with a burden of guilt wrought by hellish descent. There is no hope in finding how, not when there lies creations end. With fire's freeze the hellish noise and cinder crushing all hopes flight.
Not when humanity fights for the cause can they open the eye of the sword ripped in water destroy any wish for survival just doom by the end of the day its a plain of the damned. Nothing can unmake the human inner voice compelling us to do as evil calls us to when all has made the madness all the omnipresent is there something left still sane? When they continue down the barren steps of evil they can never know the burdening agony as nothing but wreckage remains there's only death to pay the twists of metal steel and blood torment the earth.
Logic wants the man to know his limits yet his voice compels a true distinction aiming for a great walled death seclusion riding valiantly through hypocritical descents to allowance. There is only a distinction that man strives for never searching past the truth of soul. Binded Blinded courted and elated thwarted never ending mortem only hell awaits.
The connection is real, but the balance is tight, and the line grows ever vaguer.
Wednesday, November 20, 2013
#11
Gertrude Stein's Geographical History of America is easily one of the most frustrating texts I have ever had to read. No matter how much we discuss it, I absolutely cannot wrap my head around what this book is supposed to be about. Every time I start to feel like I see a through line, I realize that there's another dimension to the text that knocks that idea out of the sky. It's structured in a way that just drives me up the wall, and I can't seem to reconcile certain contradictions that are in there.
Firstly, there's the way one is supposed to analyze this book. because each sentence is a riddle, you have to analyze each little paragraph or sentence for a good 20 minutes before you start to get a solid idea of what she is saying. I feel like once you actually have all of the themes in this written down in front of you (human mind, human nature, nature of war, nature of piece. nature of reading, writing, language, and even the point of sentience vs non sentience, etc), you could figure out what the common theme was. On the other hand, because of how the analysis is so time consuming, I feel like almost NO human would ever spend that much time decoding this book. It's just so incredibly tedious. That;s what I can't tear myself away from. This book is just so outrageously tedious, I must imagine that somehow, the difficulty is in service of the book's main theme. No matter how I approach this though, I inevitably fail and end up stuck on the tedium again.
Worse, I am starting to feel like that's part of the point of the book, but at the same time, almost EVERY COMPLAINT that has been brought up in class has also been said to probably be "part of the point of the book," which only further raises my skepticism. I...feel like I'm fighting myself when I read this. Is that the point? I just don't know anymore...
I'm sure she ultimately has something very interesting to say about the Human Condition. I really do. It's obvious that whatever she's saying, it relates to the habits thoughts and skills that we humans learn early on without thinking about, and she's trying to draw attention to them so that we DO think about them. Exactly what habits, thoughts, or skills she is referring to, of course, is the challenging part that she's encoded so well, and I can respect the skill it took to do so. There is clearly a MASSIVE amount of time and effort put into this piece, and the language is absolutely beautiful. I completely respect her and her writing style, and it's obviously FAR more advanced than mine. I think I might just be starting to burn out on experimental writing and challenging contemporary art in general... I probably need to step back and watch some superhero cartoons for a while. But since the class is almost done, I'll give it my all this weekend to try and dig in and latch onto something in this book that pertains to our class. I promise!
Firstly, there's the way one is supposed to analyze this book. because each sentence is a riddle, you have to analyze each little paragraph or sentence for a good 20 minutes before you start to get a solid idea of what she is saying. I feel like once you actually have all of the themes in this written down in front of you (human mind, human nature, nature of war, nature of piece. nature of reading, writing, language, and even the point of sentience vs non sentience, etc), you could figure out what the common theme was. On the other hand, because of how the analysis is so time consuming, I feel like almost NO human would ever spend that much time decoding this book. It's just so incredibly tedious. That;s what I can't tear myself away from. This book is just so outrageously tedious, I must imagine that somehow, the difficulty is in service of the book's main theme. No matter how I approach this though, I inevitably fail and end up stuck on the tedium again.
Worse, I am starting to feel like that's part of the point of the book, but at the same time, almost EVERY COMPLAINT that has been brought up in class has also been said to probably be "part of the point of the book," which only further raises my skepticism. I...feel like I'm fighting myself when I read this. Is that the point? I just don't know anymore...
I'm sure she ultimately has something very interesting to say about the Human Condition. I really do. It's obvious that whatever she's saying, it relates to the habits thoughts and skills that we humans learn early on without thinking about, and she's trying to draw attention to them so that we DO think about them. Exactly what habits, thoughts, or skills she is referring to, of course, is the challenging part that she's encoded so well, and I can respect the skill it took to do so. There is clearly a MASSIVE amount of time and effort put into this piece, and the language is absolutely beautiful. I completely respect her and her writing style, and it's obviously FAR more advanced than mine. I think I might just be starting to burn out on experimental writing and challenging contemporary art in general... I probably need to step back and watch some superhero cartoons for a while. But since the class is almost done, I'll give it my all this weekend to try and dig in and latch onto something in this book that pertains to our class. I promise!
Wednesday, November 13, 2013
#10
Reading Gertrude Steins work is always a challenge. The language is non linear, and often times non narrative. It doesn't flow like normal language, and it doesn't care to explain itself. The sentences don't feel like they are complete, even though they are. The text resembles a normal essay, but it is anything but. I shouldn't enjoy this.
Yet I kinda do. The constant contradictions within the text make the meaning of each sentence very difficult to understand, and it becomes very easy to think of each sentence as just being a conglomerate of abstract concepts. I actually really enjoy letting the meaning of the words simply deflect away from my brain, in one ear and out the other, and just listening to the vocal rhythm of the sentences. The text has an almost lyrical quality to it, the way it keeps talking about ideas in literal ways. Actually interpreting what the text means is a very different story however, and i've yet to make much progress in that department.
Yet I kinda do. The constant contradictions within the text make the meaning of each sentence very difficult to understand, and it becomes very easy to think of each sentence as just being a conglomerate of abstract concepts. I actually really enjoy letting the meaning of the words simply deflect away from my brain, in one ear and out the other, and just listening to the vocal rhythm of the sentences. The text has an almost lyrical quality to it, the way it keeps talking about ideas in literal ways. Actually interpreting what the text means is a very different story however, and i've yet to make much progress in that department.
Thursday, November 7, 2013
blog post #9
This week, listening to Douglas Kearney was absolutely fascinating. I've never actually been so interested in the way a poet reads their own work before. I was totally blown away and almost even immersed. I wish I didn't have such a hearing problem, I'd love to be able to understand any of the words he was saying while he read from his book The Black Automaton. As is, his energy and emotion from his voice absolutely carried the entire two day set for me. I found myself hanging onto every word he had to say, especially once he started talking more about music, my personal forte.
What stuck with me the most was when he commented that he was always shocked at the number of students he meets who love hip-hop, but they cannot recite any lyrics because they do not listen. Although I did not know this for a while, I actually have this problem, and for a long time I did not realize this was abnormal. I simply cannot understand any lyrics when they are sung over music, just like I can't hear people talk in a loud restaurant. As a direct result, all of the thousands of songs I know well tend to have a heavy emphasis on instrumentation, because for me, that was where the real magic was. Since I only understand every tenth word or so, I always though of lyrics as a way to set the mood for the music, and my personal taste and areas of musical expertise are directly because of this problem. I learned only a few years ago that there are people who pick their favorite bands based on how strong the lyrical content is, and enjoy music where the music is just a mood for the lyrics to make the real art. As I have to manually look up words on the internet, these genre's have been slow for me to get into, since my focus naturally gravitates towards other areas.
Talking to Kearney after the performance, I was able to hear his take on this relationship for a little bit, and he had very interesting examples of hip hop artists composing their lyrics before, after, or halfway through the writing of the music, which also fascinates me because I have never written lyrics to a song before writing all of the music and instrumentation. I have gone so far as to write vocal melodies with "placeholder lyrics," because my value's have naturally gravitated that way. I am currently working on writing a song, and have been toying with the idea of writing the music and lyrics simultaneously, and I now feel extra inspired that this could be a new avenue for me to explore.
What stuck with me the most was when he commented that he was always shocked at the number of students he meets who love hip-hop, but they cannot recite any lyrics because they do not listen. Although I did not know this for a while, I actually have this problem, and for a long time I did not realize this was abnormal. I simply cannot understand any lyrics when they are sung over music, just like I can't hear people talk in a loud restaurant. As a direct result, all of the thousands of songs I know well tend to have a heavy emphasis on instrumentation, because for me, that was where the real magic was. Since I only understand every tenth word or so, I always though of lyrics as a way to set the mood for the music, and my personal taste and areas of musical expertise are directly because of this problem. I learned only a few years ago that there are people who pick their favorite bands based on how strong the lyrical content is, and enjoy music where the music is just a mood for the lyrics to make the real art. As I have to manually look up words on the internet, these genre's have been slow for me to get into, since my focus naturally gravitates towards other areas.
Talking to Kearney after the performance, I was able to hear his take on this relationship for a little bit, and he had very interesting examples of hip hop artists composing their lyrics before, after, or halfway through the writing of the music, which also fascinates me because I have never written lyrics to a song before writing all of the music and instrumentation. I have gone so far as to write vocal melodies with "placeholder lyrics," because my value's have naturally gravitated that way. I am currently working on writing a song, and have been toying with the idea of writing the music and lyrics simultaneously, and I now feel extra inspired that this could be a new avenue for me to explore.
Wednesday, October 30, 2013
#8
This week, I ended up thinking a lot about my project again. I struggled really hard to think of ways for the pieces format on paper to reflect its content, and I wonder if perhaps the reason I have trouble with it is because I created a piece that isn't trans genre in the way this assignment may have required. On the other hand, I'm still very proud of my creation, so I hope all the heart I put into it still comes across in the writing.
I suppose the problem I now can see with the piece is that it's ultimately something of a standard narrative. The story just follows a fictional character around from a first person perspective as he goes about a small chapter of his long ling life story, and while I tried to make that story as novel unique and original as possible, many of the strangest pieces we've studied in this class have eschewed formal narrative in the traditional sense, rather attempting more surreal and discordant forms of conveying messages through writing. I worry that my favoritism for traditional narrative may continue to handicap me as I continue the class.
However, I do enjoy the touches I was able to come up with. The Reaper character is a concept I created a year ago, based on the concept of what would drive someone with power over death to do the things that death is typically portrayed as doing. Why would he appear at someone's bedside when it's their time. To that end, I based it on an idea that omniscience changes a man so much, he's hardly a man any more, and would do things that the rest of us would think crazy. The omniscience is what i hope really sets the character apart from other characters in first person traditional narratives.
I suppose the problem I now can see with the piece is that it's ultimately something of a standard narrative. The story just follows a fictional character around from a first person perspective as he goes about a small chapter of his long ling life story, and while I tried to make that story as novel unique and original as possible, many of the strangest pieces we've studied in this class have eschewed formal narrative in the traditional sense, rather attempting more surreal and discordant forms of conveying messages through writing. I worry that my favoritism for traditional narrative may continue to handicap me as I continue the class.
However, I do enjoy the touches I was able to come up with. The Reaper character is a concept I created a year ago, based on the concept of what would drive someone with power over death to do the things that death is typically portrayed as doing. Why would he appear at someone's bedside when it's their time. To that end, I based it on an idea that omniscience changes a man so much, he's hardly a man any more, and would do things that the rest of us would think crazy. The omniscience is what i hope really sets the character apart from other characters in first person traditional narratives.
Wednesday, October 23, 2013
Blog week #7
This week, after Mondays discussion on Gaga feminism, it finally began to hit me just how many different ways there are to frame the discussion, so that even if two feminists want the same result, the evidence they use to get there can be so different as to nearly make them enemies. I'm noticing that because I frame my personal views on feminism so positively, I have trouble accepting other versions of it that are more aggressive.
Specifically, my main idea for feminism is that ultimately, there are still barriers that make Men, Women, and those in between different, and instead of focusing on treating everyone like their gender is irrelevant, I feel like it's more fair to frame it so that yes, there are differences, but because of the way the patriarchal system has oppressed all other non-conformers so brutally for so long, we should strive to respect everyone for what they want to believe, and we must strive to make things fair. Compared to other theories that wish to proclaim gender as not existing, I feel like we arrive at the same conclusion, but ultimately disagree on a few points.
For example, the idea that Women buy things like shoes to be pretty ONLY because the patriarchal system has conditioned them to. I agree that this happens and is mostly true. I also agree that women shouldn't have to feel like they are weird for NOT wanting to buy shoes. What bothers me are feminists who then say that buying shoes supports the patriarchal system, when in fact, a lot of women just want to buy shoes. I think it is really hard to expect women to divorce themselves from the concept of gender as a form of freedom when so many still personally choose to identify as women. I'd much rather frame it so that we make rules allowing women to buy as many or as few shoes as they desire, and do not chastise them for the feminine or masculine traits they may be exhibiting based on those kind of decisions.
I obviously understand the merits to such opinions, as an end to gender entirely would most certainly be a step towards ending the kind of inequality that women face. In fact, the radical anti-feminist groups out in the world certainly justify the existence of nearly ANY kind of pro-feminist argument. This is just something I struggle with, as I feel at it's core, feminism should be about making things fair for women and transgender people so that they can be happy. It should be about allowing as many people as possible to get what they want out of life without having unfair boundaries put in their way. I do understand that my perspective is limited, however, and I will continue to try and welcome in new perspectives on the subject.
Specifically, my main idea for feminism is that ultimately, there are still barriers that make Men, Women, and those in between different, and instead of focusing on treating everyone like their gender is irrelevant, I feel like it's more fair to frame it so that yes, there are differences, but because of the way the patriarchal system has oppressed all other non-conformers so brutally for so long, we should strive to respect everyone for what they want to believe, and we must strive to make things fair. Compared to other theories that wish to proclaim gender as not existing, I feel like we arrive at the same conclusion, but ultimately disagree on a few points.
For example, the idea that Women buy things like shoes to be pretty ONLY because the patriarchal system has conditioned them to. I agree that this happens and is mostly true. I also agree that women shouldn't have to feel like they are weird for NOT wanting to buy shoes. What bothers me are feminists who then say that buying shoes supports the patriarchal system, when in fact, a lot of women just want to buy shoes. I think it is really hard to expect women to divorce themselves from the concept of gender as a form of freedom when so many still personally choose to identify as women. I'd much rather frame it so that we make rules allowing women to buy as many or as few shoes as they desire, and do not chastise them for the feminine or masculine traits they may be exhibiting based on those kind of decisions.
I obviously understand the merits to such opinions, as an end to gender entirely would most certainly be a step towards ending the kind of inequality that women face. In fact, the radical anti-feminist groups out in the world certainly justify the existence of nearly ANY kind of pro-feminist argument. This is just something I struggle with, as I feel at it's core, feminism should be about making things fair for women and transgender people so that they can be happy. It should be about allowing as many people as possible to get what they want out of life without having unfair boundaries put in their way. I do understand that my perspective is limited, however, and I will continue to try and welcome in new perspectives on the subject.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)