My group consists of Joe, Cory and Adam and our general topic is Athabask(c?)an Potlach's. I got delegated with the subheading of the history of potlach's as well as the different reasons for throwing them such as a death, a birth ext. This subheading topic will be my responsibility and one of the other members is going to overlook the information and we are all going to get together one day and put it all online because I am technology inept. One of the questions our class came up with, that applied to my subheading, was "are they still used now?" and while I do know the answer to this question, a very interesting way I can approach it is comparing and contrasting the traditional reasons for throwing potlach's with the modern reasons. Some questions I myself am interested in is what brought along these big gatherings? Is it comparable at all too something like our thanksgiving? Just musings, but the research will help guide my thought process a bit.
My question is important because as Lance said, these cultures are starting to disappear and my way of thinking is that no matter what the ancient culture, it can show us a little piece of the history of the world. I am actually very interested in history, so this is actually fun. :) I envision my audience to be people who, like most American's, is absolutely fascinated with Alaska (why I do not know) but actually know nothing about it. This topic would be important to them because it might actually shed a little bit of truthful light on Alaska instead of the mass media appearance of Alaska being an in-case-of-the-zombie-apocalypse vacation spot.
To find sources I'm going to start with the library on campus because as a UAF student I am so close to raw information, so I think it would be best to start there. As far as online sources I am going to try to go through universities or like PBS type places. Basically, legit sources. :)
As far as a timeline... Honestly I never quite schedule out my projects but I think this weekend is going to be a BIG homework weekend, so I will get a big hunk of the raw research done, because that I can do in just a couple sittings. But I will slowly, day by day, start piecing together the raw research and make it sound coherent and intelligent (hopefully). Also I would like to take it to the writing center because my biggest challenge is avoiding wordiness (obviously) and sentence length variation. So it's going to be a big work weekend then the putting it all together eloquently will be a day by day process.
With the Wiki page we decided ultimately to create a new page. The existing potlach page was very very general with almost NO distinctions between groups and the Athabaskan wiki page was pretty much bare. There was only an "Athabaskan Language" page. And if anyone can answer this which is the correct spelling? Athabaskan or Athabascan, because online it has it both ways, but the book Joe got from the library spelled it Athabaskan. :/ SO CONFUSED!
The Dude Abides
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Library Scavenger Hunt
Library Scavenger Hunt
Quote from Blog: “…a whole lot of nothing.”
Lapp, Brianna R. "Man of War: RAHHHHH!" The Dude Abides. 23 Mar. 2011. Web. 28 Mar. 2011. <http://briannaraquel.blogspot.com/>.
Quote from a TV program: “This is my signature walk and this is what’s going to make me famous.”
McDonald, Camille. Banks, Tyra, prod. "The Girl with the Signature Walk." America's Next Top Model. UPN. 2 Mar. 2004. Television.
Article from a U.S. Government Web Site:
Rich, Sarah. "Small Towns Await Energy Efficiency Projects Fueled by Stimulus." Government Technology. 1 Mar. 2011. Web. 28 Mar. 2011. <http://www.govtech.com/technology/Small-Towns-Energy-Efficiency-Stimulus-030111.html>
A Book of Poetry:
Williams, Saul. "Om." The Dead Emcee Scrolls The Lost Teachings of Hip-Hop. New York: Pocket /MTV, 2006. Print.
An Autobiography:
50, Cent, and Kris Ex. From Pieces to Weight: Once Upon a Time in Southside, Queens. New York: Pocket, 2005. Print.
A Book About a Political Issue:
Orwell, George. Animal Farm;. New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1954. Print.
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Man of War: RAHHHHH!
My initial thought after I read this speech by Mussolini was, "Wow... that was a whole lot of nothing." I think this was my reaction very specifically because I read the speech, rather than heard it spoken. Like we mentioned in class, after watching the piece from the office, the point of this speech was to inspire emotion, not necessarily to have any actual depth. Now that is not implying that every speech that is intended to pull an emotional response is empty, but this one and actually many speeches by dictator like figures during this time period, tend to only prey on the emotional response which makes them lacking.
Martin Luther King Juniors speech I Have a Dream is an example of a very moving and emotion provoking speech and it also has a lot of depth and the intended purpose to inspire and provoke thought as well. It has depth and it is multifaceted.
This concept sort of ties in with another reading we had, Where Do You Get Your Ideas From?. In that piece the author talks about how writing tends to go wrong when it has a missing piece from her basic recipe for a good piece of writing. Mussolini's speech I think represents one of the failures but only in the context of "multifaceted writing." However, I think this speech's intended purpose, which is to get people riled up, it is incredibly efficient and well done.
Another thought I had was the way the meaning of words change so completely with time. What made me think of this was in the speech when he uses the word Fascist. While the word itself hasn't changed very much it made me think this because the moment I read the word Fascist I thought instantly of a line from The Big Lebowski. Someone hits the dude and he says, "you f***ing fascist!". I thought that was kind of funny considering in his speech Mussolini obviously meant this as a good thing.
But back on track, even though this speech lacked depth and actual meaning, in the context of that time which was war and a lot of other not so fun stuff, it was geared to do exactly what was needed: to bring people together. World War II involved a lot of Hitler killing people of his own country which he claimed to be so proud of. One could see how this would make people feel a little disconnected from their fellow countrymen. In Germany a neighbor who was Jewish was not an enemy to be destroyed leaving one feeling isolated and without a feeling of unity among their nation. So of course leaders would be driven to try and bring their nations together. So even though Mussolini's speech Man of War does exactly what is intended to do (when spoken, not read) when it is taken out of it's location it is rendered almost moronic sounding.
Martin Luther King Juniors speech I Have a Dream is an example of a very moving and emotion provoking speech and it also has a lot of depth and the intended purpose to inspire and provoke thought as well. It has depth and it is multifaceted.
This concept sort of ties in with another reading we had, Where Do You Get Your Ideas From?. In that piece the author talks about how writing tends to go wrong when it has a missing piece from her basic recipe for a good piece of writing. Mussolini's speech I think represents one of the failures but only in the context of "multifaceted writing." However, I think this speech's intended purpose, which is to get people riled up, it is incredibly efficient and well done.
Another thought I had was the way the meaning of words change so completely with time. What made me think of this was in the speech when he uses the word Fascist. While the word itself hasn't changed very much it made me think this because the moment I read the word Fascist I thought instantly of a line from The Big Lebowski. Someone hits the dude and he says, "you f***ing fascist!". I thought that was kind of funny considering in his speech Mussolini obviously meant this as a good thing.
But back on track, even though this speech lacked depth and actual meaning, in the context of that time which was war and a lot of other not so fun stuff, it was geared to do exactly what was needed: to bring people together. World War II involved a lot of Hitler killing people of his own country which he claimed to be so proud of. One could see how this would make people feel a little disconnected from their fellow countrymen. In Germany a neighbor who was Jewish was not an enemy to be destroyed leaving one feeling isolated and without a feeling of unity among their nation. So of course leaders would be driven to try and bring their nations together. So even though Mussolini's speech Man of War does exactly what is intended to do (when spoken, not read) when it is taken out of it's location it is rendered almost moronic sounding.
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
The Cove: NOT THE DOLPHINS!
The cove is a film that asserts a purpose of saving innocent dolphins from the terrible people who kill them. The film obviously plays on emotions a very great deal, and it depends on a very wide variety of emotions. It also chooses an enemy to focus on as the bad guy, which is the Japanese people who try very hard to protect their "tradition." I think the film was definitely one sided in it does not even attempt to do a "yes, but" refutation to legitimize their argument but they do definitely make a lasting impression.
The film makers are very intelligent in their choices. First of all, choosing an enemy and staking them out to be the determined bad guy. One thing known about human nature is that people are much more united under hate for a particular focus, just as the distressed and disconnected German citizens became after they found someone to blame and to hate. Once they did the German country became one of the most nationalistic societies in all time. The film makers of the Cove chose the Japanese men to be their target. They only showed these Japanese men yelling, pushing, and (what sounded like) threatening. This obviously made the viewer assume they are violent and pushy. Then when the film makers decided to show that one poor dolphin trying it's hardest to escape the treacherous violence of those evil Japanese men. This is definitely effective because our inherently empathetic emotions take place without our choosing for them to, so it's almost like we have no choice in feeling for these beautiful animals. This is very strategic, but as I said before they do not even attempt a "yes, but" refutation. It makes the movie seem almost narrow minded, but sometimes if the emotion that is pulled is stronger, the average viewer may not see this.
I think a possible "yes, but" refutation could have possibly been making the fact that this slaughter is, whether or not it is brutal and cruel, a tradition that has been part of their culture for many years. In America we slaughter cows, baby cows, chickens and pigs in horrid and absolutely disgusting ways yet we don't seem to be as moved about this as the killing of dolphins. My personal opinion aside, I believe this is a little hypocritical of us as a nation. For the but aspect of the "yes, but" refutation they could assert how even though it is a longstanding tradition, it is an unenlightened and medieval practice much like public beheading of criminals and stoning. I think if they used this type of argument they could have been seen as a little more legitimate and open.
My personal opinion after watching the film was definitely affected by the emotional aspect. Because dolphins are so much more intelligent than I ever knew it does seem really horrible that they are being needlessly slaughtered. While the arguments they made were one sided they were very, very thorough on that side. Their argument about the mercury was very, very convincing because it avoids the emotional attachment to tradition and culture and simply states that the sale of dolphin meat is dangerous to human health which is playing on the stronger empathy we have for other people, rather than the mild empathy we feel for a creature that is not so close to us. So while it was slightly one sided I believe that was the ONLY real downside to their argument.
The film makers are very intelligent in their choices. First of all, choosing an enemy and staking them out to be the determined bad guy. One thing known about human nature is that people are much more united under hate for a particular focus, just as the distressed and disconnected German citizens became after they found someone to blame and to hate. Once they did the German country became one of the most nationalistic societies in all time. The film makers of the Cove chose the Japanese men to be their target. They only showed these Japanese men yelling, pushing, and (what sounded like) threatening. This obviously made the viewer assume they are violent and pushy. Then when the film makers decided to show that one poor dolphin trying it's hardest to escape the treacherous violence of those evil Japanese men. This is definitely effective because our inherently empathetic emotions take place without our choosing for them to, so it's almost like we have no choice in feeling for these beautiful animals. This is very strategic, but as I said before they do not even attempt a "yes, but" refutation. It makes the movie seem almost narrow minded, but sometimes if the emotion that is pulled is stronger, the average viewer may not see this.
I think a possible "yes, but" refutation could have possibly been making the fact that this slaughter is, whether or not it is brutal and cruel, a tradition that has been part of their culture for many years. In America we slaughter cows, baby cows, chickens and pigs in horrid and absolutely disgusting ways yet we don't seem to be as moved about this as the killing of dolphins. My personal opinion aside, I believe this is a little hypocritical of us as a nation. For the but aspect of the "yes, but" refutation they could assert how even though it is a longstanding tradition, it is an unenlightened and medieval practice much like public beheading of criminals and stoning. I think if they used this type of argument they could have been seen as a little more legitimate and open.
My personal opinion after watching the film was definitely affected by the emotional aspect. Because dolphins are so much more intelligent than I ever knew it does seem really horrible that they are being needlessly slaughtered. While the arguments they made were one sided they were very, very thorough on that side. Their argument about the mercury was very, very convincing because it avoids the emotional attachment to tradition and culture and simply states that the sale of dolphin meat is dangerous to human health which is playing on the stronger empathy we have for other people, rather than the mild empathy we feel for a creature that is not so close to us. So while it was slightly one sided I believe that was the ONLY real downside to their argument.
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Going Native: Reading Response 3
My initial reading of this paper honestly confused the hell out of me. Whether this was due to the fact I was falling in and out of sleep while reading it, or that it was a little more complex than I expected is entirely irrelevant. Yet, upon my second reading of this paper, I really enjoyed the different examples that the author used. In my group I think we came up with a pretty good thesis or at least an assertion regarding the reason for the generally negative view is due to the different levels of actual understanding that the culturally mobile individual has for the culture they are enveloping themselves in.
I really liked the author's first example. While it was about children, and it is understandable that they would do this, they represent the first level of cultural mobility. This first example is the reason that it is seen as a negative, degrading thing. The children that were trying to become engulfed in the African-American culture simply took on the aspects of the culture that were popular and the aspects that they liked, rather than the entire culture which indefinitely includes the negative, painful aspects as well. This is what the majority of people who attempt to become culturally mobile tend to do. Because they only take on the surface aspects of the culture, it makes the individual seem shallow and fake. Unfortunately because this level is the one most commonly seen by the masses, it gives the entire institution of cultural mobility a bad rap.
Another example she uses shows the next level that is a little more knowledgeable, yet still not the essence and deepest level of cultural mobility that can be achieved. She explains her own experience with cultural mobility in the context of her time in India. She explains how even the bad parts of Indian culture, such as the treachery of the caste system and the mass poverty, were still a part of the culture she acknowledged and still attempted to soak in the culture. This awareness, while it may seem minor, is a major jump from the superficiality of the first level. Even though she possessed this other aspect, she still wasn't capable of entirely enveloping herself in that other culture.
The author then refers to a man who actually attained the final level of cultural mobility. This man moved to Japan and became completely engulfed in the culture. The good, the bad and the weird. He became a family man of a Japanese woman and adopted their cultural ways. He lived this way because he felt that he was simply born into the wrong culture. I really liked her example of trans-gender people. Many trans-gender people say they had always felt like they were born in the wrong skin, in the wrong context and the man that moved to Japan expressed the same sort of feeling.
I really enjoyed this reading I think because I can relate but not directly. I think an underlying text of this paper was that all cultures should be acknowledged, but not necessarily accepted. I do not think she's asserting that just because the culture is there one has to agree with it, I simply think that she's asserting that a culture should not be completely denied relevance because it is different or odd. I agree. Learning about other cultures has been one of the most interesting and driving aspects of my life so far so I do agree.
I really liked the author's first example. While it was about children, and it is understandable that they would do this, they represent the first level of cultural mobility. This first example is the reason that it is seen as a negative, degrading thing. The children that were trying to become engulfed in the African-American culture simply took on the aspects of the culture that were popular and the aspects that they liked, rather than the entire culture which indefinitely includes the negative, painful aspects as well. This is what the majority of people who attempt to become culturally mobile tend to do. Because they only take on the surface aspects of the culture, it makes the individual seem shallow and fake. Unfortunately because this level is the one most commonly seen by the masses, it gives the entire institution of cultural mobility a bad rap.
Another example she uses shows the next level that is a little more knowledgeable, yet still not the essence and deepest level of cultural mobility that can be achieved. She explains her own experience with cultural mobility in the context of her time in India. She explains how even the bad parts of Indian culture, such as the treachery of the caste system and the mass poverty, were still a part of the culture she acknowledged and still attempted to soak in the culture. This awareness, while it may seem minor, is a major jump from the superficiality of the first level. Even though she possessed this other aspect, she still wasn't capable of entirely enveloping herself in that other culture.
The author then refers to a man who actually attained the final level of cultural mobility. This man moved to Japan and became completely engulfed in the culture. The good, the bad and the weird. He became a family man of a Japanese woman and adopted their cultural ways. He lived this way because he felt that he was simply born into the wrong culture. I really liked her example of trans-gender people. Many trans-gender people say they had always felt like they were born in the wrong skin, in the wrong context and the man that moved to Japan expressed the same sort of feeling.
I really enjoyed this reading I think because I can relate but not directly. I think an underlying text of this paper was that all cultures should be acknowledged, but not necessarily accepted. I do not think she's asserting that just because the culture is there one has to agree with it, I simply think that she's asserting that a culture should not be completely denied relevance because it is different or odd. I agree. Learning about other cultures has been one of the most interesting and driving aspects of my life so far so I do agree.
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
The Search of an Ecology of Music, Reading Response Post
I really enjoyed this essay. It was really interesting how music, math, sound and the earths actions can somehow all be interrelated. While I do have some Hindu views, so I do believe in transmigration, a circular view of time and an interrelated aspect of all things, I never really considered it was something that could really be proven or shown so efficiently.
The first thing was the use of computers involved in The Place Where You Go To Listen. It really proves the human tendency towards paradox because he speaks about how we use computers to create things that do such immense harm to the world, but as well things that truly enhance and benefit our world. Also the fact that when I think of a computer I think of technical, robotic movements not art. While I do know that computers are very very often used to make art now, it just seems like these two aspects would be miles away.
Again a paradox showed up when he wrote of the reality, or unreality of sound. From what I know of philosophy and sound I believe that sound and many aspects of the world are based on vibrations. The man who is doing my tattoo actually told me of a study where a person would put his or her hands over a droplet of water and would think either angry or happy thoughts and after they did this they would look at the droplet of water under a microscope and when angry thoughts were thought the water would be erratic and chaotic. And when the happy thoughts were thought they water would be very fluid and make beautiful patterns. When I actually went to The Place Where You Go To Listen the first thing I thought of was the sense of vibrations I felt. I have had a tattoo done before and when I did I could feel the vibration reverberate through my body and this almost made my thoughts sort of erratic. Now this is debatable because of course it hurts so maybe my thoughts were erratic for that reason, but we will never know. Again, the human tendency towards paradox.
While I really, really enjoyed the concept of this essay it seemed sort of like one very long run on sentence. It seemed to throw all of this technical music terminology that didn't quite make sense. While I am no music major I do know quite a few of the technical terms, it just seemed that they were a little jumbled. The description of the sound and the intricacy of the making of this room were great and almost made me feel like I could hear what it would sound like before I even saw the room. His writing really did the job of asserting his complex understanding of music, math, sound and the connection they all bare, as well as with the rest of the world. It makes me wonder if maybe a painting could be made in the same way, possibly by channeling the vibrations into a paintbrush or something of that sort. His piece made me think and question and that is always very very good.
The first thing was the use of computers involved in The Place Where You Go To Listen. It really proves the human tendency towards paradox because he speaks about how we use computers to create things that do such immense harm to the world, but as well things that truly enhance and benefit our world. Also the fact that when I think of a computer I think of technical, robotic movements not art. While I do know that computers are very very often used to make art now, it just seems like these two aspects would be miles away.
Again a paradox showed up when he wrote of the reality, or unreality of sound. From what I know of philosophy and sound I believe that sound and many aspects of the world are based on vibrations. The man who is doing my tattoo actually told me of a study where a person would put his or her hands over a droplet of water and would think either angry or happy thoughts and after they did this they would look at the droplet of water under a microscope and when angry thoughts were thought the water would be erratic and chaotic. And when the happy thoughts were thought they water would be very fluid and make beautiful patterns. When I actually went to The Place Where You Go To Listen the first thing I thought of was the sense of vibrations I felt. I have had a tattoo done before and when I did I could feel the vibration reverberate through my body and this almost made my thoughts sort of erratic. Now this is debatable because of course it hurts so maybe my thoughts were erratic for that reason, but we will never know. Again, the human tendency towards paradox.
While I really, really enjoyed the concept of this essay it seemed sort of like one very long run on sentence. It seemed to throw all of this technical music terminology that didn't quite make sense. While I am no music major I do know quite a few of the technical terms, it just seemed that they were a little jumbled. The description of the sound and the intricacy of the making of this room were great and almost made me feel like I could hear what it would sound like before I even saw the room. His writing really did the job of asserting his complex understanding of music, math, sound and the connection they all bare, as well as with the rest of the world. It makes me wonder if maybe a painting could be made in the same way, possibly by channeling the vibrations into a paintbrush or something of that sort. His piece made me think and question and that is always very very good.
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Museum Response: Lisa Gray, Prom Night
The piece of art I chose was Lisa Gray's Prom Night. I, of course, saw a plethora of neat pieces of art. There were quite a few I considered choosing until I saw this one. It is an oil painting of what looks like a rodent wearing a prom dress. There aren't many hard lines and the colors blend together in a very ghostly, creepy fashion.
While our book mentions a "focal point" for me the focal point was not visual. While it is obvious that the first thing I looked at was the odd rodent creature since it is centered and is the main image, it wasn't really the most powerful aspect of the painting. My personal definition of "focal point" or at least my instinctual understanding of the phrase is what the most powerful, initial sense is provoked and about this painting it was definitely a feeling. That feeling was uncomfortable, slightly disturbed and even more unsettling, oddly fascinated.
When I saw the piece, I also read the little blurb about it to the side. It talked about how the meaning of this painting could possibly be connecting very human experiences (such a prom) and our inherent animalistic and often savage natures. This made me think of philosophy. I've been reading and inspired, but not necessarily following a lot of eastern religions and philosophies. The one that came to mind was the Hindu concept of human beings being "aspects" of Brahman, or the ultimate energy, being or whatever terminology one wants to use. Also, the Hindu concept of the body merely being a "chariot" for the true self. Then it also made me think of The Matrix. In the movie there is something called the "residual self image" or basically the way one sees themselves in the computer program which is our world. Now the reason these two random things pertain to this painting is that there was a sort of situation, or a small narrative that this painting made me think of.
In my mind I imagined a high school girl (probably being of the prom reference) but not the actual person herself. I imagined this girl as a stereotypical high school prom queen: stuck up, shallow and vain. But when her true self, not her imagined image of herself, was revealed it came out as this bony rodent in a dress and upon looking at her one would feel disturbed, uncomfortable and confused. Sort of like the movie Shallow Hal. People are visually represented as their personalities. This narrative continued to be intertwined with the philosophy, the Matrix, Shallow Hal and this prom queen. It made me wonder how far in depth I could go with this girls story and I realized it would become a narrative of questioning: How would she lead her life if she was forever stuck this way (as a rodent in a dress), would that change he true self and would that change her outer form as well? Then the narrative turns, twists and I consider the ghostly form of the painting...
Would this be her form in death? The Hindu's believe in transmigration if one does not achieve enlightenment they come back until they do reach this ultimate enlightenment, so this wouldn't apply... Or if this was her form in death is the more of a Greek underworld sort of place?
For me personally a story starts with characters or it can be with images, but no matter the form of the object of inspiration, it forms itself with questions. If a piece of art makes me ask questions about it, or what it could mean it creates a narrative.
While our book mentions a "focal point" for me the focal point was not visual. While it is obvious that the first thing I looked at was the odd rodent creature since it is centered and is the main image, it wasn't really the most powerful aspect of the painting. My personal definition of "focal point" or at least my instinctual understanding of the phrase is what the most powerful, initial sense is provoked and about this painting it was definitely a feeling. That feeling was uncomfortable, slightly disturbed and even more unsettling, oddly fascinated.
When I saw the piece, I also read the little blurb about it to the side. It talked about how the meaning of this painting could possibly be connecting very human experiences (such a prom) and our inherent animalistic and often savage natures. This made me think of philosophy. I've been reading and inspired, but not necessarily following a lot of eastern religions and philosophies. The one that came to mind was the Hindu concept of human beings being "aspects" of Brahman, or the ultimate energy, being or whatever terminology one wants to use. Also, the Hindu concept of the body merely being a "chariot" for the true self. Then it also made me think of The Matrix. In the movie there is something called the "residual self image" or basically the way one sees themselves in the computer program which is our world. Now the reason these two random things pertain to this painting is that there was a sort of situation, or a small narrative that this painting made me think of.
In my mind I imagined a high school girl (probably being of the prom reference) but not the actual person herself. I imagined this girl as a stereotypical high school prom queen: stuck up, shallow and vain. But when her true self, not her imagined image of herself, was revealed it came out as this bony rodent in a dress and upon looking at her one would feel disturbed, uncomfortable and confused. Sort of like the movie Shallow Hal. People are visually represented as their personalities. This narrative continued to be intertwined with the philosophy, the Matrix, Shallow Hal and this prom queen. It made me wonder how far in depth I could go with this girls story and I realized it would become a narrative of questioning: How would she lead her life if she was forever stuck this way (as a rodent in a dress), would that change he true self and would that change her outer form as well? Then the narrative turns, twists and I consider the ghostly form of the painting...
Would this be her form in death? The Hindu's believe in transmigration if one does not achieve enlightenment they come back until they do reach this ultimate enlightenment, so this wouldn't apply... Or if this was her form in death is the more of a Greek underworld sort of place?
For me personally a story starts with characters or it can be with images, but no matter the form of the object of inspiration, it forms itself with questions. If a piece of art makes me ask questions about it, or what it could mean it creates a narrative.
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Three Places: Compare & Contrast
Of all the places I've been (which really isn't too many) I have one spot where I am comfortable, happy and feel safe, which is my ambiguous definition of home. That spot is my room, in my current house. As simple as a room seems, it's still that special place for me. When I lived with my mom, for the first thirteen years of my life, we were constantly moving. I never really hung things on my walls, or found spots to hide the snacks I didn't want anyone else to find because I knew that these would not last long. When I moved in with my dad the only thing that would force us to move was his jobs, but each one lasted at least one year and usually longer, so this was just about as permanent as I knew. This was incredible.
The first apartment we lived in, though we lived in it for more than a year, still didn't feel like I could depend on it or come to trust it. We had moved so much that my subconscious sought to protect me from being tricked, so I could not feel like it was permanent. But when my dad moved jobs, and we had to get a new apartment on the other side of town I felt a transition. This move was fun, not pained.
My dad took me to Baileys furniture store and told me to pick a bed and a room set. This was step one of the forceful push kick of permanence to my subconscious. When we got to the house, of course he got the bigger room, but still I had a bed that was mine and it went in a room that was mine. I have been in this room and this house for three years and it is home. My walls are covered in the most eclectic collection of drawings (artistically done in crayon), random hair accessories and all kinds of different things I had managed to hold on to between the many moves. For me this is my chosen place as well as what I consider home.
Compared to the little spot on the hill we decided to look from it made me think of the duality of my "home." People say how incredible Alaska is and in a way (my way being a little more cynical) it kind of is. In this spot on the hill it was really comical to look onto this absolutely beautiful sky, the snow (which some people have never even seen) and the vast landscape of trees. All inherently beautiful. Then... there are the cars, the gravel, the strategically placed wooden poles and the giant clouds of smoke being pushed into the air. All these things not so beautiful... more like not at all. This duality is much like my spot, my home. While the spot on the hill presented duality in visual aspects, my spot as emotional duality.
While I feel most comfortable in my room, my spot it also carries with it memories of some of the worst emotional pain I've ever gone through. With all the different houses I moved out of, as I left them I left any awful memories I had there (almost quite literally because I don't remember much about them) which gave me a clean slate. But here in my beloved spot there is a very colorful slate. I fell in love with the first love here, and felt the ripping of my chest when it ended, all in this room where I'm sitting as I write this. I felt the pain of finding out a very close family member has cancer as well as the pain of finding out that someone I really loved had passed away. Here in this room. Much like the spot on the hill there is duality, even if they are through different means, of two conflicting extremes. Yet they differ because one is vital to my daily life and one is just another place.
In the wood center, this reminded me a little more of my room. I was more comfortable here. Yet again it couldn't stand up. As I was surrounded by people, I did not feel as good as I do in my little haven. Maybe it had a higher level of permanence, in my slightly warped perception of permanence mind you, than the little spot on the hill had?
While I have thoroughly explained my current sense of home, as it conveniently doubled as my spot (because it truly inspires me), for me the concept of home is where I can feel some sort of permanence, but more in depth somewhere I feel that I should and want to remember.
The first apartment we lived in, though we lived in it for more than a year, still didn't feel like I could depend on it or come to trust it. We had moved so much that my subconscious sought to protect me from being tricked, so I could not feel like it was permanent. But when my dad moved jobs, and we had to get a new apartment on the other side of town I felt a transition. This move was fun, not pained.
My dad took me to Baileys furniture store and told me to pick a bed and a room set. This was step one of the forceful push kick of permanence to my subconscious. When we got to the house, of course he got the bigger room, but still I had a bed that was mine and it went in a room that was mine. I have been in this room and this house for three years and it is home. My walls are covered in the most eclectic collection of drawings (artistically done in crayon), random hair accessories and all kinds of different things I had managed to hold on to between the many moves. For me this is my chosen place as well as what I consider home.
Compared to the little spot on the hill we decided to look from it made me think of the duality of my "home." People say how incredible Alaska is and in a way (my way being a little more cynical) it kind of is. In this spot on the hill it was really comical to look onto this absolutely beautiful sky, the snow (which some people have never even seen) and the vast landscape of trees. All inherently beautiful. Then... there are the cars, the gravel, the strategically placed wooden poles and the giant clouds of smoke being pushed into the air. All these things not so beautiful... more like not at all. This duality is much like my spot, my home. While the spot on the hill presented duality in visual aspects, my spot as emotional duality.
While I feel most comfortable in my room, my spot it also carries with it memories of some of the worst emotional pain I've ever gone through. With all the different houses I moved out of, as I left them I left any awful memories I had there (almost quite literally because I don't remember much about them) which gave me a clean slate. But here in my beloved spot there is a very colorful slate. I fell in love with the first love here, and felt the ripping of my chest when it ended, all in this room where I'm sitting as I write this. I felt the pain of finding out a very close family member has cancer as well as the pain of finding out that someone I really loved had passed away. Here in this room. Much like the spot on the hill there is duality, even if they are through different means, of two conflicting extremes. Yet they differ because one is vital to my daily life and one is just another place.
In the wood center, this reminded me a little more of my room. I was more comfortable here. Yet again it couldn't stand up. As I was surrounded by people, I did not feel as good as I do in my little haven. Maybe it had a higher level of permanence, in my slightly warped perception of permanence mind you, than the little spot on the hill had?
While I have thoroughly explained my current sense of home, as it conveniently doubled as my spot (because it truly inspires me), for me the concept of home is where I can feel some sort of permanence, but more in depth somewhere I feel that I should and want to remember.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Reading Response: People as Pictures/Irezumi
This article was creepy in the sense that it focused on two current interests of mine. It seems almost like one of those weird little coincidences in life that may be more than a coincidence... I am hoping to obtain a bachelors degree in foreign languages with my first language being Japanese, and I am also a tattoo enthusiast. Yeah...odd eh?
While this may not seem to be something to take any special notice of , it was not only the overarching theme that caught my attention but one of the main focuses. The contradictory idea of tattoos being incredibly painful, which Irezumi exemplifies with precision, and the commonly heard phrase that tattoos are "addicting." The very first thing I had ever heard about tattoos was that they were addicting and being young, I did not understand how in the world something like that could be addicting. Besides the fact that I was and am terrified of needles, I have always had a bit of a low threshold for pain...or in laymen terms I'm a wuss. I always thought this way: why in the world could pain be addicting? But of course what I was missing was a vital part of the equation, which could only be discovered by getting a tattoo.
I got my first tattoo at 17 and after I looked at it in the mirror I understood why tattoos were/are addicting (for myself at least): the pride that comes with such an intricate work of art permanently on my body and that I, someone well known by those around me to be a wuss, had toughed it out. The moment I looked at the healed product on my right shoulder in the mirror, I was addicted. I wanted another one immediately. But self realization babble aside, the article brought something to light. What I had done was nothing compared to Irezumi.
As the article progressed it mentioned masochism, and sadism. Now, being a self proclaimed wuss, I was and still am, very sure I am not a masochist which is what supposedly the tattoo victim should be, at least in theory. This made me think what is the relationship being the pride I felt after the tattoo was done, and the ability to tough out the pain I felt while my tattoo was being done. I tried to think about, and still am but I cannot figure out the connection between the two concepts. I thought maybe it was similar to why a soldier takes pride in fighting for his country, but a missing link there is tattooing isn't nearly as noble, but there were similar points in both. But similarities or not, they weren't comparable. Then I considered maybe the relationship of tattooing, pain and pride was similar to a professional fighters love for the pain of getting hit and the pride of winning or putting up a good fight. This seemed a little more likely...
Then I continued to go off on a mental thought path of all kinds of things. I still don't know quite what the relationship is but I know it is significant for me because the only way I may ever figure it out is to get more tattoos. I consider something if worth reading if it sets its reader off on a tangent of thought, and indeed it did just that. :)
While this may not seem to be something to take any special notice of , it was not only the overarching theme that caught my attention but one of the main focuses. The contradictory idea of tattoos being incredibly painful, which Irezumi exemplifies with precision, and the commonly heard phrase that tattoos are "addicting." The very first thing I had ever heard about tattoos was that they were addicting and being young, I did not understand how in the world something like that could be addicting. Besides the fact that I was and am terrified of needles, I have always had a bit of a low threshold for pain...or in laymen terms I'm a wuss. I always thought this way: why in the world could pain be addicting? But of course what I was missing was a vital part of the equation, which could only be discovered by getting a tattoo.
I got my first tattoo at 17 and after I looked at it in the mirror I understood why tattoos were/are addicting (for myself at least): the pride that comes with such an intricate work of art permanently on my body and that I, someone well known by those around me to be a wuss, had toughed it out. The moment I looked at the healed product on my right shoulder in the mirror, I was addicted. I wanted another one immediately. But self realization babble aside, the article brought something to light. What I had done was nothing compared to Irezumi.
As the article progressed it mentioned masochism, and sadism. Now, being a self proclaimed wuss, I was and still am, very sure I am not a masochist which is what supposedly the tattoo victim should be, at least in theory. This made me think what is the relationship being the pride I felt after the tattoo was done, and the ability to tough out the pain I felt while my tattoo was being done. I tried to think about, and still am but I cannot figure out the connection between the two concepts. I thought maybe it was similar to why a soldier takes pride in fighting for his country, but a missing link there is tattooing isn't nearly as noble, but there were similar points in both. But similarities or not, they weren't comparable. Then I considered maybe the relationship of tattooing, pain and pride was similar to a professional fighters love for the pain of getting hit and the pride of winning or putting up a good fight. This seemed a little more likely...
Then I continued to go off on a mental thought path of all kinds of things. I still don't know quite what the relationship is but I know it is significant for me because the only way I may ever figure it out is to get more tattoos. I consider something if worth reading if it sets its reader off on a tangent of thought, and indeed it did just that. :)
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Introductions? :)
My name is Brianna Lapp and I am a freshman at the UAF. My current major is Foreign Languages, with a dual language focus of Japanese and French, with a minor in German.
I was born and raised in Fairbanks, Alaska but like most kids from here I want to get out as soon as possible. In the winter I like to go to the gym, work as a barista and do school as well as I can. In summer though I skateboard a ton and travel around as much as possible, well around Alaska. I live with my dad whom is a construction foreman which taught me to love hard labor. I actually hope to get a construction job sometime during the summer. One of my life goals is to be trilingual thus my major. One really big advantage to doing language as a career is the opportunity to do some real traveling (real meaning outside of America) considering I have never been to a bigger city than Anchorage, on my own.
A book that has had a significant impact on my life is Tao Te Ching by Lao Tsu. It is a philosophy piece written by the revered philosopher. It is written in a poetry type style and what I enjoy the most about it is the absolutely infuriating complexity that wears a facade of simplicity and contradiction. The first time I attempted to read Tao Te Ching I was absolutely perplexed by why in the world I would ever try to read something like it. It just seemed to babble contradictorily and I quickly got irritated. After I set it down for awhile and attempted again it was awesome. I actually contemplated what it was proposing and really became entranced by it. I still read it consistently because there is always at least two sections that help me make peace with whatever is irritating me that day. It's an awesome read. :)
I was born and raised in Fairbanks, Alaska but like most kids from here I want to get out as soon as possible. In the winter I like to go to the gym, work as a barista and do school as well as I can. In summer though I skateboard a ton and travel around as much as possible, well around Alaska. I live with my dad whom is a construction foreman which taught me to love hard labor. I actually hope to get a construction job sometime during the summer. One of my life goals is to be trilingual thus my major. One really big advantage to doing language as a career is the opportunity to do some real traveling (real meaning outside of America) considering I have never been to a bigger city than Anchorage, on my own.
A book that has had a significant impact on my life is Tao Te Ching by Lao Tsu. It is a philosophy piece written by the revered philosopher. It is written in a poetry type style and what I enjoy the most about it is the absolutely infuriating complexity that wears a facade of simplicity and contradiction. The first time I attempted to read Tao Te Ching I was absolutely perplexed by why in the world I would ever try to read something like it. It just seemed to babble contradictorily and I quickly got irritated. After I set it down for awhile and attempted again it was awesome. I actually contemplated what it was proposing and really became entranced by it. I still read it consistently because there is always at least two sections that help me make peace with whatever is irritating me that day. It's an awesome read. :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)