4. La Maison en Petits Cubes - Kunio Kato
Profoundly beautiful Oscar winner.
Animation: Japan
5. Geri's Game
Genius Pixar animation, another Oscar winner.
Animation: USA
6. Okatpodi
Cuteness and creativity - octopi in love!
Animation: France
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Awesome world animation - Part 1
Part 1 of a series on my favorite short animations from different parts of the world.
1. "Good Morning" - Kanye West
A music video! It follows the journey of a little bear trying to get to his graduation despite numerous transportation obstacles. Good music and great animation.
Animation: Japan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIiTmmMqNso
2. Kiwi! -Madeyeti47
Warning--tear-jerker. Are dreams worth everything?
Animation: USA (NY)
3. Hoy te Amo - Vinnie Veritas
Vinnie Veritas does lots of cool stuff, but I like this one for its simplicity and unity.
Animation: Veracruz, Mexico
4. There She Is - SamBakZa
Love forbidden by politics and custom - the eternal struggle, as told with rabbits and cats.
A 5 part series.
Animation: Korea
1. "Good Morning" - Kanye West
A music video! It follows the journey of a little bear trying to get to his graduation despite numerous transportation obstacles. Good music and great animation.
Animation: Japan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIiTmmMqNso
2. Kiwi! -Madeyeti47
Warning--tear-jerker. Are dreams worth everything?
Animation: USA (NY)
3. Hoy te Amo - Vinnie Veritas
Vinnie Veritas does lots of cool stuff, but I like this one for its simplicity and unity.
Animation: Veracruz, Mexico
4. There She Is - SamBakZa
Love forbidden by politics and custom - the eternal struggle, as told with rabbits and cats.
A 5 part series.
Animation: Korea
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Mar 23 ML Ch 42
Again, this chapter of our book describes the plight of youth is their unenlightened naivete. It is the power struggle of knowledge. "Knowledge is power" is a major theme of the book. None of the chapters I read has an author who suggested that he or she might be shy of having adequate knowlege but make many assertions that others, particularly young people, do not have it. The metaphor of being "armed with information" is used.
Knowledge is violence in the university. To know something is to use it in intellectual battle. To win is to gain followers, allegiance and credibility. To claim to others that they need to know something that you already know and can teach is to attempt conquest. Imperialism is not dead or discouraged. It is the practice of the Western university to colonize--not the body, land or property but the mind.
A professor gains status by making new or better discoveries or originalities. He or she is in competition with peers by being more enlightened--the greater the gap, the more the distinction. To portray others as naive or stupid is to the credit of the speaker to create the distinction. Thus the argument and the spirit of debate is born--a battle for superiority based upon persuasion and knowledge.
Teachers make students soldiers in this battle. They are taught the essay, to compete for grades, money, position. Those who adopt the teachers' ways of thinking do better. It empowers the teacher with followers and the students with accolades.
I think this has to do with suicide because this battle contributes a student's feeling of isolation and sense of meaninglessness. If the academic world is treated like a capitalist construction, education can be viewed as capital or a commodity rather than a discipline or expression. This is the teacher's role and the truest, most beneficial form of critical thinking--what can be done that is best rather than better.
Knowledge is violence in the university. To know something is to use it in intellectual battle. To win is to gain followers, allegiance and credibility. To claim to others that they need to know something that you already know and can teach is to attempt conquest. Imperialism is not dead or discouraged. It is the practice of the Western university to colonize--not the body, land or property but the mind.
A professor gains status by making new or better discoveries or originalities. He or she is in competition with peers by being more enlightened--the greater the gap, the more the distinction. To portray others as naive or stupid is to the credit of the speaker to create the distinction. Thus the argument and the spirit of debate is born--a battle for superiority based upon persuasion and knowledge.
Teachers make students soldiers in this battle. They are taught the essay, to compete for grades, money, position. Those who adopt the teachers' ways of thinking do better. It empowers the teacher with followers and the students with accolades.
I think this has to do with suicide because this battle contributes a student's feeling of isolation and sense of meaninglessness. If the academic world is treated like a capitalist construction, education can be viewed as capital or a commodity rather than a discipline or expression. This is the teacher's role and the truest, most beneficial form of critical thinking--what can be done that is best rather than better.
Mar 9 ML 34, 35
Girls and media. This is a good topic if overdone. After all--is anyone more interesting to the modern human imagination than the young female?
Instead of TV, I'll talk about music and the evolution of girl power in the media that can be accurately traced through the career of one particular female: Britney Spears.
According to her Wikipedia entry, Britney Spears released her first single in 1999 when she was 17 years old, "Baby One More Time." Here is the link:
[embedding disabled: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bsniYwSaWg]
In the video, you can see she is portrayed innocently as a pretty school girl. Her sexuality is mostly hinted at through showing her midriff. The lyrics of the song are about "loneliness" and "still believing"--basically, about lost love. The video is characterized by strong vocals, highly energetic but not suggestive dancing, and above all, coyness--at the end, the video is shown mostly as a daydream.
Following this single there was "Oops...I Did it Again" [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unBACOHFXes]. The music video for this song is supposed to take place on Mars in which an astronaut describes her as "cute." She wears a skin-tight suit and is more suggestive than "Baby one More time." This song also establishes a pattern of the girl's manipulation of male affection for attention. Although the video is again coy, the last line of the song goes "I'm not that innocent."
In 2001, she released "Slave 4 U" and in 2002 "I'm Not a Girl, not yet a Woman." Both seek to emphasize her innocent youthfulness anxious to break into adulthood--in the former, sexually, in the latter, emotionally. She echoes teen girls' yearning to be seen as adult while at the same time personifying their naivete about sexuality and maturity. Both give the sense that Britney is singing against control and oppression. In both videos, she is wearing little clothing on her torso, and in the "Slave 4 U," sexuality is highly suggested.
In 2004, her top release was "Toxic"--one of her first songs that seems to completely drop innocence as a theme. Rather than strong, belting vocals, Britney adopts a breathy, autotuned voice. In the video, she portrays an airline attendant in business class. Her dress is a highly festishized uniform. She seduces one of the passengers, a paunchy middle-aged male, in the airplane's lavatory--suggesting the video targets male fantasy. In segments of the video, she wears a sparkly nude leotard, hinting at total nudity.
In 2007, "Gimme More" was a top hit. The lyrics, like in "Toxic," aren't particularly romantic, but are about seduction. In the video for "Gimme More," Britney pole dances, dances against a mirror, and appears to be trying to seduce another version of herself who watches the dance. "Gimme More" also is the first major hit to do away with coyness--the song is about sex and sexual dancing.
In 2009, Spears released "If U Seek Amy." If U Seek Amy is poorly disguised code for "F-U-C-K me," and in case it was not understood the first time, the video includes two segments of a newswoman strongly hinting at the code. The video begins with Britney at the end of what appears to be some sort of scandalous gathering--the people are putting their clothes on and several are passed out on the floor. Britney sings about an "Amy" who makes no appearance, but the refrain sings "all of the boys, all of the girls want to F-U-C-K me." The second part of the video she unusually dons modest clothing and a short blond wig. She comes out of the house with a pie, two cute sons and a husband while meeting a crowd of paparazzi. The video suggests that picture-perfect celebrities lead a double life, doing things less publicly favorable in private.
Britney Spears' progression from innocent, heartbroken teenager to jaded, confident, casually sexual adult chronicles the sexual and emotional maturation of a contemporary young female, tracking first loves and first sexual experiences in high school. From the usual failure of these relationships, girls draw strength from their sexuality and use their sexual appeal to gain attention and power. As the girl ages, there is growing gap between sex and emotion and a closer relationship between sex and power.
Instead of TV, I'll talk about music and the evolution of girl power in the media that can be accurately traced through the career of one particular female: Britney Spears.
According to her Wikipedia entry, Britney Spears released her first single in 1999 when she was 17 years old, "Baby One More Time." Here is the link:
[embedding disabled: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bsniYwSaWg]
In the video, you can see she is portrayed innocently as a pretty school girl. Her sexuality is mostly hinted at through showing her midriff. The lyrics of the song are about "loneliness" and "still believing"--basically, about lost love. The video is characterized by strong vocals, highly energetic but not suggestive dancing, and above all, coyness--at the end, the video is shown mostly as a daydream.
Following this single there was "Oops...I Did it Again" [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unBACOHFXes]. The music video for this song is supposed to take place on Mars in which an astronaut describes her as "cute." She wears a skin-tight suit and is more suggestive than "Baby one More time." This song also establishes a pattern of the girl's manipulation of male affection for attention. Although the video is again coy, the last line of the song goes "I'm not that innocent."
In 2001, she released "Slave 4 U" and in 2002 "I'm Not a Girl, not yet a Woman." Both seek to emphasize her innocent youthfulness anxious to break into adulthood--in the former, sexually, in the latter, emotionally. She echoes teen girls' yearning to be seen as adult while at the same time personifying their naivete about sexuality and maturity. Both give the sense that Britney is singing against control and oppression. In both videos, she is wearing little clothing on her torso, and in the "Slave 4 U," sexuality is highly suggested.
In 2004, her top release was "Toxic"--one of her first songs that seems to completely drop innocence as a theme. Rather than strong, belting vocals, Britney adopts a breathy, autotuned voice. In the video, she portrays an airline attendant in business class. Her dress is a highly festishized uniform. She seduces one of the passengers, a paunchy middle-aged male, in the airplane's lavatory--suggesting the video targets male fantasy. In segments of the video, she wears a sparkly nude leotard, hinting at total nudity.
In 2007, "Gimme More" was a top hit. The lyrics, like in "Toxic," aren't particularly romantic, but are about seduction. In the video for "Gimme More," Britney pole dances, dances against a mirror, and appears to be trying to seduce another version of herself who watches the dance. "Gimme More" also is the first major hit to do away with coyness--the song is about sex and sexual dancing.
In 2009, Spears released "If U Seek Amy." If U Seek Amy is poorly disguised code for "F-U-C-K me," and in case it was not understood the first time, the video includes two segments of a newswoman strongly hinting at the code. The video begins with Britney at the end of what appears to be some sort of scandalous gathering--the people are putting their clothes on and several are passed out on the floor. Britney sings about an "Amy" who makes no appearance, but the refrain sings "all of the boys, all of the girls want to F-U-C-K me." The second part of the video she unusually dons modest clothing and a short blond wig. She comes out of the house with a pie, two cute sons and a husband while meeting a crowd of paparazzi. The video suggests that picture-perfect celebrities lead a double life, doing things less publicly favorable in private.
Britney Spears' progression from innocent, heartbroken teenager to jaded, confident, casually sexual adult chronicles the sexual and emotional maturation of a contemporary young female, tracking first loves and first sexual experiences in high school. From the usual failure of these relationships, girls draw strength from their sexuality and use their sexual appeal to gain attention and power. As the girl ages, there is growing gap between sex and emotion and a closer relationship between sex and power.
O Saya vs. Jai Ho -- Slumdog Millionaire Music Remix
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eT0Q-B_FUHY
The embedding was disabled :(
The embedding was disabled :(
Mar 2 ML Ch.18, 28, 45, 52
I'll list which examples of TV shows I think tackle race issues well:
1. "Everybody Hates Chris"--this is a really cool show that wasn't mentioned in class. It's narrated by Chris Rock and is supposed to be based on his childhood growing up in New York. It's great because I find a lot of shows that portray an African American family sort of show them either in the context of the black sitcom (think UPN or BET) that is directed mostly toward African American audiences, or the family is basically trying to defy stereotypes by portraying characters as wealthy, highly educated and powerful (think Fresh Prince of Bel Air) which for the most part doesn't reflect reality. "Everybody Hates Chris" has characters that fit the statistical stereotype: a black family that is poor, lacking in tertiary education and working in difficult conditions. However, the show seeks justice to its characters by making them traditionally moral, frugal, conservative and genuinely funny--which I think does more for the power of representation that our books loves so much than just making black characters wealthy and educated.
2. "Lost" -- It has an uber multiracial, multinational cast. It has a huge cast in general but it's probably unprecedented in terms of tokenism. Although I'm not a big fan of tokenism (it usually isn't realistic or contribute artistically) but it works here. It makes a lot of sense for a group to come together on an island regardless of race or nationality, and that there would be a great diversity.
I think that's about it. I could only think of two. Here's an example of race done poorly:
"Twilight" -- I think this was a kind of weird movie in terms of race. There are the uberwhites--the two main characters, Bella and Edward, and the vampire clan. Then there was a vampire that was kind of randomly black but not really a main character. Then there were the teenage boys from the Native American tribe Quiluete--who in the books are werewolves and are subjects to a great deal of modern myth that is the ultimate enemy of the Native American "Disney's Pocahontas"-haters. In the high school, there are a smattering of different races that play friends of the main characters. Their personalities are so generic that it seems like their different races only serve to differentiate them visually for reference.
1. "Everybody Hates Chris"--this is a really cool show that wasn't mentioned in class. It's narrated by Chris Rock and is supposed to be based on his childhood growing up in New York. It's great because I find a lot of shows that portray an African American family sort of show them either in the context of the black sitcom (think UPN or BET) that is directed mostly toward African American audiences, or the family is basically trying to defy stereotypes by portraying characters as wealthy, highly educated and powerful (think Fresh Prince of Bel Air) which for the most part doesn't reflect reality. "Everybody Hates Chris" has characters that fit the statistical stereotype: a black family that is poor, lacking in tertiary education and working in difficult conditions. However, the show seeks justice to its characters by making them traditionally moral, frugal, conservative and genuinely funny--which I think does more for the power of representation that our books loves so much than just making black characters wealthy and educated.
2. "Lost" -- It has an uber multiracial, multinational cast. It has a huge cast in general but it's probably unprecedented in terms of tokenism. Although I'm not a big fan of tokenism (it usually isn't realistic or contribute artistically) but it works here. It makes a lot of sense for a group to come together on an island regardless of race or nationality, and that there would be a great diversity.
I think that's about it. I could only think of two. Here's an example of race done poorly:
"Twilight" -- I think this was a kind of weird movie in terms of race. There are the uberwhites--the two main characters, Bella and Edward, and the vampire clan. Then there was a vampire that was kind of randomly black but not really a main character. Then there were the teenage boys from the Native American tribe Quiluete--who in the books are werewolves and are subjects to a great deal of modern myth that is the ultimate enemy of the Native American "Disney's Pocahontas"-haters. In the high school, there are a smattering of different races that play friends of the main characters. Their personalities are so generic that it seems like their different races only serve to differentiate them visually for reference.
Feb 16 RTS Ch. 4, 5
The Powerpoint for this day separates Leadership vs. Administration--light falling favorably upon leadership. Although the biggest difference I see in the comparisons is that leadership is described vaguely with idealistic buzzwords and Administration is described with commonplace activities and normal systems. Pretty common crisis I guess.
Media ecology is a good concept to ponder. For my part, my "media ecological" environment includes in big ways the internet. I read the New York times online, the Onion, WebCT and watch lots of Youtube videos. I'm listening right now to a dj's remix of Rihanna's Disturbia (a quick digression--a great promotion for art and democracy is YouTube, which allows equal access to all artists who wish to be heard through visuals and audio). I watch a disgusting amount of DVDs from libraries. I sometimes pick up a newspaper in the metro.
Media ecology is probably a good way to define the difference between childhoods across time in relation to technology. I grew up with a Macintosh Apple computer in my house that was pretty adorable. It had a little bomb icon for shutting down and had some pretty cute games with big pixels. I watched Disney movies up the wazoo and watched snipits of the news when it was on, and lots of Saturday morning cartoons. I started using the internet when I was about 9 years old with Kid's AOL, a highly censored and guided browser.
One of my friend's little brother is 10 years old. He lives in Amman, Jordan and is exponentially better at using technology than I was at his age. He can use Blackberries, iPhones, has a Facebook profile (though he is underage), uses Skype and messengers, and is bilingual in Arabic and English. His favorite bands are English-speaking teen punk bands. His media ecology is vastly different than the one I grew up with, which was on the threshold of the information age. Mine is last generation to have a general insensitivity to interactive technology in early childhood.
Media ecology is a good concept to ponder. For my part, my "media ecological" environment includes in big ways the internet. I read the New York times online, the Onion, WebCT and watch lots of Youtube videos. I'm listening right now to a dj's remix of Rihanna's Disturbia (a quick digression--a great promotion for art and democracy is YouTube, which allows equal access to all artists who wish to be heard through visuals and audio). I watch a disgusting amount of DVDs from libraries. I sometimes pick up a newspaper in the metro.
Media ecology is probably a good way to define the difference between childhoods across time in relation to technology. I grew up with a Macintosh Apple computer in my house that was pretty adorable. It had a little bomb icon for shutting down and had some pretty cute games with big pixels. I watched Disney movies up the wazoo and watched snipits of the news when it was on, and lots of Saturday morning cartoons. I started using the internet when I was about 9 years old with Kid's AOL, a highly censored and guided browser.
One of my friend's little brother is 10 years old. He lives in Amman, Jordan and is exponentially better at using technology than I was at his age. He can use Blackberries, iPhones, has a Facebook profile (though he is underage), uses Skype and messengers, and is bilingual in Arabic and English. His favorite bands are English-speaking teen punk bands. His media ecology is vastly different than the one I grew up with, which was on the threshold of the information age. Mine is last generation to have a general insensitivity to interactive technology in early childhood.
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Feb 9 RTS 3 "OK, fine, a Good Paradigm"
Feb. 9 RTS 3
I'm a believer in Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Yes, it's a paradigm. At the same time, I can't find fault with it. It consistently makes sense as it applies to the entire human experience. Although I'm not going to approve it too much as RTS tries to fit pedagogy and technology into its framework.
This is because the hierarchy of needs leads to the perfection of the individual and is defined--this is brilliant--by the steps needed to accomplish it. The lowest tier of human needs is subsistence. To move up, a human must observe those needs as fulfilled. The top tier is self-actualization. It is the completely individual fulfillment of potential.
No such fulfillment exists for pedagogy and education as long as the working model is a classroom of more than one student. Every student's potential--destiny, even--is different and difficult to decipher. Learning styles and exceptionalities will always prevent teachers from uniformly impacting students (as it should be --- everyone should have their own reactions to events).
The Frankenstein paradigm that emerges has four tiers: Content Management, Authoring, Collaboration, and Cultural Transformation.
Naturally, my bitterness with school, my program and this class will manifest as cruel criticism of these four concepts. While I more or less agree with the lowest tier, I don't think the next natural step is authoring. This is because of a deep cultural belief I hold about authority that is possibly undue but I'm breaking it as I write this. Writing and reading, once believed to be invaluable and sacred skills, was restricted to the copying and interpreting of religious texts and a little to the necessity of business transactions. The increase in learning branched out to literature and other forms of writing. Then there was the advent of the printing press. More things could be read and more learning to read and write could be achieved. Think of writing once--you would need to take the large feather of a bird, or the hair of an animal, and cut it just so. Then grind coal or tar and mix with water to make ink. Then you'd need to carefully write each letter, redipping the feather or brush every other phrase. Meticulous is the word, especially in regards to religious texts. Now, you need to sit at a computer and poke letters. They show up on the screen. You can delete them or make them any style you want. And you can publish them in a way that can be read by anyone else with the internet and who reads your language.
Technology does lead to authoring as the natural second step, but should pedagogy? To write something down is to make it important and understandable to others. Things written in a book are many times more credible than things said aloud. The danger of authoring is credibility, which slips away daily with the multitude ways of presenting information.
Transforming culture at the pinnacle of pedagogy is debatable. The question that should ALWAYS come with the call for change is this change to what. To assume transforming culture is always for the better is dangerous. Francis Bacon, the first English essayist, asserts that studies are for delight, for ornament, and for ability. What would he have thought of cultural transformation?
I'm a believer in Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Yes, it's a paradigm. At the same time, I can't find fault with it. It consistently makes sense as it applies to the entire human experience. Although I'm not going to approve it too much as RTS tries to fit pedagogy and technology into its framework.
This is because the hierarchy of needs leads to the perfection of the individual and is defined--this is brilliant--by the steps needed to accomplish it. The lowest tier of human needs is subsistence. To move up, a human must observe those needs as fulfilled. The top tier is self-actualization. It is the completely individual fulfillment of potential.
No such fulfillment exists for pedagogy and education as long as the working model is a classroom of more than one student. Every student's potential--destiny, even--is different and difficult to decipher. Learning styles and exceptionalities will always prevent teachers from uniformly impacting students (as it should be --- everyone should have their own reactions to events).
The Frankenstein paradigm that emerges has four tiers: Content Management, Authoring, Collaboration, and Cultural Transformation.
Naturally, my bitterness with school, my program and this class will manifest as cruel criticism of these four concepts. While I more or less agree with the lowest tier, I don't think the next natural step is authoring. This is because of a deep cultural belief I hold about authority that is possibly undue but I'm breaking it as I write this. Writing and reading, once believed to be invaluable and sacred skills, was restricted to the copying and interpreting of religious texts and a little to the necessity of business transactions. The increase in learning branched out to literature and other forms of writing. Then there was the advent of the printing press. More things could be read and more learning to read and write could be achieved. Think of writing once--you would need to take the large feather of a bird, or the hair of an animal, and cut it just so. Then grind coal or tar and mix with water to make ink. Then you'd need to carefully write each letter, redipping the feather or brush every other phrase. Meticulous is the word, especially in regards to religious texts. Now, you need to sit at a computer and poke letters. They show up on the screen. You can delete them or make them any style you want. And you can publish them in a way that can be read by anyone else with the internet and who reads your language.
Technology does lead to authoring as the natural second step, but should pedagogy? To write something down is to make it important and understandable to others. Things written in a book are many times more credible than things said aloud. The danger of authoring is credibility, which slips away daily with the multitude ways of presenting information.
Transforming culture at the pinnacle of pedagogy is debatable. The question that should ALWAYS come with the call for change is this change to what. To assume transforming culture is always for the better is dangerous. Francis Bacon, the first English essayist, asserts that studies are for delight, for ornament, and for ability. What would he have thought of cultural transformation?
Feb 2 ML, Ch. 6, 7 "Sorry Noam Chomsky"
Feb 2 ML, 6 ,7
An important ethics question: at what point does a prejudice become a judgment? You'd assume after a certain amount of information about a case or person is understood, but how much information? All? Some? "A little learning is a dangerous thing" is a proverb always in good taste, but when is the little learning to become sufficient learning?
Digression. I mean to say I'm fairly prejudicial (or judgmental) of Noam Chomsky. His name is whispered like a deity's in the university, speaking on subjects as broad as linguistics to politics to cultural criticism. He is a lord of academia, commanding from his ivory tower at M.I.T. From the first, I disagreed with his approach to language acquisition that my linguistics prof taught almost exclusively. Then, when I was sitting in a student lounge, I saw a posted letter from Noam Chomsky to a group of linguistics students. They'd thrown a birthday party in his honor and he was declining their invitation. The student who wrote the letter wrote in such an elevated, sycophantic and pretentious style (probably from nervousness) and Chomsky responded equally. Bah. I prejudicially disliked him. Then I saw his interview with Sacha Baron Cohen on Da Ali G show and liked him even less. And then I read our textbook which I dislike a lot and continue in my downward spiral of ill will that surely but not swiftly make me a hateful old cat lady.
Anyway, I find it weird that the chapter that precedes Noam Chomsky's chapter is dedicated to discussing Noam Chomsky's chapter. Before the reader reads it chronologically. Kincheloe, the writer, uses reverent language to describe Chomsky that depicts him as the hero of the intellectual world -- "an inspiration," a visionary, a prophet. It's almost like we're being set up to agree with Chomsky before we've read his own words.
I'm sure he's a nice guy though. The letter mentioned what kind of cookies were his favorite, and I think I liked them too.
An important ethics question: at what point does a prejudice become a judgment? You'd assume after a certain amount of information about a case or person is understood, but how much information? All? Some? "A little learning is a dangerous thing" is a proverb always in good taste, but when is the little learning to become sufficient learning?
Digression. I mean to say I'm fairly prejudicial (or judgmental) of Noam Chomsky. His name is whispered like a deity's in the university, speaking on subjects as broad as linguistics to politics to cultural criticism. He is a lord of academia, commanding from his ivory tower at M.I.T. From the first, I disagreed with his approach to language acquisition that my linguistics prof taught almost exclusively. Then, when I was sitting in a student lounge, I saw a posted letter from Noam Chomsky to a group of linguistics students. They'd thrown a birthday party in his honor and he was declining their invitation. The student who wrote the letter wrote in such an elevated, sycophantic and pretentious style (probably from nervousness) and Chomsky responded equally. Bah. I prejudicially disliked him. Then I saw his interview with Sacha Baron Cohen on Da Ali G show and liked him even less. And then I read our textbook which I dislike a lot and continue in my downward spiral of ill will that surely but not swiftly make me a hateful old cat lady.
Anyway, I find it weird that the chapter that precedes Noam Chomsky's chapter is dedicated to discussing Noam Chomsky's chapter. Before the reader reads it chronologically. Kincheloe, the writer, uses reverent language to describe Chomsky that depicts him as the hero of the intellectual world -- "an inspiration," a visionary, a prophet. It's almost like we're being set up to agree with Chomsky before we've read his own words.
I'm sure he's a nice guy though. The letter mentioned what kind of cookies were his favorite, and I think I liked them too.
Jan 26 ML, Ch 23, 30, 31 "Huxleyan Prophecy"
Jan. 26 ML, Ch 23, 30, 31
"What Huxley teaches us," Postman writes, "is that in an age of advanced technology, spiritual devastation is more likely to come from an enemy with a smiling face than from one who countenance exudes suspicion and hate. In the Huxleyan prophecy, Big Brother does not watch us, by choice. We watch him, by ours."
Brave New World was one of the more impressive books I've ever read. Sometimes people tell other people "you have to read this" which annoys those other people because they don't really want to read it, and there's the underlying assertion that the tellers are better people than the tellees for having read it. So if there were any way to make it not sound pretentious, I would suggest people read this book because it's creepy, like watching a prophecy slowly coming true even beyond the social critique--things like electronica/techno music, increased and distinterested promiscuity, and 3-D motion movies that are described with eerie recognition.
But anyway, watching and understanding propaganda, and finding yourself agreeing with it isn't difficult. To make comparisons between channels, take NBC TV shows versus FOX shows. FOX shows reek of sex--but only heterosexual sex. Masculinity linked with violence is on many shows--24, America's Most Wanted, COPS are examples. CBS shows many crime shows, including 3 different CSIs, NCIS (a US navy CSI), Criminal Minds, Without a Trace, Numb3rs, Cold Case, and two real-life based crime shows, 48 Hours Mystery and Crimetime Saturday.
The crime shows, in essence, define a morality for the viewers. The audience watches society's enforcers swiftly and smartly execute the law, but the relationships between victims, criminals and the police define a right-or-wrong answer that satisfies the viewers' super egos. Who deserves to get shot and where compassion is delegated is an important factor in defining a morality related to death, revenge, imprisonment and rehabilitation that is understood and accepted by the audience.
"What Huxley teaches us," Postman writes, "is that in an age of advanced technology, spiritual devastation is more likely to come from an enemy with a smiling face than from one who countenance exudes suspicion and hate. In the Huxleyan prophecy, Big Brother does not watch us, by choice. We watch him, by ours."
Brave New World was one of the more impressive books I've ever read. Sometimes people tell other people "you have to read this" which annoys those other people because they don't really want to read it, and there's the underlying assertion that the tellers are better people than the tellees for having read it. So if there were any way to make it not sound pretentious, I would suggest people read this book because it's creepy, like watching a prophecy slowly coming true even beyond the social critique--things like electronica/techno music, increased and distinterested promiscuity, and 3-D motion movies that are described with eerie recognition.
But anyway, watching and understanding propaganda, and finding yourself agreeing with it isn't difficult. To make comparisons between channels, take NBC TV shows versus FOX shows. FOX shows reek of sex--but only heterosexual sex. Masculinity linked with violence is on many shows--24, America's Most Wanted, COPS are examples. CBS shows many crime shows, including 3 different CSIs, NCIS (a US navy CSI), Criminal Minds, Without a Trace, Numb3rs, Cold Case, and two real-life based crime shows, 48 Hours Mystery and Crimetime Saturday.
The crime shows, in essence, define a morality for the viewers. The audience watches society's enforcers swiftly and smartly execute the law, but the relationships between victims, criminals and the police define a right-or-wrong answer that satisfies the viewers' super egos. Who deserves to get shot and where compassion is delegated is an important factor in defining a morality related to death, revenge, imprisonment and rehabilitation that is understood and accepted by the audience.
Jan 19 - ML, Ch. 1, 5 "Voldemort, Conspiracy and Representation"
Jan. 19 - ML, Ch. 1, 5
In my previous post I expressed a distaste for paradigms. Now I express my distaste for our book, Media Literacy by Donaldo Macedo & Shirley Steinberg. It has thoroughly convinced me that I should never, ever study cultural theory or studies, and that above all, critical theory is obsessed with power and who has it and who does not. "What is good? -- All that heightens the feeling of power, the will to power, power itself in man," says Friedrich Nietzche. Lord Voldemort, a character in J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter novels, similarly claims, "There is no good and evil, there is only power...and those too weak to seek it." I'm trying to imply here that culturaly theory's justice and idealism is based on power distribution--not too differently from Voldemort.
If the analogy sounds far-fetched and conspiratorial, it's not too different from the second page of the introduction in which Donaldo Macedo easily dismisses American democracy and specifically the voting process as "theatrics" for a "bewildered herd," yet does not provide any proof of this or cite any election that was compromised or carried out in a way contrary to law that would deny the power of the vote to the people.
He also skews his facts when reporting the atrocities of American government in connection with terrorists. In less than 10 minutes, I've found that Macedo's arguments that President Bush (the father) gave a presidential pardon to Cuban terrorist Orlando Bosch are misleading. Macedo doesn't mention that Bosch was jailed in Venezuela and not charged there. He also claims Bosch was pardoned by Bush, insinutating between the lines that Bush condoned Bosch's attack on Cuba, when in reality Bosch was released due to political pressure from the Cuban-American community in Florida, of which son Jeb Bush is the governor. The other terrorist, Emanuel Constant, is also accused by Macedo as "living happily in Queens" but actually, even a year before the publishing date of the book, in legal proceedings to do with rape and fraud and has been ordered to serve 12-37 years in prison.
But back to power, the text depicts groups and individuals as combatants in a power struggle. There are "limited" and "dominant" groups; there is "equity" and "oppression." All of these are labels slapped onto complicated issues between people who do not necessarily view the world in the same way. What is the textbook's panacea? The text often cites "representation" as a source and cure for the ills of oppression. If we represent something more, it's fairer and better. Which is silly; for one of a thousand examples, consider the young cast of FOX's MadTV. MadTV is a comedy sketch show similar to NBC's Saturday Night Live. The MadTV cast is more racially diverse than SNL's. MadTV is half half women, has three African Americans, and Bobby Lee, a Korean American. However, SNL has one African American and four women out of 13 cast members. Yet, MadTV's humor is worse in general and is usually derived out of stereotypes; Bobby Lee is often referred to as "the Asian" or is referenced as Asian for humor, the African Americans poke fun at black programming, and the women portray popular female celebrities as prostitutes. Although not explicitly racist, MadTV attempts often to mock stereotypes yet perpetuate them. For example, during the 2008 presidential campaign, Bobby Lee played Asian reporter Connie Chung and Keegan Michael Kay as Barack Obama. "Chung" accused "Obama" of being a Muslim several times during the interview with a strange accent, which Obama recasted as "I'm not a Muslim," yet the harping on the issue was not very funny. MADtv was recently cancelled.
In my previous post I expressed a distaste for paradigms. Now I express my distaste for our book, Media Literacy by Donaldo Macedo & Shirley Steinberg. It has thoroughly convinced me that I should never, ever study cultural theory or studies, and that above all, critical theory is obsessed with power and who has it and who does not. "What is good? -- All that heightens the feeling of power, the will to power, power itself in man," says Friedrich Nietzche. Lord Voldemort, a character in J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter novels, similarly claims, "There is no good and evil, there is only power...and those too weak to seek it." I'm trying to imply here that culturaly theory's justice and idealism is based on power distribution--not too differently from Voldemort.
If the analogy sounds far-fetched and conspiratorial, it's not too different from the second page of the introduction in which Donaldo Macedo easily dismisses American democracy and specifically the voting process as "theatrics" for a "bewildered herd," yet does not provide any proof of this or cite any election that was compromised or carried out in a way contrary to law that would deny the power of the vote to the people.
He also skews his facts when reporting the atrocities of American government in connection with terrorists. In less than 10 minutes, I've found that Macedo's arguments that President Bush (the father) gave a presidential pardon to Cuban terrorist Orlando Bosch are misleading. Macedo doesn't mention that Bosch was jailed in Venezuela and not charged there. He also claims Bosch was pardoned by Bush, insinutating between the lines that Bush condoned Bosch's attack on Cuba, when in reality Bosch was released due to political pressure from the Cuban-American community in Florida, of which son Jeb Bush is the governor. The other terrorist, Emanuel Constant, is also accused by Macedo as "living happily in Queens" but actually, even a year before the publishing date of the book, in legal proceedings to do with rape and fraud and has been ordered to serve 12-37 years in prison.
But back to power, the text depicts groups and individuals as combatants in a power struggle. There are "limited" and "dominant" groups; there is "equity" and "oppression." All of these are labels slapped onto complicated issues between people who do not necessarily view the world in the same way. What is the textbook's panacea? The text often cites "representation" as a source and cure for the ills of oppression. If we represent something more, it's fairer and better. Which is silly; for one of a thousand examples, consider the young cast of FOX's MadTV. MadTV is a comedy sketch show similar to NBC's Saturday Night Live. The MadTV cast is more racially diverse than SNL's. MadTV is half half women, has three African Americans, and Bobby Lee, a Korean American. However, SNL has one African American and four women out of 13 cast members. Yet, MadTV's humor is worse in general and is usually derived out of stereotypes; Bobby Lee is often referred to as "the Asian" or is referenced as Asian for humor, the African Americans poke fun at black programming, and the women portray popular female celebrities as prostitutes. Although not explicitly racist, MadTV attempts often to mock stereotypes yet perpetuate them. For example, during the 2008 presidential campaign, Bobby Lee played Asian reporter Connie Chung and Keegan Michael Kay as Barack Obama. "Chung" accused "Obama" of being a Muslim several times during the interview with a strange accent, which Obama recasted as "I'm not a Muslim," yet the harping on the issue was not very funny. MADtv was recently cancelled.
Jan 12 RTS 1-2: "I Hate Paradigms"
Jan. 12 - RTS, Ch. 1 and 2
I want to say first of all that I really hate paradigms, especially ones that pertain to education and sociology. Paradigms are rarely presented humbly with the disclaimer that the viewpoint expressed is subject to interpretation (although pertaining to a topic that is). They are almost always presented as hard and fast reality. The detriment of these paradigms is the proverbial "Box" that must always be thought outside of to hold weight and credibility. If one is to think outside of the box, why is a paradigm even made?
However, the ones presented in this chapter are ridiculous for presentation as authoritative. There are two in the first two chapter of Rethinking Technology in Schools, both of which contain 4 labels each that resemble vague archetypes. The first paradigm contains on its horizontal axis "Responsible Citizen" versus "Savvy consumer." These two personalities are illogically placed as oppositional to one another. To my knowledge, the most responsible citizen is often the savviest consumer as well. To be moderate on this scale suggests both irresponsibile citizenry and stupid consumption. On the vertical axis, the flaw is that the two labels, "Casual Acceptance" and "Skeptical Rejection" have little to do with real perspectives of adolescents. Whether or not technology is rejected is mostly based on practicality--that is, demand for the technology (a combination of desire and ability to pay) and its ease of use. If a teen rejects software, maybe he/she is untrained or unable to use it or has no desire for it. Highly desireable technology, like MP3 players, are usually rejected for their price and not because of skepticism.
The second paradigm also has two dubious labels opposed to one another--"Cultural Critic" and "Educated Consumer." If I'm not mistaken, both of the instructors for this class try to fashion themselves as both. Someone in the middle could be considered culturally passive and an uneducated consumer in this odd model. On the vertical axis is "Celebrant" and "Protectionist." Both of these terms mask deeply complicated issues with misleading labels. Someone who celebrates technology does so for a number of reasons. Technology is celebrated in advertising for monetary gain (think of colorful iPod ads). Techonology is endorsed by world leaders to advance education and information wars for political power (think of the Cold War). Someone who shuns the use of technology as a "protectionist" may have many different reasons as well. Parents may be wary of giving young children access to the internet because of security reasons (pedophila and kidnapping) or ethical ones (pornography, censorship). Schools may advise against technology because of its cost and liability of theft. Even some religious sects denounce the owning of technology as entanglement and nonconducive to a good lifestlye. What needs to be understood is that technology is always a means to an end and except for those who study them, the world is less interested in technologies than in the results they achieve.
I want to say first of all that I really hate paradigms, especially ones that pertain to education and sociology. Paradigms are rarely presented humbly with the disclaimer that the viewpoint expressed is subject to interpretation (although pertaining to a topic that is). They are almost always presented as hard and fast reality. The detriment of these paradigms is the proverbial "Box" that must always be thought outside of to hold weight and credibility. If one is to think outside of the box, why is a paradigm even made?
However, the ones presented in this chapter are ridiculous for presentation as authoritative. There are two in the first two chapter of Rethinking Technology in Schools, both of which contain 4 labels each that resemble vague archetypes. The first paradigm contains on its horizontal axis "Responsible Citizen" versus "Savvy consumer." These two personalities are illogically placed as oppositional to one another. To my knowledge, the most responsible citizen is often the savviest consumer as well. To be moderate on this scale suggests both irresponsibile citizenry and stupid consumption. On the vertical axis, the flaw is that the two labels, "Casual Acceptance" and "Skeptical Rejection" have little to do with real perspectives of adolescents. Whether or not technology is rejected is mostly based on practicality--that is, demand for the technology (a combination of desire and ability to pay) and its ease of use. If a teen rejects software, maybe he/she is untrained or unable to use it or has no desire for it. Highly desireable technology, like MP3 players, are usually rejected for their price and not because of skepticism.
The second paradigm also has two dubious labels opposed to one another--"Cultural Critic" and "Educated Consumer." If I'm not mistaken, both of the instructors for this class try to fashion themselves as both. Someone in the middle could be considered culturally passive and an uneducated consumer in this odd model. On the vertical axis is "Celebrant" and "Protectionist." Both of these terms mask deeply complicated issues with misleading labels. Someone who celebrates technology does so for a number of reasons. Technology is celebrated in advertising for monetary gain (think of colorful iPod ads). Techonology is endorsed by world leaders to advance education and information wars for political power (think of the Cold War). Someone who shuns the use of technology as a "protectionist" may have many different reasons as well. Parents may be wary of giving young children access to the internet because of security reasons (pedophila and kidnapping) or ethical ones (pornography, censorship). Schools may advise against technology because of its cost and liability of theft. Even some religious sects denounce the owning of technology as entanglement and nonconducive to a good lifestlye. What needs to be understood is that technology is always a means to an end and except for those who study them, the world is less interested in technologies than in the results they achieve.
Monday, March 9, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
