I'd rather learn from one bird how to sing...

[locomotive-spouting-violets]

KEY TO TAGS*:

Freewrites: #freewrite #engl311

Twitter: #tweet #twitter #doitwrite #twitterpated #engl311

Readings: #reading #readings #reading culture #engl311

Papers: #paper one #paper two #paper three #paper four #final draft #process letter #engl311

Discussion post/Peer responses: #discussion #amusing ourselves to death #engl311

Final Process Letter: #final process letter #engl311

*To access any of the aforementioned tags, simply type in the following without quotation marks “http://locomotive-spouting-violets.tumblr.com/tagged/” and insert the tagged term or phrase after the last backslash. Substitute spaces in the tags for dashes (-).

[locomotive-spouting-violets]

Paper Four Process Letter

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1glcFP6C7pNKIh4OyntcKW9HfpWrHckKz3vki_VFehKE/edit?usp=sharing

[locomotive-spouting-violets]

Paper Four Final Draft

https://docs.google.com/document/d/10tFBIKX2zBjifieSCAqgvjrD1ymP_7n26ILFsz9WIQ8/edit?usp=sharing

[locomotive-spouting-violets]

Amusing Ourselves to Death chs 6-8 Discussion Post and Responses

Chapter 6 is called "The Age of Show Business". It talks about the uses for television in America and the difference in television's usage in other countries. The difference is evident in countries which do not have many channels or television shows which do not operate around the clock. The book talks about the use of television in some countries to further government ideology and policy. I found it interesting, as this book was written so long ago, to relate television's use in other countries for political propaganda to some of what is currently going on in North Korea under the dictatorship of Kim Jung Un. Under Kim Jung Un's realm of power, outside television shows and movies are illegal to watch. Only the television messages that Kim Jung Un approves are displayed and these are largely used to further political agendas and propaganda the citizens of North Korea. With this in mind, how do the current events occurring in North Korea relate to the usage of television in the country? What is the purpose of television in North Korea as opposed to in America? Compare and contrast.

Chapter 7 is called "Now...This" and talks about how there is a distinct separation between periods of time in media. Each half hour show is its own separate segment, every 45 seconds of news is about something different, so as not to keep the focus on anything for too long. This "Now...This" mentality has been around for a long time and uses the art of changing subjects as a distraction from thinking about any one subject for too long. It almost seems that this not-so-subtle change between subject matters, for example in the news reports, allows the viewers to remain distanced from the often tragic stories about which the reporters are speaking. Even the reporters themselves often show little to no emotion when reporting about tragic events such as death, shootings, earthquakes, and other disasters. Some may say that the reporters' jobs are to give the facts and adding emotion to a story may come across as biased. On the other hand, others could argue that this apparent disregard for the tragedies about which they are reporting may lead to a lack of empathy on the part of the viewers - a 'this isn't happening to me, so why should I care?' mentality. What do you think? Are the reporters doing their jobs to create an unbiased story by reporting with such lack of emotion, or is it contributing to a hard-hearted society that feels no empathy for their fellow humans' suffering?

Chapter 8 is titled "Shuffle off to Bethlehem" and it talks about religion in television and mass media. Shows such as the 700 Club which are entirely devoted to religious-based (in this case, Christianity) beliefs and practices seem to be popping up all over the place. Many of these television shows with religious connotations are actually owned by religious organizations. According to Billy Graham, a television evangelist, "Television is the most powerful tool of communication ever devised by man. Each of my prime-time 'specials' is now carried by nearly 300 stations across the U.S. and Canada, so that in a single telecast I preach to millions more than Christ did in his lifetime." This book was written in 1985, before the large-scale use of the Internet came into play. With  this in mind, do you think Graham's message still rings true? Think about where you see the majority of evangelist information. The Internet, television, or another source? Why do you think this is? Religion aside, which do you think is the most powerful tool of communication in 2015, 30 years later?

Peer Responses

Andrea: I think the main problem with the "Now..This" mentality is that it changes topics rather quickly, like you said. It determines the amount of time the viewer is allowed to think about one thing. I agree with you, it allows the viewer to put distance between themselves and what is happening in the world. I think that space is what keeps some people from being empathetic. I don't know if it necessarily matters if the reporters show emotion or not. I think it is important that reporters simply give the facts and do so in an unbiased way. Showing emotions would definitely come across as biased in talking about certain topics. Also, I'm not sure if evoking empathy based off of how someone is expressing words rather than what the words are actually conveying is better. I think it's more genuine if people are invested in something because of what it is are what is happening rather than because someone else was upset or happy about it. When it comes down to it, I think the job of the reporter is to report the facts. It is not to tell people how to feel about the facts. I don't think this adds to a "hard-hearted" society. I think the "Now...This" mentality accomplishes that just fine.

Courtney: I think you bring up such an interesting point regarding the "Now...This" chapter! I do think that reporters are just doing 'their job' when reporting with such a lack of emotion because that's how they're taught. I think part of the reason they do that, is because certain reporters may show the wrong emotion at times. For example, if a reporter doesn't agree with a certain topic discussed and their feelings are contrary to most of the public's, they may agitate or offend a lot of viewers. The station wouldn't want that to happen. Another reason would be that reporters have to fit so much information into such a small window, that they don't have time for small talk/their opinions on topics.

What I do think leads to a hard-hearted society is the constant barrage of violent news on the television. It is so sad that countless stories are about wars, killings, trials, etc. We, as viewers, tend to be less and less shocked when such information and images come across our screens. We become softened when such content is constantly in front of us because we find it to be less unique and more trivial. 

Andrew: I think in America, even the idea of television being solely for information and political gain is almost foreign. You might say that C-Span is completely information, but other than that what else is? In America, the sole purpose of television is to entertain, to make money, and to "amuse". This is in stark contrast to it's purpose in North Korea. As Postman has pointed out so well in previous chapters, even our news in America has gone beyond facts. Everything is dramatized and seeks attention, and when the viewer doesn't feel this pull for attention they lose interest and change the channel. The people of North Korea don't have this luxury of choice. To them, television is merely another medium by which their government promotes itself.

[locomotive-spouting-violets]

Reading # 8 / Visual Essay: Claiming Interpretive Space

Reading Culture, 7th ed. by Diana George and John Trimbur

reading response to:

“Claiming Interpretive Space“

This visual essay was all about Banksy, a "pseudo-anonymous English graffiti artist". His life is very private and very little is actually known about the artist who graffitis controversial and thought-provoking images about "power and conflict-local and international". According to Banksy, graffiti is the most honest and democratic form of art. It allows the expression of oneself or whatever one desires without the elitism of the classes. A lot of Banksy's work comments on this power struggle between the classes and all of his work is, in some way, commenting on the problems in society and social justice issues using powerful imagery. Ironically, what started out as graffiti has turned into something more, resonating so deeply with many in the contemporary art world that they act to preserve the art. I believe that this is a large step in paving the way for more social justice in the modern art world, and forcing us to ask ourselves some important and thought-provoking questions about our society and the principles upon which it was founded.

[locomotive-spouting-violets]

Paper Three Process Letter (05/30)

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1I864fT1GKfaI7kkcNEPr2k0uI7QFeSkIYVc_L7B13dc/edit?usp=sharing

[locomotive-spouting-violets]

Paper Three Final Draft (05/30)

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tFv7f1GhSGNmBOwu9-U_bgyYJK_ZZQzgQIkgr-Wc3_g/edit?usp=sharing

[locomotive-spouting-violets]

Reading # 7 / Public Health Messages

Reading Culture, 7th ed. by Diana George and John Trimbur

reading response to:

“Public Health Messages“

The reading talked about messages for public health campaigns and their advertising strategies. It was a visual essay of how the decisions of public health advertisers have an impact on how the message is perceived by the viewer. This particular reading focused on the interesting imagery surrounding public health messages regarding Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs) or Venereal Diseases (VDs) as they were called at the time of two of the posters.

Two of the ads were aimed at men in the military during WW II, and they are interesting to analyze. These ads can be found on page 226 of our textbook. The first says "VD" in big letters at the top of the ad. In the middle, there are two men in different uniforms, presumably fighting on opposing sides of the war. In the middle of the two men, there is a woman with what appears to be a skeleton face. The caption below the three characters reads "worst of the three". In this, the woman appears to be a personified version of a VD. It is interesting because it seems to put the blame of contracting or spreading VDs onto women.

The second example has a woman smiling as the focus. The text reads "She may look clean - but pickups, 'good time' girls, prostitutes spread Syphilis and Gonorrhea. You can't beat the Axis if you get VD". Again, this places the emphasis and blame on women, particularly, by shaming prostitution.

[locomotive-spouting-violets]

Reading # 4 / The Alpha Geeks

Reading Culture, 7th ed. by Diana George and John Trimbur

reading response to:

“The Alpha Geeks” by David Brooks

The reading The Alpha Geeks by David Brooks talks about the origin of the term "nerd" and how being a "nerd" became its own subculture within modern America. In the beginning, nerd culture was classified by having their own heroes (ex. Stan Lee of comic book fame), their own vocations (Dungeons and Dragons, anyone?), their own religion (from George Lucas and Star Wars) and their own skill sets (tech work) (264).

Later down the road, the term "nerd" and "geek" became almost interchangeable, but while "nerd" still had a negative connotation to it, "geek" began to form its own counterculture. In essence, the "geeks" embraced their title and created a new culture, or sorts, which branched out into many subcultures. These subcultures each had specialized knowledge about a particular focus (read: books/authors, anime, video games, tv series, movies, card games, etc.). Geekiness began to feel empowering because subcultures were forming with their own knowledge, passions, and experiences.

I consider myself a part of this modern geekiness, and would like to add my take on David Brooks' article by adding more information related to the modern world of geekiness and the subcultures within it. Some of these subcultures even got more subcultures. For example, under the tv series category, you have geeks from each of the tv series - you have your Game of Thrones geeks, your Doctor Who geeks, your Torchwood geeks, your Vampire Diaries geeks, your Sherlock geeks, your Supernatural geeks, your (insert any tv series you can think of and there are probably a group of geeks in that subculture) geeks. These subcultures of subcultures began to have a new name, for which, I cannot find proof of its origin, but I first heard of it through Tumblr*. This new name/term that was coined for the subcultures of subcultures of the culture of "geek" is what's referred to by many as the "fandom". "Fandom" is a term that simply refers to any topic about which a group of people are passionate, knowledgeable, or, of which they are a "fan". These "fandoms" can range from the aforementioned focuses ( books/authors, anime, video games, tv series, movies, card games, etc.) to a whole variety of focuses and interests.

In addition to this new name, a new vernacular has arisen within the "fandom" world. There are now "fandoms" for relationships between characters. If you believe that two characters in a tv series, movie, anime, book, or game/video game should be together romantically and/or sexually (whether they actually are in the tv series, movie, anime, book, or game/video game), it is called "shipping" those two characters. If the "ship" is actually happening in the area of your "fandom", then it is considered to be "canon", however, oftentimes, people will "ship" characters (want them to be together romantically or sexually) that aren't actually together. Sometimes this occurs even between characters that do not have compatible sexual orientations (for example, "shipping" Castiel and Dean from the tv series Supernatural, even though the writes have given little to no indication that either of the aforementioned men is gay). In addition, people will many times want more than one set of characters to be together - have more than one "ship". In this case there is often what is commonly referred to as an "OTP", which stands for One True Pairing. This is a set of characters that the fan wants to see together above all other potential couples.

It is also important to note that people can belong to more than one "fandom", and often do. This can raise disagreements about which "fandom" is better. That being said, there are, believe it or not, arguments and sub-sub-sub- (are you sick of this yet?) cultures within individual "fandoms", where fans can and do get into heated disagreements based on their take of any particular component of a topic within a "fandom".

Overall, there is definitely a new generation of "geek" arising, and it is one that has very strong roots.

* A lot of these "fandom" discussions are found on the website Tumblr.com.

[locomotive-spouting-violets]

Reading #6 / Visual Essay: Reading Labels, Selling Water

Reading Culture, 7th ed. by Diana George and John Trimbur

reading response to:

“Reading Labels, Selling Water“

I read the Visual Essay titled Reading Labels, Selling Water. According to a report in 2008, the market for bottled water is growing quickly. There are different prices and a seeming hierarchy of water bottle brands. For example, the visual essay talks about a brand called "Bling H2O" which can sell for $40-$60 per bottle. This bottled water is consumed mostly by the Hollywood elite, but it really made me question whether we as a society focus too much on labels. The water cannot taste much better than the average tap water, which is free, or than a Dasani bottle, which costs $2 on the high end. But there are people out there paying as much as $60 for a name brand bottle of water. You're paying for the name.  The only distinguishable difference between this brand and some of the less costly brands is the packaging. However, it turns out that packaging is what sells. The "Bling H2O" bottle comes in a frosted glass bottle, with little crystals/gemstones spelling out the word "bling". Even the font is fancy and sends a message of upscale consumerism - people who can afford to spend $60 on a bottle of water.

Brands sell to target markets, based on what is perceived as being valued in their social class or monetary spending range. For example, the brand Ethos water is marketed toward environmentally conscious upper-middle class adults. The bottle sells, according to the text, "a vague social agenda" by promising that it is "Helping children get clean water" (page 275 of textbook). This helps the upper-middle class to feel good, like they're giving back to those in need, while still separating them as more well-off than those who can only afford the generic bottled brands.

It seems to me that all of this could be solved if we would all just drink some dang tap water out of reusable bottles, instead of spending all of this money on disposable bottled water!

[locomotive-spouting-violets]

Reading #5 / Photographic Icons: Fact, Fiction, or Metaphor?

Reading Culture, 7th ed. by Diana George and John Trimbur

reading response to:

“Photographic Icons: Fact, Fiction, or Metaphor?“ by Philip Gefter

The reading Photographic Icons: Fact, Fiction, or Metaphor? by Philip Gefter is an article about photos that have become iconic in history. It talks about famous pictures that have both documented and verified historic events such as Matthew Brady's photographs of the Civil War, Lewis Hine's chronical of industrial growth in America, the birth of the civil rights movement documented in the picture of Rosa Parks on a segregated city bus in Montgomery, Alabama. Oftentimes, photographs are the closest thing we can get to witnessing an authentic moment in time, even if we were not present. However, although photographs may look like reality, there are several components that can make and/or alter the meanign a photograph has. For example, the viewers expectation of the photograph is "largely determined by the context in which the image appears" (page 230 of the text).

In addition, the events leading up to the time when the photograph was taken can have a large impact on how the photograph is viewed and/or received by its audience. Also, something to consider is whether or not the intended audience is who is viewing the photograph. For example, a photograph meant to display racial oppression may not be as well received by someone who is a member of a white supremacy group.

When looking at the photograph, it is important to note authenticity of it. Photographs should show the imperfect reality we live in and the flaws of daily life rather than the focus for higher standards and pictures to be dignified. HOowever, many photos are edited and/or retaken to try to capture an idealized version of a person, place, or event. The altering of light, movement, and the potential for photographs to be crafted and/or staged for the purpose of attempting to create this idealized reality is important to note.

[locomotive-spouting-violets]

Freewrite #9: This one’s kind of a personal rambling of randomness. Sorry guys. (05/27)

I never know what to write for these things, so I usually just sit staring at a blank screen for 20 minutes. Today, I started writing after 40 minutes.. I should just write about my day or my weekend but they're boring and I want to be able to use these freewrites to help me explore myself through my writing. I don't know. Lately I've been realizing that I have a lot of growing to do. Growing up, growing outward, growing inward. Just growing. And the strange thing is that I know I've come so far. I've recognized that I need to stop doing the same things and expecting different results. And I'm seeking help. And I'm letting myself be okay with asking for help. Which is kind of a hard thing for me, I suppose, because I'm usually always the one who is helping others. But that's where the problem is, I guess. The disconnect. I care so much about other people and it ends up being to my detriment. I love others so much and yet I don't save any room for myself sometimes. Recently I got back together with my ex girlfriend. And that has been wonderful and truly truly fantastic, but she told me that I have this urge where I am always trying to "fix" things, and help people. Which is definitely true if you know me. But up until recently, I never saw that as a problem. What's so bad about helping people and being supportive? I guess that isn't really a bad thing, but only when you're taking care of yourself, too. And I haven't been doing that for a while now. And I guess I need to. My little sister got me hooked on this show One Tree Hill, and in it there is this character Skills who says one of the most important things I think I've ever heard: "I mean, you so lucky, dawg. You surrounded by so many people who you love. You see, now you gotta make yourself one of those people." I guess in the end, I want to care for others and love them and support them. But I have to love me first. And that's what I'm working on.

[locomotive-spouting-violets]

Freewrite #8: I don’t know what to call this (05/26)

I love people. I love everyone. People sometimes find that hard to believe, but I truly just love people. I love people for their personality. And I don’t mean if they’re funny or not. I’m talking about the wonderful mystery of being that we all have; those unique and wonderful qualities that each of us possesses. I fall for the good in people. And I see so much good. It’s not as if I go looking for it, either. You don’t have to try very hard to find the goodness in a person. You just have to believe that it’s there. Just knowing that, in spite of the shit, people are inherently good…that can be enough. Believe me when I say that everyone has the potential to be absolutely amazing. And, call it what you will: a character flaw, naivety, stupidity. But I choose to focus on the absolute wonder of each person. I truly see that every single person I’ve ever encountered is good and beautiful and filled to the brim with such incredible potential. And that’s ultimately what I fall for. Not looks. Not charm or someone’s ability to make me laugh. I fall for the individual goodness that each person in the whole of humanity possesses.I fall for everything good that anyone and everyone has to offer. I ultimately end up falling for the beauty and simplicity of the best side of a person.

[locomotive-spouting-violets]

Paper Two Process Letter (05/23)

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1veJIz8okb86gzuzsH_85QgW6Oj_dIPjPVay8hPRF-SE/edit?usp=sharing

[locomotive-spouting-violets]

Paper Two Final Draft (05/23)

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MWuawbtDtu-Zg_yD6nv5Mok4gR-lrZbSUBxKXFfECto/edit?usp=sharing

[locomotive-spouting-violets]

Tweet #5: Pop song that refers to images or style 05/20

http://tinyurl.com/nx9bh8a

[locomotive-spouting-violets]

Tweet #4: Ad that depicts images or style 05/19

Link to advertisement