Deirdre of the Sorrows

Well... I think I enjoyed this. I don't really have much to compare it to, so I don't really know how I feel about it. The only other ballets I've been to were on elementry school field trips to big ballets in Denver. This was nothing like that.

I am not a fan of modern dance. Maybe it's cause I don't know anything about it, but I just don't get it. I felt that none of the dancers were together, like they were all doing the same thing, but didn't practice enough to get their timing and bodies to match. I think if it were a more traditional ballet, with more percise dancing, I would have enjoyed it more.

I felt that the story was interesting, but it felt like someone telling a story, not like we were actually experiencing it. I suppose this is because of the narrator. However, I think it's true because it seems the author tried to tell too much of the story. We didn't really need to endings? I think he should have picked one and used it because I feel it was really a bad way of ending the show. It seemed like it was all climatic and then it just died at the end. Rather than showing a seen and then telling us about it, the dances could be elabroated and the talking could go on at the same time to make it less chopy.

Also, the modern elements mixing like the slideshow mixed with the old time feel of the play in a way that didn't work for me. It was too much of a contrast and I didn't get the point of it.

The music was very good, I liked the style and compoisition and it was played very well.

I feel like, had I not known what was going to happen, I wouldn't have understood. My boyfriend went with me and he didn't get the ending at all. He didn't get that she dove off into a rock and killed herself.
All in all, I liked it, but there were a few things that didn't really work for me, such as the slideshow, the awkard ending, etc.

Wigman (LAST READING)

Well I don't know too much about dance, and I know very very little about writing dance, I feel I have learned enough in this class to make some connections to other things. First, I was immediately reminded of when we talked about inspiration and creative processes earler on. She says the idea of a creation arises within her. This idea, she says, already contains it's own ideas about development and such. I take this to ber her "inspiration" and ideas about a peice.

One of the other authours said the creation was the easy part, the idea was the hard part. I beleive this could be true for Wigman as well. The dance seems to flow once she starts.

Wighman says her dance is somewhere between abstract and concrete. I find it intersting she says it's not abstract becasue its orgin is not in he mind. I find, from my limited experience with dance, that a dancer's mind seems to work differently. To explain this, I want to use an example from the video we saw at the International Film Series. Lili, in the movie was a dancer. She worked threw things and solved them with her body, her dance. Rather than with her mind, like I would do. Along the same topic, she (wigman) also says that her idea is not to interpert emotions. These basic emotions are not descriptive enough to explain the dance, their not fluid enough.

She reiterates my idea that dancers minds work differntly when she says that it's always been the most natural way to express her ideas threw pure movement.

The next thing I want to bring up from Wignman's essay is slighly harder for me, not having a dance background. She says although she has written another dance to preexisting music. She writes her dance then creates the music around it, which to me seems much harder. I find it intersting that she would go about it this way, becasue to me, it would be hard to dance without music to dance to, and then to translate that music into dance would be nearly impossible for me.

The last thing I found to be interesting is the fact that she likes working with a group. I see artisits as individuals who find corraborating difficult. I think that would get in the way of an idea.

I also appriciate how she says theres no right way to do things and to try old and new ideas and be creative.

Suor Angelica and Gianni Schicchi

I had an interesting perspective on these operas because I sat between a young child (about 7) and an elderly couple. So I got to hear their comments as well as my own.

No complete thoughts tonight, its been a crazy horid weekend. But random ramboings and thoughts get the point across. More to come later.

I will start with Sour Angelica first.

• I am glad that I knew the plot because I had to crain my neck to read the translation which was painful after a few minutes.
• I thought it was a good story, though it wasn't terribly intersting.
• I thought it was a joke that there was only one guy, but its true...
• The lead was actually played by my old neighbor whom I didn't even know went to school here, so that was awesome as well.
• As far as the actual opera goes, I wouldn't say that I enjoyed it, though I didn't dislike it either.
• The acting and singing was very good.
• It reminded me so much of the beginning of the sound of music though.
• And there seemed to be quite a few random parts in the play that didn't need to be there. Like the sisters who came in late praying... Just seemed unessecary to the story.

I liked Gianni Schicchi much better.

• I felt like I could relate to it much more. perhaps because of the modern day elements they incorporated, or maybe due to the humor.
• It was interesting to see the things I found funny (such as the kid playing his game after his uncle just died) that the old couple next to me though was horrible, and the kid next to me didn't really notice.
• I personally think I would have enjoyed both of these more if they were in english, though I do think it would take away from the opera a lot.
• I loved how they mixed modern day with what is obviously a fairly old opera. It gave us a way to relate to the people, even though they weren't speaking english, and were fighting over a donkey (which most of us
• obviosly can't relate to...).
• It really didn't even seem like what I had in my mind as an "opera." because the singing wasn't the traditional "opera" high pitched style i imagine.

Turino

I want to preface this by saying, I feel like I will understand this much more after we discuss it tomorrow because right now I feel very lost. I can understand what he is saying but I guess I don't really get how it fits together, like seing the individual peices of a puzzle but not being able to get the whole picture yet.

The elements of semiosis are the sign, the object, and the interpretant. An expample given was a tree falling in the woods. The tree falling creates airwaves, a potential sign for a sound. So, I am guessing some other signs could be music (obviously, shown in writing), maybe things like a crying baby, an alarm, or maybe even the sound of someone familers voice?

AS far as the sign-object relations, there are many different kinds. If I'm thinking right, each time there is one thing drawn from each of the three catagories. Trichotomy I being the sign it self, T. II being the sign-object relationship (for example: the national anthem reminding people of events where the song is played or the smell of cookies reminding of home), and T. III is how the sign is interpreted.

From there it gets into almost a mathmatical thing. The order terms in each of the trichotomy's were introduced (as well as those other things) play an importance in how they effect eachother. They are seperated into firsts, seconds, and thirds. The firsts items generally cause other firsts and so on. Lower level signs pertain to emotions while higher level cause "language based" responces and reasoning. So the level's of the signs indicate how we will respond to them(?).

Iconic vs. indexical
Icons rely on a resemblance between sign and object, they are signs of identity. Iconic and indexical signs typically work together, though they are different. Indexical signs are emotion-producing and are grounded in personal experience.

How does this pertain to music? The text gives the example of Jimi Hendrix's Woodstock performance of "The Star Spangled Banner" and also talks about a work by Beethoven. Although I am not familer with either piece, (though I plan of googleing (is that a word now?) Jimi Hendrix's later) I can kind of get what hes talking about. The Hendrix peice used icons throughout in the form of sounds (bombs, ect). He uses these and other examples to show that all of the Peircian ideas stated above can be translated into the terms of music.

Composers Manifesto

When I started my peice I had no ideas about what to do or how to do it. After attending my sister's state winterguard composition, I decided to make my peice guard related. However, I went home to find that the good majority of my equipment had gotten returned. So I threw around some more ideas in my head, coming up with nothing else. At last, I decided to make do with the guard things that I had. I tried making different sounds with the riffle and flags. There was somthing I wanted to do with the riffle but I wouldn't have been able to teach anyone else to do what I was wanting, so more compromise ensued. Finally, I was okay with all my sounds and tried to peice everything together while experimenting with tempo and other things. In the end, I am very satisfied with my peice. The thing that would make it better would be to have an entire team of guard people who could do whatever I threw at them.

Open Space

I didn't feel anywhere near as "prepared" for this event compared to the others. I didn't really have a clue what to expect when I was heading over to the theatre. This could be a good thing I guess. Idon't really know where to start with this so I guess I'll just start at the beginning.

The lecture at 7:00 seemed a little over my head. I though that I know quite a bit about music, I can read enough music to play piano and sing (well kinda sing). I know what things like forte and stagato and other things mean. However, when he was talking about how he writes music, I felt in over my head. Music is by far my most difficult thing we've talked about in class...

The things we talked about in class on Monday helped to understand better though. I'm glad we had a bit of background about composing and Wolfe himself. I actually wish we could have spent more time learning about him in preperation for the event.

Now on to the actual event themselves. The first song was... well... interesting. I really like the idea of using instuments for different purposes than the intended ones, however, I don't know if this really worked so well... I liked both parts and I think they complimented eachother well, however it seemed to be missing a third peice.

I'm sure from a musician's viewpoint, the second peice was very interesting. But I found it (dare i say it?) boring. It seemed like somthing to do in a classroom or as a warm up, but I don't know if I'd consider it a concert ready peice. I can appricate it for the groundbreaking strides the style made and the complicated nature, but just listening to it from the point of view or a non-music student... I don't know that I could say I like it.

Alright the third peice, the play. I really liked having a little background before the play. First, I'll talk about that. If i remember right, he said it was considered a childrens play... I can see why although I beleive it would have been appropriate for kids 50 years ago, but not today. Kids today are too sheltered to understand it (at least i think so). I think the concept is one that is too complicated for a child to understand on their own, but I think with the right preperation for the play, it is a very good lesson for the kids to learn. Maybe they can grow up to be a less judgemental generation than even mine.

So on to the actual play. Where do i start? I suppose the music. I thought it fit in well with the play. I don't really have anything to say about it except that it was a little abrubt in the starting and stopping playing. However, I think this was intentional.

Now the singing. The female singer drove me nuts. I don't even know why, I can't explain this. But she did.... The end where everyone was singing got across the point I think they were going for, but it was... well...wierd. plus some of them wern't the best singers.

The acting was fantastic, as i'm coming to expect from UNC. I especially liked watching the poor man carrying the bags (I forget what he was called). I think that he portrayed his emotions and thoughts like his character would have, even with his very little lines.

What else to say about this? All in all, I enjoyed the 2nd part of the night the most.

What to listen for(Adolphe)

I have to admit, not having too much of a music background, I feel a little in over my head reguarding some of this. A chord you can't play? broken vs flat? arpeggio? However, I feel that I can relate some of this to art and therefore understand a little better. I really agree with "technique merely serves the ear, the inmagination. It is not an end but a means." I drove my art teacher in HS crazy with breaking all the "rules" and "techniques" and still producing worth-while paintings. To me, they are merely guidelines or tips.

However, by far my favorite part of this was "understanding isoften a matter of noticing and naming. Inspiration is often a matter of seeing without naming." While I beleive there is more to understanding than this, and inspiration is not quite seeing w/o naming... I think it's an interesting way of defining then two terms. Even though I don't necessacarily agree, I can appriciate the definitions.

As far as the poem (?) I don't really have too much to say. I like the part where he says a peice seems boring when the ideas are repetive/commonplace. This can be true for anything. But when we give them significance or associate them with meaning, they are metaphors for somthing meaningful.

This is alittle off topic, but I think it relates. Most music, to me, is simply music. I have everything from classical to the beatles to pat benatar to AFI and the sound of music on my ipod (those are what has played since I started reading Adolph) and most of it is simply music. It's entertaining, some of it's even boring. However, a song like "The moment I said it" or "landslide" come on and I'm no longer living in the present but back in my memories. Both of these songs have quite a history with me, and they bring back images from different times, even thoughts and emotions. The lights of a big empty stage, the nervousness of my first ever solo riffle toss (winterguard compitition) and even the face of my little sister right before we started.

I know that's ramboly and probably only makes since to me (at least at the end) but.... I though I'd put my (rather incoherent) thoughts out there for everyone else.

Music runs deeper than emotions

Sessions caught my interest right from the very first page. I am not a musically inclined person, however, I do enjoy listening to music and can play piano a little. However...on to the essay...

Sessions said that "emotion" is to specific and individual to describe the essence of musical expression. He says music is deeper than emotions, it expresses the very energies of our "psychic life." He explains this what "creates a pattern which has an existence, laws, and human significance of its own." So I took this to mean that music expresses basically the world around us and inside us, think, ect.

He goes on to say it "reproduces for us the most intimate essence." This is the part that I really agreed with. There are certain songs that I can listen to that evoke feelings much deeper than just emotions.

But continuing on past the first page... I though it was interesting that the idea that music was a seperate art apart from dance or somthing else was a very recent idea. This is somthing I've never really thought of.

His idea that there are two parts in creating music interested me. The first was inspiration, which is the impulse which sets creation in movement. This may come in a flash, or may take form in an impulse towards a certain goal. The second part is conception. The interesting part about this for me was how he said, "compostition is a deed, an action, and a genuine action of any kind is, psychologically speaking, th simplest thing in the world." He says that since it is such a simple act, writing the peice of music is the simplest thing, which to me seems like the hardest.

Abstraction

The abstraction project was very different when transforming a collage into an actual abstract work of art. In high school, I took almost three years of drawing/painting, one of photo, and one semester of graphic design. I am no stranger to abstract art, though I have never created it in this way before. I did several abstract paintings as well as one abstract in adobe Photoshop. I have never “abstract-ified” another piece though.

I found the project to be fairly difficult at first, turning a college of real pictures into something abstract, especially such amazing pictures that I took and am fairly proud of. However, once I got the picture on my laptop and just started playing with it in Photoshop, I started to have fun with it. I’m only sharing my favorite outcomes, though there were a lot more than this.

Here's the original:

My abstrations:

This first one is actually four parts, there is the main pic, which is the top half of the image, then the second part which is just the top half fliped and reflected on the bottom. The top had a black backgound and the bottom was white. So I made half of the images transparent so you can see the images under... I know this is confusing... I can't really explain it...So anyways, the lines are made with a "neon glow" filter, the bottom of it is the inverse of the filter.

This is the face in the bottom right hand corner of the college. It's really simple, just put threw a filter and then distorted. The filter was called "cutout" (I think anyways...I dont remember for sure) and then distorted threw a stained glass things (not a filter, but somthings else).

This one was isn't really that abstract, but it was a little more time consuming so I thought I'd put it up anyways. There is a stained glass filter applied to the picture, then I cut it out in the shape of the words and a heart, then applied a border and "stained glass" the photo again to include the border. Then just put a square in the background and colored it black.

Im Winter ein Jahr

I really enjoyed this film. I think it is my favorite thing we've done thus far in class. I went into it, not knowing what to expect at all. It was a little confusing at some times, but not to bad. I really enjoyed listening to the german language becuase my family is german and growing up, my oma taught me quite a bit. Somewhere in my subconsious I remembered quite a bit.

But beyond that, I LOVED the main character. I could relate to her in so many ways. I haven't necessacarily been through the same things, but I felt like I was her during the whole movie. I beleive she was the first character in a movie who I could fully understand.

The filming of the movie was a little rough at times, but I beleive it fit quite well with the style and message of it. The cinematography was great, some of the shots and angles in the movie were awesome. Though again, it was a little rough around the edges, so to say.

The ending was a little cheesey compared to the tone of the rest of the movie, but I think it was really fitting looking back on it. It kind of bothered me that we never found out why her brother committed suicide, though I guess its better that we didn't. It's one of those things that we're just never ment to know.

It's hard to talk about the film because I'm kind of at a loss of words. I would love to get a copy of it to watch with my oma because I think she would appriciate it as well. I am gonna keep this short and maybe add more later after I've had some time to digest and sort out my thoughts.

Overall though, I am very glad that I went to see this.

Render me stupid

I really enjoyed meeting Delton and seeing his art, but I beleive the art show was alittle, do I dare say, boring. We saw much of his work in class, I felt that the gallery didn't add much to what we had already seen. But with that said, I have some comments about his art.


First, I think that this was one of my favorite peices, though I can't pick a fav. I like the final peice on its own, but I loved being able to see his whole process of the blog. I beleive it's incredibly creative and it looks like it came from a 50's sears catalog or somthing. I really like the simplistic details. I beleive it follows the actual logo really well, but looks like it could easily be the real logo as well.

I like this because drawing people is a fun hobby of mine, though I am not to great at it. I am impressed by this sketch. You can tell right away who it was and the emotions and everything. It amazes me.






I know this wasn't at the gallery, and it's not finished, but i really like this. It's like the beer ad in many ways.





One thing about the show that I thought was interesting was that he had all of the little "thumbnail" images of different color samples. It was kind of cool to see all the different trials.

I was also supprised that a lot of the paitings were very small. I felt that the oversized frames really took away from the paintings on some of the pictures. Also, there were really huge paintings as well. But very few "typical" things. They were all "out of the box" for the most part.

I leave you today with this. The film of Delton painting this mural. I loved watching him work. From one painter watching another, I was impressed by how he worked. He didn't hesitate, didn't stumble. He barely even noticed the other people watching him or around him, just kept working, seemingly lost in his own world.

Film as Art

I want to preface this entry with a comment about the "what is art" contreversey in general. I beleive it is not up to "us" (meaning the people in general) to define what is and isn't art. If you create somthing, whether it be a film or photo, and to YOU it is art, then who can tell you that it's not? And if there someone else beleives it is not art, they really don't have the place to say that.

But now onto the topic...

FILM AS ART

The first comment I would like to make is about how film didn't start out as "art." The paper makes this seem like a big deal, but if you put yourself in the mindset of a person from the early 20th century, of course film and photos weren't art. They were so new and there wasn't much room for artists to put their artisticness (?) into them. They were scientific inventions, not used by artists.

So most of the points against film as art are good points, but they really are outdated. For example, the idea that they were mechanical productions.

A point I would like to talk about thought is that they are not media, but a means of recording the media. The other examples of this were a painting put on a postcard. The painting is art, but the postcard is not. My counterresponce to this is that putting the painting on the postcard is a means of copying the artwork, not a means of producing it.

At one point in history (had I lived many years ago), I would have agreed that films were just a means of recording art. However, today cameras don't simply record things and put them out there for others to show. Real work and creative talent goes into every aspect of them, from the story to colors and costumes.

I like the "absence of intentionality" arguement. If the creator's purpose is not to create art, then most likely, it will not be artistic. Though this can't be used as a hard and true definition of what is art. But then again, when it comes to art, there really isn't set "right" and "wrong" ideas.

Three Sisters

I was amazed by this play. When I was sitting in the theatre, waiting for the play to start, I was wondering how they could possibly act towards all four sides of the audience at once, but there wasn't a problem at all. It seemed incredibly natural for them to have people all around them. There was only one time when I saw someone actually trying to be seen by all four sides, the rest of the time it was a natural thing.

The costumes and the props were great, though sometimes it seemed they were crudely put together. (like the beds). The broken bed was somewhat of a distraction because instead of paying attention to the audience, I was constatly wondering if the bed was going to fall apart.

The acting was really really well done. Everything from being happy and laughing to sad and cring seemed very real. We could really get a sense of what was going on with these characters and how they were feeling. There were some parts where they forgot or missed a few lines, but if I hadn't just read the play a few days before I wouldn't have a clue. They stumbled a bit around the missed lines but didn't trip up very bad.

This play wasn't one that perticulary iterested me, though I beleive they made it very interesting. All in all, I was very impressed by the play, especially the talent of the actors and actresses.

Name Story-Unedited

She sat on the edge of the bathtub, looking at everything but the white stick clutched in her hands. Her eyes wondered across the tiled floor and up the floral wallpaper. She noticed the stains on the floor and the old paint on the baseboards, everything but the answer on the pregnancy test.

“Everything okay in there? Leigh asked, knocking nervously on the door.

“Umm… Yah.” She said standing up to open the door.

She was a wreck when he put his arm around her. “Well…?” He questioned.

“I can’t look! You do it!” She said pushing the test towards him. He held her hands in his and turned them over. They both saw it at the same time, the two little, life changing, pink lines.

She burst into tears and he stood in shock. He knew he should comfort her, but didn’t know how to, or even what to say. They stood in silence for quite a while before falling asleep in silence.

She woke up from a dreamless sleep. Before opening her eyes, she could feel Leigh playing with her hair and his other arm wrapped tightly around her.

“Good morning.” He said, kissing her softly. “I’ve been thinking babe…”

“Stop!” She said. “I don’t want to talk about it.”

“Let me finish babe.” He said softly. “I’ve been thinking we could keep it. If you want to, we could do this. We could be parents.”

Secretly she was thrilled, she was ready for a baby. But he wasn’t. She tried to argue with him, saying they couldn’t be parents. But he convinced her it would be okay. He promised they’d make it.

Months began to pass and her stomach started to grow. They planned for the baby, decorated the nursery, and argued about the name quite often.

Things seemed perfect, until month seven.

Leigh didn’t come home from work one night. She became worried and started to call up his friends and coworkers. After midnight, he stumbled in drunk.

She ran to him, asking him if he was okay, checking for injuries. He drunkenly pushed her away and told her he didn’t want her. He didn’t want anything to do with her or her child. She went to bed tearfully, but knew it was the alcohol talking.

In the morning, she made Leigh coffee and sat on the chair opposite him until he woke up.

“Babe?” She asked cautiously when he started to wake. “Babe, you awake?”

He rolled over and faced away from her. “I want you to leave.” He said.

“W..what?”

“I know what you’re up to and I want you to leave.”

“What I..I’m up to?” She asked.

He sat up and stared at her, with a look that could scare away even the bravest of people. “You did this on purpose!” He yelled. “You wanted this to happen! You wanted to ruin our lives with a baby!”

She was crying now, afraid of him and afraid of what he was saying. “But y..you…you wanted t..to do this. You said we could.”

He turned away from her again and said, “Just leave.”

She left for a few weeks, stayed with a few friends. Not a day went by when she didn’t think of him, and think of their mistake that was growing inside of her.

Back in their apartment, he knew he’d made the biggest mistake in his life, but he didn’t know how to fix it, so he did nothing.

He finally decided to try and fix it. He went to her and apologized and made up for all he said to her. “The worst thing I’ve ever done in my life was leaving you, leaving our child. I’m here for you, I love you.”

A month later, they had their first child, Christopher. He was born healthy and happy. When he was six months old, she got pregnant for a second time.

Unfortunately, a fire broke out in their house Leigh ran to save Christopher and died of his burns. Christopher also suffered severe burns, which placed him in the hospital. He remained there for the next eight months.

On October 6^th, 1989, Christopher passed away. The very next day, October 7^th, 1989, the second baby was born. Linda, the mother, sat alone on the hospital bed with the new baby.

“I will call you Christie Leigh.” She said. “I’ll be your family, and you’ll be mine.”

Orchestra

I should have written this last night after the concert, but being sick has pushed back all my plans a bit...

First and foremost, I'd like to point out that the only things I have to compare this concert to are public school band concerts and the symphony orcehestra in Denver.

My first thought was that the concert lacked a level of formality that I had expected from such an event. Mostly because of the actions of the people in the symphony. For some reason, it seems that guys are held to a much higher standard than girls when it comes to dress. Some of the girls weren't dressed anywhere near the suits the guys wore. Also, as much as I love shaggy hair, if you're performing in an event like this, comb it down. And the people who couldn't cross their legs and were slouching the whole time really stood out next to the more "professional" looking people.

One more quick rant...the audience didn't seem very "professional" either. The girl next to me, the one who was clapping randomly, wouldn't stop texting ever. Also the women in from of me was kniting. Really? These people have spent countless hours working on perfecting the music for this concert. Don't they deserve a better audience? And the people who left early? I'd just want to ask them why, especially those in our class who left... Maybe they didn't know it was intermission...?

Now on to the actual concert and not my ranting. The first peice of music didn't really strike me as anything special. While it wasn't bad, I didn't think it was great either, just kinda vanilla... But then again, it was being played with renound musicians work, so comparing it to these might not be quite fair. Also, I don't really get why the soloists went down on that elevator/stage thing. It seems like you wouldn't want your soloists to be disapearing from sight, it kind of takes away from the impact, not to mention it just felt kind of wierd. It seemed like they just wanted to use the elevator but didn't really think it threw that much.

The second peice of music was my favorite. I think this might just be because the soloist came and talked to us. The thing that amazed me was that she didn't really just have "a" solo, but pretty much played solo parts through the entire peice, which was quite long. I have to say, I really liked her dress... At first she seemed nervous, kind of swaying back and forth like she would pass out of somthing. Then I realized you could preactically see the music flowing in and out of her because she just knew it so well, even the parts that she didn't play. I also think that her telling us more about the music and the meanings behind the different parts really helped quite a bit.

The third peice was interesting. There were some parts I found myself getting really bored (the cold medicine was making it hard to pay attention anyways though...) and some parts where I felt kinda like it was a movie set with a huge grand symphony playing.

I don't really feel comfortable critiqing the music, as I don't really know how to play anything. It sounded great though, and was a million times better than anything I could have done.

Composing a Symphony

Tchaikovsky's simile of the creative process is my favorite thus far. I'll take a few seconds to describe this. He says "the germ of future composition comes suddenly and unexpectedly. If the soil is ready...it takes root with extraodrinary force and rapidity shoots up through the earth... and, finally, blossoms." He goes on to say "The great difficulty is that the germ must appear at a favorable moment."

To describe the process itself, he says he gets an immeasurable sense of bliss when he gets a new idea, forgets everything and behaves like a madman, thoughts flow incredibly fast, until interrupted by something. Then it can be difficult to regain this creative flow.

As an art student (in high school) I can identify with this process completely. Like I said, it's my favorite description I've heard.

Lastly, I have to point out the ironicness of the fact that he said, "To you, and you alone, I gladly describe all the details of the creative process...." When there are so many who have read this.

Creativity in education

This article was interesting to me because it brought back quite a few thoughts reguarding my own personal education. From the very beginning of the paper, I liked "the sheer volume of facts to be digested by the students of today" made me laugh. There are so many things we learned (and relearned throughout the years), it's interesting to think that this volume of information is why there wasn't time for creativity.

"The result has been a generation of technicians rather than visionaries." I only have one thing that I would like to say about this, and that is that I agree.

There are a few things I'd like to add reguarding the ideas about what creatvity in education "should" be. The things that stick out to me include
(1) thinking or behaving imaginatively in a purposeful way to generate somthing original and of value. (My thoughts: does one need to create somthing "original or of value" to be creative?)
(2) Having a creative classroom means that the teacher takes risks on a daily basis and encourages the students to do the same. (My thoughts: creative classrooms shouldn't be just about taking riskes, there is much more to it than that. Not to mention, taking risks on a daily basis could be harmful to teacher or student. Also, students wouldn't learn importance of being cautious if they took risks ALL the time.)
(3) A school system that recognizes that learning is natural, and a love of learning is normal (My thoughts: I beleive this is incredibly important. I think if kids learn early on to like school/learning they will do so much better in life. I base this conclusion on my eight cousins, the two who learned to like learning previous to attending school have done much better and actually enjoy school.)
(4) values questions above answers, creativity above fact, individuality above uniformity, and excellence above standardized performance. (My thoughts: It's hard to imagine a class that values creativity above fact and questions above answers. It reminds me of one class that I took in high school. It was a history class but the teacher didn't beleive in memorizing dates and such, but instead in remembering concepts and ideas. Tests wern't typical history tests, but intead covered ideas and such. Also, another way this sits with me was about excellence above standardized performance. I'm not exactly proud of this but I've never strived for excellence in school, but seem to know exactly what to do to acheive a solid 3.7 gpa, but never work any harder than necessacary. If the school had recognized excellence rather than expecting only normal performance, I may have gotten more out of school other than only floating along.)

The difference between teaching creativity and teaching for creativity. In my personal experience, my teachers taught creativity but rarely did they teach for creativity.

The quote about the kindergartener failing art because he refused to color inside the lines shocked and angered me because who can forcing a kid to color inside the lines help anyone? I remember when my cousin Rebekah's other grandparents wouldn't let her color anymore because she couldn't stay in the lines and didn't use the "right" colors. I found this to be so angering. Rebekah and I often colored together and I taught her more about art then most kids twice her age knew. For someone to tell her she couldn't color because she didn't do it "right" made me angry.

To sum up the rest of the writing, I beleive that if I had kids I would want them to be raised in this kind of creative education environment.

Harpers

My first thoughts are: holy cow that was long. Towards the end, it was definitly loosing my attention. However, I do have to say it was much easier reading than previous things. However, I do have quite a bit to day about it. Starting with part I: As lite entertainment for bored college students. I though this was mildly funny, thinking of liberal education as lite entertainment. I think it greatly sums up his ideas though.

His first point that caught my attention was "I don't teach to amuse, to divert, or even, for that matter, to be merely interesting...I want some of them to say that they've been changed by the course." This sparked a thought that I've never given a second glance. I have long why teachers teach, even back in elemetary school. I remember being quite young and wondering why some teachers even wanted to teach because it seemed that they had no will to be there. However, I have never really thought about what teachers wish to get out of class.

The author beleives that americans are "devoted to consumption and entertainment" and they lack a passion to learn. I can relate this to myself, I feel that I am in college/school in general to gain a degree, but not because I actually want to learn.

There were many points about how most "students seem desperate to blend in, to look right" and that "this is a culture tensely committed to a laid-back norm." I would agree with this, it seems today that even those who wish to be indiviuals or unique emminate a perticular style. They are trying to be different from the norm by fitting in with an exisiting group, for example goths. They wish to be different by fitting into this preexisting group, thus trying to blend in.

Another point that resonated with me was "it's my generation of parents who sheltered these students, kept them away from the hard knocks of everyday life, making them cautious and over fragile, who demaded that their teachers, from grade school on, flatter them endlessly so that the kids are shocked if their college profs don't reflexively suck up to them." I can empathize with both sides of this. On one side, obviously I was raised by these "overprotective" parents. However, my parents never expected my teachers to coddle me, they expected me to earn my teacher's approval. This means that I see those students around me in class who are guinuely shocked when teacher's don't spoil them. Personally, I think these people need to grow up.

I think it was interesting that he said that universities are constantly upgrading and updating their schools to attract the "best" which he defines as the smartest and richest. Considering the examples were new dorms and gyms, and UNC has done both of these in the past year alone, it was interesting to contemplate if they were doing this just to attract the richer students.

Also, somthing else that I haven't thought much of was how the humanities majors are becoming increasingly less popular, therefore they are softening their grades and relaxing requirements in order to attract more students. This made me wonder if the less popular degrees really are "easier" to obtain. And does this really attract people to these majors?
_________________________________________

While the author makes a great number of other valuable and interesting points, we're going to skip on to II. As a weapon in the hands of the restless poor. Personally, I found this to be less relevent to me, and therefore less interesting... but it contained valid points none the less.

The author created a type of school in responce to a prisonor's belief that the "moral life of downtown" was the problem and that "no one could step out of the panicking circumstance of poverty directly into the public world." I think this is best explained by his speech given at the beginning of the class. This was "You've been cheated," I said. "Rich people learn the humanities; you didn't. The humanitites are a foundation for getting along in the world, for thinking, for learning..." He went on to say how humanities will make you rich, but in terms of life, not money. Also, they paid the student's subway fare, took care of their kids, fed them, but in exchange, they would make them think harder than ever before.

A final thought on this reading was the very end, when it showed that the school worked fantastically. Most of the grads were in college, the rest working full time.



One of her points was about how catelogs and college websites use to have pictures of professors in classrooms and now they are all of students living without adults around and a resort life style. These are some pics from UNC's website.

Pantoum: I hope you know

I hope you know that I love you
Forever yours I’ll be
We've struggled in the past, but
A happy ending awaits us still

Forever yours I’ll be
We haven’t had the easiest time but
A happy ending awaits us still
Because you restored my faith

We haven’t had the easiest time but
When we met, it was love at first sight
Because you restored my faith
That love can be enough

When we met, It was love at first sight
You showed me a new world and made be believe
That love can be enough
Strong enough to overcome all

You showed me a new world and made me believe
I was important,
Strong enough to overcome all
We were meant to be

I was important,
I was yours and you were mine
We were meant to be
Nothing could come between us

I was yours and you were mine
Together, we could accomplish anything
Nothing could come between us
We created a new home, a new life

Together, we could accomplish anything
We were inseparable
We created a new home, a new life
But we rushed

We were inseparable
Stuck together
But we rushed
Built our house before the foundation was solid

Stuck together
Reality hit, we’d
Built our house before the foundation was solid
And it came crashing down

Reality hit, we’d
Rushed into this
And it came crashing down
Neither of us were ready

Rushed into this
Unprepared were we
Neither of us were ready
To commit, to care for another

Unprepared were we
You wanted to be free, not
To commit, to care for another
I was lost, hurt and confused

You wanted to be free, not
To love me
I was lost, hurt and confused
When you told me to leave

To love me
It was too much
When you told me to leave
You shoved me back into the world alone

It was too much
I couldn’t handle the pain, the loss
You shoved me back into the world alone
And I became lost in the dark

I couldn’t handle the pain, the loss
Days bleed into weeks
And I became lost in the dark
I thought about you and cried myself to sleep

Days bleed into weeks
I’d lost my will to carry on
I thought about you and cried myself to sleep
Nothing mattered anymore, No one understood

I’d lost my will to carry on
I was told that time would heal all, but I didn’t believe it
Nothing mattered anymore, No one understood
I floated on in a deep fog

I was told that time would heal all, but I didn’t believe it
Time went on
I floated on in a deep fog
And eventually things started to look up

Time went on
I started to get out of bed again
And eventually things started to look up
I met new friends, found a new job

I started to get out of bed again
The fog was fading and sunshine coming back
I met new friends, found a new job
But there was still something missing

The fog was fading and the sunshine coming back
Life was worth living again
But there was still something missing
You still found your way into my dreams

Life was worth living again
I never forgot you
You still found your way into my dreams
My heart was still yours

I never forgot you
Even after meeting other guys
My heart was still yours
Even though I knew you’d never come back

Even after meeting other guys
I dreamed of the day you’d call
Even though I knew you’d never come back
I still love you

I dreamed of the day you’d call
How I longed to hear you say
I still love you
Time went by without a word

How I longed to hear you say
You wanted me back
Time went by without a word
Then I couldn’t believe what I was hearing

You wanted my back
You loved me still
Then I couldn’t believe what I was hearing
On the phone when you called me that day

You loved me still
My heart was about to burst
On the phone when you called me that day
I couldn’t stop laughing, couldn’t stop crying

My heart was about to burst
Every emotion pulsed through my body
I couldn’t stop laughing, couldn’t stop crying
You’d come back to me

Every emotion rushed through my body
I was ecstatic, yet livid with anger
You’d come back to me
I didn’t know what to do, what to think

I was ecstatic, yet livid with anger
You’d hurt me more than ever before
I didn’t know what do to, what to think
Trust was lost, and it’s not earned back easily

You’d hurt me more than ever before
What would stop you from leaving again?
Trust was lost, and it’s not earned back easily
My head told me to run, but my heart wanted you badly

What would stop you from leaving again?
You promised to stay and make things right
My head told me to run, but my heart wanted you badly
Even through all of the anger, my love was still strong

You promised to stay and make things right
I agreed to give you a second chance
Even through all of the anger, my love was still strong
We were always meant to be together

I agreed to give you a second chance
Neither of us take this lightly
We were always meant to be together
But starting over isn’t going to be easy

Neither of us take this lightly
We shared our feelings about the past
But starting over isn’t going to be easy
Neither of us are going to giving up

We shared our feelings about the past
It will take a long time to forgive
Neither of us are going to giving up
Our happy ending is still out there

It will take a long time to forgive
We’ve struggled in the past, but
Our happy ending is still out there
I hope you know how much I love you

Poetry

While both of these readings are mainly "how to" articles about writing poetry, they each have their own ideas, tips, and necesities on writing poetry.

In Mary Oliver's A Poetry Handbook, she starts out by comparing writing poetry to a romantic experience, similar to the story of Romeo & Juliet. I found this really interesting, it is a connection I have never made, though it is one that that makes a lot of since. The idea that writing without the ambition to write well is only "flirting" with writing was interesting to me. I am definitly not someone who writes very poetically or artisticly, and I've never really had the ambition to change this. According to this author, I will never do more than flirt with writing. It's an odd thought, though it is one that I agree with. My writing not be the best, but it is somthing that I enjoy doing. However, I write for my own satisfaction, not for somthing to show anyone else, so I feel that my current "relationship" with it is okay.

To get back on topic from that little tangent, the writer also points out that there has never been so many opportunities to get published as a poet, which is interestingly true. I think we take for granted all the opportunities we have today that people in the past would have loved. Today, a poet (or a singer or photographer for that matter) has opportunities that people in the past could only have dreamed of. You don't need to be rich or from a "good" family to become reputable.

This writer also beleives that to write well, one must read many, many examples of all types of poems. Imitating well written poems can help inspiring writers to become better as well.

When it comes to the "sound" section of this writing, I found some things to be interesting (such as w can sometimes be a vowel???) but most it went well over my head. I understand what she is trying to say about the sounds and feelings of different letters, though I would never know where to begin to use this. These concepts make since, and peak my interest slighly, though I don't know that I would ever think about it enough to make these concepts useful in my writing.


Housman's TheName and Nature or Poetry, had some different, yet equally interesting ideas. To me, this reading felt less like a "how to" paper and more like a history of interesting facts of poetry. The first thing this author pointed out was that the four old english poets were all mad. He then suggests that perhaps intellect can actually hinder good poetry. This reminded me of our class discussion on Einstein's creative process. He too thought that creativity came in a mind state that acutally comes before thought.

In this reading, another interesting idea was that poetry can be even better if it lacks meaning. I'm not sure if this was the exact point the author was trying to get across, but that's what I think he ment when he said, "That mysterious grandeur would be less grand if it were less mysterious."

There is one poem excert that I perticulary like. That is:
"Sorrow, that is not sorrow, but delight;
And miserable love, that is not pain
To hear of, for the glory that redounds
Therefrom to human kind we are."

Rapoport's "Women who lost her names" and Kingsolver's Covered Bridges

First, Rapoport's short story The Woman Who Lost Her Names was (to the best of my knowledge) about a woman Sarah Josephine. In school she was called Sally and later her husband told her she had to change her name in order for them to be married. I'm not quite sure if she did, or if she just simply went by her middle name, Yosef.
When she was young, she was warned by her mother to "remember who you are and you'll have yourself. No matter what else you loose-." She fell in love, moved to Jerusalem and had children. The story ends with her and her husband arguing over the name of the daughter. The wife picks out a beautiful name while the husband feels it is their duty to name it somthing else. I felt this story ended abruptly and it seems that there should be more to it.

Barbara Kingsolver's Covered Bridges is about a couple in their late 30's, trying to decide whether or not to have a baby. They decide to try out being parents by "borrowing" a friend's baby girl. Things are not going to well for the would be parents when the woman suffers from anaphylactic shock and the husband saves her life. They decide parenting may not be for them, but the husband knows how important it is to his wife.

Albert Einstein's Letter To Jacques Hadamard...and the Creative Process

My first reaction was that this confused me. I wish I knew better what the questions being asked were. Also, me and old english aren't a good combination because it confuses and frustrates me quite a bit. So after several tries at reading it...this is what I have to say.

His answers (A) through (D) seem to be answering similar questions. I could be way off base here but I would think he is using "elements" to refer to words or language. These elements have no meaning but must be made meaningful in order for there to be productive thought and communication.

Asside from that, I think that in part (E), he is saying that it isn't possible for a human to be fully conscious. I have actually been hearing alot about this idea lately as it is the idea of some religous persons to be fully conscious throught meditation...But thats going off on a tangent.

Some more obvious things that I can gather from this is that Einstein is writing to Hadamard to answer some questions and that he is not fully satisfied with his own answers.

I hope to learn more about what Einstein is talking about in class or the blogs of others.


Now... On to The Creative Process. I don't know why but the author of this peice seemed incredibly annoying to me. It serves him right to find a fondness for paintng after detesting it for so long. That's exactly whey you should never say never. Also, he seems to over analyze everything, and not in a good way, but in the annoying "we get it already!" way.

I also disagree with him about painting and making pictures. Unlike him, I beleive the two are one in the same. However, I like when he says a picture is equal to the amount of life you put into it. I also think art classes do not hinder artists, and just because somthing is painted from a still life or model, that doesn't make it any less art.

After taking art classes myself, this peice evoked quite a bit of negative emotion, due to my natural flight or fight reaction, and obviously I feel I choose to "fight."

Art Gallery

I'm not exactly sure what to say about the "Currents" gallery. I thought that most of the work in it was really nice. My favorite peice was the one that imediately caught my idea when I walked in. It was the large one in the corner of the two men wearing the gas masks. I'm sorry, I cannot remember the name or artists. I loved how it seemed very realistic but at the same time had a very nice abstractness in the gas mask tubes (if thats what their called...?).

It is hard to beleive that some of the paintings were infact paintings and not photographs, which is somthing that I personaly love. I have tried to paint somthing that realistic (not sucessfully) and it never fails to amaze me.

I also watched the video playing in the back room. This wasn't somthing that I necessacarily was interested in, but it was well done, though seeing much of the same dance outside of my high school, and in movies, it wasn't incredibly interesting.

Definitions

Creativity: The dictionary definiton defines creativity as the "ability to create" and/or the "quality of being creative". I beleive that creativity isn't just having the ability to create, but using it as well. Using your mind and body to make somthing. This can obviously be in many many forms: drawing, painting, scultping, acting, dancing, ect. These are all creative. So, I beleive I could define creativity as using oneself to make something else. I beleive that much art can evoke feelings or thoughts in others, and some of it has meanings or hidden meanings. However, this is not required. I beleive some things that I paint don't always mean anything, but they are still creative to me.

Imagination: Imagination is using one's mind to think or imagine something. Imagnination can take you places that realtiy cannot go. Books and movies can take a person to alternate realtities in the same way that a person's imagination can do.

Culture: Culture is a way of life. It includes everything that people do and say, how they live, the things they include in their daily lives. The traditions celebrated and food eaten, the movies and art people choose to surround themselves with. Culture is different around the world. Even driving to another city or state can be a completely different culture.