Due to my schedule I am unable to have a normal conversation partner so instead of just speaking with one person I get to attend an IEP class every Wednesday and speak with many different people. Each week I choose a different group to join. I help them with their assignment and talk with them about all sorts of things.
This week I was with two girls from China named Crystal and Meeko. We introduced ourselves and started working on the current assignment. They had to listen to a one minute clip of someone speaking and analyze it for any slang, colloquialisms, or speech slurs. They had chosen a scene from Twilight where Bella’s mother is talking to Bella about her relationship with Edward.
This assignment was especially interesting to me because I find that we, as humans, rarely take notice of how we butcher our own languages. Actually paying attention to all of the endings that were dropped, letters that were added, or words that were shoved together really made me think about how difficult it must be to learn a language in a classroom where you are only taught the language in its perfect form.
It was Meeko’s turn to type so Crystal and I talked about ourselves. She is from Guangzhou, which is crazy because by dad was just there on a business trip. The 2010 Expo is currently there so we talked about that for a while. She went before she left for America and I had been to the one in Hannover in 2000 and seen my dad’s pictures for this current one.
We also talked about what was the most difficult thing about learning English. She said that she found reading the most challenging and I completely agreed with her. I told her about my experience with reading in German and how it wasn’t until this past summer that reading became as fun for me in German as it was in English. I gave her some tips on how to try and enjoy reading more.
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
“The Short Happy Life of Francis Macomber”
OMG! “The Short Happy Life of Francis Macomber” was probably the best short story that I have read in this class. Although a little long, I was engaged the entire time that I was reading it. There were such strong emotional undercurrents in everything that they talked about or did. It was also fascinating to watch the different power plays and how the power shifted over time. It really illustrated the relationship between power, the courage to use that power, and the resulting happiness.
Margot is such a bitch (pardon my French). She thinks so little of her husband and recently she has thought even worse of him because he was not “man enough” in her eyes to kill a lion. She is constantly making jibes at his masculinity. When I first read the story, I thought Margot was crying because she was sad for the lion that her husband had hunted but the more that I learned about her, the more I came to believe that she was crying less for the lion and more for herself and her husband’s shame. Margot constantly refers back to the fact that Francis could not shoot the lion. It is even worse because she witnessed his shame and insists on coming with him on their next few hunts to continue observing. She constantly pushes her boundaries but in the end she goes too far. During the hunt of the buffalo she starts to feel her husband becoming more confident and begins to believe that he will leave her (the fact that they cannot leave each other due to different reasons is also a common topic of conversation throughout the piece) so she ends up shooting him as he shoots the last buffalo. After this, the power shifts drastically. Wilson (the professional hunter with whom she recently slept with and just witnessed this “accident”) starts to tell her what to do and she is compliant. It even goes to the point that he praises her, as if she is a child, for saying please.
I also found it slightly disturbing but still fascinating how Hemingway entered the reader into the mind of the animal just as they were dying. The juxtaposition between Margot’s haughtiness, Francis’s cowardice, Wilson’s pride, and the animal’s pain heightened the stakes and took the reader through an amazing rollercoaster. It also brought a lack of humanity to the piece. The story had a major theme of power and it portrayed humans in a very callous light. It constantly referred to the fact the humans knew nothing of the animal’s pain. This also relates to their interactions between each other.
Margot is such a bitch (pardon my French). She thinks so little of her husband and recently she has thought even worse of him because he was not “man enough” in her eyes to kill a lion. She is constantly making jibes at his masculinity. When I first read the story, I thought Margot was crying because she was sad for the lion that her husband had hunted but the more that I learned about her, the more I came to believe that she was crying less for the lion and more for herself and her husband’s shame. Margot constantly refers back to the fact that Francis could not shoot the lion. It is even worse because she witnessed his shame and insists on coming with him on their next few hunts to continue observing. She constantly pushes her boundaries but in the end she goes too far. During the hunt of the buffalo she starts to feel her husband becoming more confident and begins to believe that he will leave her (the fact that they cannot leave each other due to different reasons is also a common topic of conversation throughout the piece) so she ends up shooting him as he shoots the last buffalo. After this, the power shifts drastically. Wilson (the professional hunter with whom she recently slept with and just witnessed this “accident”) starts to tell her what to do and she is compliant. It even goes to the point that he praises her, as if she is a child, for saying please.
I also found it slightly disturbing but still fascinating how Hemingway entered the reader into the mind of the animal just as they were dying. The juxtaposition between Margot’s haughtiness, Francis’s cowardice, Wilson’s pride, and the animal’s pain heightened the stakes and took the reader through an amazing rollercoaster. It also brought a lack of humanity to the piece. The story had a major theme of power and it portrayed humans in a very callous light. It constantly referred to the fact the humans knew nothing of the animal’s pain. This also relates to their interactions between each other.
Thursday, October 21, 2010
“The End of Something” and “The Three-Day Blow”
I have found this new series of Nick Adams stories to be extremely interesting. Looking at each story individually gives the reader different impressions and has a different meaning than reading the short stories more like chapters in a book. All of the recent tales have revolved around Nick Adams and his family and friends. Looking at “The End of Something” and “The Three-Day Blow” together changes what you think of Bill. Reading “The End of Something” first, it appears that Bill had a minor role in the breakup of Marge and Nick. He only appears right at the end and seems to want to help and comfort Nick. After I finished the second short story, the conversation between Bill and Nick showed that Bill might have actually had a larger hand in the breakup. Bill talks to Nick as if he pushed Nick into breaking up and is trying to see if Nick resents him for it.
The way that “The Three-Day Blow” ends reminds me of the quote about the human mind being like a sieve. It is sad and true how terrible the human memory is. This is not only due to lack of will power it is also a result of strength of will power. We often rewrite our own memory by convincing ourselves that something happened that did not or something else meant something that it did not. Nick does this in the end. At first he regrets that he ended the relationship but the more he drink and the more he think about what happened he begins to believe that he did the right thing.
I have also noticed that Hemingway loves nature. Every single one of his stories that we have read so far has a large outdoor component. He ends the tales with the mist rising or the cold coming or moose calls in the distance.
The way that “The Three-Day Blow” ends reminds me of the quote about the human mind being like a sieve. It is sad and true how terrible the human memory is. This is not only due to lack of will power it is also a result of strength of will power. We often rewrite our own memory by convincing ourselves that something happened that did not or something else meant something that it did not. Nick does this in the end. At first he regrets that he ended the relationship but the more he drink and the more he think about what happened he begins to believe that he did the right thing.
I have also noticed that Hemingway loves nature. Every single one of his stories that we have read so far has a large outdoor component. He ends the tales with the mist rising or the cold coming or moose calls in the distance.
Monday, September 6, 2010
CIM avant-garde and high modernism response
I work in the TCU costume studio and we were recently looking through the vintage and extant clothing section of our stock when we stumbled upon an unlabeled box. We opened the box, pulled aside the tissue paper, and gently lifted the uppermost item to take a closer look. It turned out to be a nurses cap. We had a quick debate as the whether is was an extant piece or a recreation (because of the serging on the inside) but as the rest of the contents of the box were removed, our doubts were quickly dispelled. An entire extant WWI red cross nurses uniform was laid out on the table before us. It was all there: the dress, the starched collar, the cap, the full apron, the blood stains from the wounded and dying soldiers. The others continued to unpack the remaining boxes but I had to stop for a minute. Tears flooded my eyes and I thought of all that this garment meant and said and had gone through. I have always found clothes to be an reflection and gauge of our society. They say something about us as a whole and as individuals. They reflect the times, the climate, and the needs of those people and societies. This uniform spoke of a world of which we can not fully comprehend or imagine because we were not there. We did not go through the horrors the the young girl who wore the red cross badge did or the young men who she tried to save did. Nothing in our society today can compare with the "Great" War and the atrocities that were committed due the advancements in technology.
All of this makes me wonder whether the great strides that we have been making since the turn of the century are really that great after all.
CIM talks about WWI being a major turning point for many things but specifically between the avant-garde and high modernism movements. It mentions those of the avant-garde movement who were killed or wounded and then about Wyndham Lewis who was changed. Lewis, after fighting in the war himself, was commissioned by the government as an official war artist. This experience altered his artistic style. Lewis talked about how before the war he concentrated on how the subject was presented and less on the subject itself but the humanness of the war made him reconsider this choice.
This is one of the major problems that I have with modern art: it is generally about how the subject is presented and not about the subject itself. Although I do think the presentation is very important (it affects how you perceive and understand the subject matter) the subject matter is equally, if not more, important. What good does it due if you draw a windmill and no one but you can tell that it is one. The presentation affects the perception but you have to have something to base your perceptions off of to make an impact. If it is unrelateable then the piece of art has no impact and is easily dismissed. We are creatures of habit and like to categorize everything. If we don't understand something, the average human will just leave it be. I think that art is a way to expand, improve, and express ourselves and how we feel. It is a means of communication but in order to connect, there needs to be something in common that is understood by both parties.
All of this makes me wonder whether the great strides that we have been making since the turn of the century are really that great after all.
CIM talks about WWI being a major turning point for many things but specifically between the avant-garde and high modernism movements. It mentions those of the avant-garde movement who were killed or wounded and then about Wyndham Lewis who was changed. Lewis, after fighting in the war himself, was commissioned by the government as an official war artist. This experience altered his artistic style. Lewis talked about how before the war he concentrated on how the subject was presented and less on the subject itself but the humanness of the war made him reconsider this choice.
This is one of the major problems that I have with modern art: it is generally about how the subject is presented and not about the subject itself. Although I do think the presentation is very important (it affects how you perceive and understand the subject matter) the subject matter is equally, if not more, important. What good does it due if you draw a windmill and no one but you can tell that it is one. The presentation affects the perception but you have to have something to base your perceptions off of to make an impact. If it is unrelateable then the piece of art has no impact and is easily dismissed. We are creatures of habit and like to categorize everything. If we don't understand something, the average human will just leave it be. I think that art is a way to expand, improve, and express ourselves and how we feel. It is a means of communication but in order to connect, there needs to be something in common that is understood by both parties.
Monday, August 30, 2010
CIM Introduction Response
Reading about modernism, its causes, Matisse, and Picasso always make me think about the play: Picasso at the Lapin Agile by Steve Martin. The play is about a group of people who are drinking at the Lapin Agile, waiting for Picasso to arrive because he often frequents this bar. There are a few guest appearances by other well know figures such as Elvis Presley (although he is never called this it is very apparent who he is). Lewis talks about the historians who reject mimesis and thus reject Matisse and the later Picasso as true modern artists. Viewing these statements, and also those defending their artistic value, in light of what happens in the script I find that I do think they are part of the modernism art movement. This play is most often presented in that thrust theatre which, like theatre in the modernist period, abandons the traditional proscenium format and forces the audience to participate more in the play because one can see those across the stage. The play also breaks the fourth wall when one of the characters asks for an audience member’s program to look something up.
The passage on cubism made me rethink, in part at least, my views on this style of art. Although I still do not particularly enjoy this approach, thinking if cubism as a way of showing how our eyes interpret the world before the images reach our brains and are deciphered there is an interesting concept and makes me appreciate the initial idea and how it is carried out much more than I ever had before.
Being bilingual, I really found the section on the arbitrariness of language very applicable. Because I was raised learning German and English, I have never had to translate for one language to the other; the words just meant something to me. This was a very difficult concept for me to grasp when I was little and I could never understand why other people did not understand what I could. Dog, Hund, and canine all evoke the same image in my head. The “language game” brings our grammar rules into play. It was fascinating to watch German children in the second year create English sentences. The word choices and the especially the grammar were often incorrect but the concept was still transmitted and you could see how and why they made the choices that they did. Rules have become such an integral part of our society. They managed to function just fine in the 1700 without any spelling system.
New movements are a rejection of the old ways so in that regard, modernism as a general concept is nothing new. Nothing truly new is ever created; we just take the old and present it in a new way. Being as most movements in this world are cyclical, we will eventually move back to a more conventional way of representing art. One of the easiest areas to see this in is fashion because it affects us all. The hippie styles that were so popular in the ‘70s are now popular again.
The passage on cubism made me rethink, in part at least, my views on this style of art. Although I still do not particularly enjoy this approach, thinking if cubism as a way of showing how our eyes interpret the world before the images reach our brains and are deciphered there is an interesting concept and makes me appreciate the initial idea and how it is carried out much more than I ever had before.
Being bilingual, I really found the section on the arbitrariness of language very applicable. Because I was raised learning German and English, I have never had to translate for one language to the other; the words just meant something to me. This was a very difficult concept for me to grasp when I was little and I could never understand why other people did not understand what I could. Dog, Hund, and canine all evoke the same image in my head. The “language game” brings our grammar rules into play. It was fascinating to watch German children in the second year create English sentences. The word choices and the especially the grammar were often incorrect but the concept was still transmitted and you could see how and why they made the choices that they did. Rules have become such an integral part of our society. They managed to function just fine in the 1700 without any spelling system.
New movements are a rejection of the old ways so in that regard, modernism as a general concept is nothing new. Nothing truly new is ever created; we just take the old and present it in a new way. Being as most movements in this world are cyclical, we will eventually move back to a more conventional way of representing art. One of the easiest areas to see this in is fashion because it affects us all. The hippie styles that were so popular in the ‘70s are now popular again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)