#paper 4

[missfraise]

King Dice 6 and Paper Dice 6

King dice 6 Au @tomorobo-illust

[missfraise]

Paper Dice personalitys

1 : Normal

2 : Dredger

3 : Killer

4 : Nerd

5 : Childhood

6 : Female

Inspiration: @tomorobo-illust

[victoriabaez123]

My Interpretation of Samuel Becket’s Not I

In the video performance of Not I by Samuel Becket, the theater is completely dark. All the audience can see is a mouth of a woman. Her face is painted black leaving only her lips and teeth their natural color. There is a spot light on only her mouth. The most interesting part of this performance of Not I is the message it sends the audience. The pace of the script implies the stream of consciousness people have running through their heads. The fact that the only light in the theater is the spotlight on the mouth frightens some members of the audience because it forces them to encounter the idea of the subconscious constantly thinking.

If I were to take the role of the director with this piece I would want to go more in the direction of an art exhibit. My goal in taking this position would be to have the audience encounter the subconscious in a less daunting form. I would want multiple screens of different sizes creating a wall a few feet from the end of upstage but encompassing the entire width of the stage. I would have recordings of the original performance of Not I (the one we watched in class) on every screen but the lips would all be different colors. Only one screen’s audio would be played at one time and there would be no light in the theater other than that of the screens. The significance of the different color lips is that it makes the piece seem less menacing and it symbolizes the different streams of consciousness between all people of the human race. This relates to the original performance’s message of the train of thought. The reason only one screen’s audio would play at a time is again to make it less overwhelming than it would be to have them all playing at once and also to signify the different aspects of our brain activating at different times of our thought processes throughout our life which is much like how the original performance repeats certain movements with the lips and repeats phrases. Lastly, the idea of having all the screens playing the same version of the performance would be to unify the piece the way all people are similar in a way. I think this adds unity to the performance that is not as abundantly clear in the original. In the original piece there is supposed to be a figure on stage that only moves at random times in the play. This may seem random to the audience and I would want to have the cohesiveness of the piece be a little more clear. I want to keep the message of the piece but make it more accessible and I believe taking it in this direction would do just that.

[competitionbuzz-blog]

Home › Forums › UPSC Civil Services › [Question Paper] [CSM 2015] General Studies Paper 4 Tagged: 2015, CSM, English, General Studies, Hindi, Main, Paper 4, Question Paper, UPSC This topic contains 0 replies, has 1 voice, and was last updated by Ruchi Dohare 9 hours, 6 minutes ago. Viewing 1 post (of 1 total) Author …

Ethics paper in Hindi & English (Text) संघ लोक सेवा आयोग – सिविल सेवा (प्रधान) परीक्षा 2015 सामान्य अध्ययन प्रश्न-पत्र – 4 UPSC Civil Services (Main) Exam 2015 General Studies Paper-4

[igcssummaries]

Russia and the USSR, 1914-1941.

Russia and the USSR, 1914-1941.

 +Russian society in 1914.

+Peasants and the countryside.

+ Around 80% of Russia’s population was peasants who lived in communes.

+ Famine and starvation were common. Low life expectancy.

+ Most land was unsuitable for farming,( land was a very short supply)

+Many peasants were loyal to the Tsar (Nicholas II crowned in 1984)

      Why?     Most of them were religious, the priest would tell them how                       how wonderful the Tsar was and how they should be loyal.

+Not all peasants were religious, many supported the opposition (the Socialist Revolutionaries) Why?                                                                                                                            Resented the amount of land owned by the aristocracy, the church and the Tsar.

 The aristocracy.

+Had vast estates, town and country houses and elegant lifestyles.

+ Key part of tsarists regime, often acted like local officials.

+ In the countryside they dominated the local assemblies (Zemstva)

+ Most were loyal to the Tsar to keep society as it was.

Working Class.

+ Peasants that left the land to work in the new factories (Opened in the later 19th  century when senior minister Witte introduced policies that led to rapid industrial growth)

+ Leaving conditions hardly improved. (Low pay, 12-15 hour days, unguarded machinery and brutal discipline)

+ Trade unions were illegal.

 Middle Classes.(Capitalists)

+ Emerged as a result of industrialization.

+ Their main concerns were the management of the economy and controlling their workforce.

[uncomfortableexamination-blog]

Design Imperialism Debate

  In addition to creating an inventory of approaches and literature on social design, I wanted to catalogue the criticisms of this field. When initially embarking on this project I read about Bruce Nussbaum’s claim of social design being the “new imperialism.” Coming back to Nussbaum’s piece I discovered the active discussion that surrounded his provoking article. Below are a fraction of the responses to his article. This lens has provided a wonderful introduction to the host of criticisms of the field from within it.

Bruce Nussbaum, “Is Humanitarian Design The New Imperialism?”

(Fast Company, July 7, 2010)

  In the article Nussbaum, rather delicately, questions whether humanitarian design is moving in a direction that could be understood as a modern form of colonialism.  He arrives at this question after observing the reactions by in country experts to western design interventions. At the end of the piece, he asks "do designers need to better see themselves through the eyes of the local professional and business classes who believe their countries are rising as the U.S. and Europe fall and wonder who, in the end, has the right answers? Might Indian, Brazilian and African designers have important design lessons to teach Western designers?" I think a lot of what he is touching on is what are the assumptions we are making when we do this work. For me, the most important question he asked was "why are we only doing humanitarian design in Asia and Africa and not Native American reservations or rural areas, where standards of education, water and health match the very worst overseas?" I think this is a fair question and one I don't have an answer to. Maybe we are disproportionately doing projects locally and the ones that get attention are the global ones. But my uneducated hunch is that local work is less appealing. We know this context well and its messiness. We also have our implicitness to contend with in these types of projects too, making going global projects more appealing for some. 

  Cameron Sinclair, “Admiral Akbar, It’s A Trap!”

(The Department of Small Works July 8, 2010)

  Cameron Sinclair responded to Bruce Nussbaum challenging his claims on many fronts. First he called out Nussbaum for oversimplifying who is designing. It is not simply one western design firm designing from afar, but is a "complex global network of multi-disciplinary, multi-cultural and diverse teams working locally hand in hand with communities on the ground." Sinclair cited projects his organization has been involved with and where all the team members were from (west, non-west, locals) and that everyone was working on the ground in the area they were designing for. I do wish he gave more examples from projects other than his own though. He also pointed out that often for simplicities sake, when this projects are reported on, the spotlight goes on to the lead designer and doesn't illuminate the whole cast of characters involved. This failure falls on both those able to talk with journalists and the journalists themselves.  

  A compelling point Sinclair made is about the education system. Design programs are overwhelmingly in the west and are prohibitively expensive, making it not an option for most people, especially those in "emerging markets." This naturally creates an inequality in who is designing.  Sinclair went on to say "we need to be looking at systems to bridge the global inequalities in design education, while teaching community-led practices that are at the heart of humanitarian design." I think he is on to something with this point. Nussbaum is not looking deeply enough at the problem he is trying to identify. Perhaps the starting point is education that creates western designers who are designing far beyond their local communities. 

  Emily Pilloton, "Are Humanitarian Designers Imperialists? Project H Responds: Not All Americans Are Leaving the Country to Do Good" 

(Fast Company, July 12, 2010)

  Emily Pilloton, who started Project H, which was discussed in Nussbaum's original article, agreed with his critiques of some of the uninformed and entitled approaches of designers who give humanitarian design a bad name. She also agreed with designing locally quoting Ivan Illich "If you have any sense of responsibility at all, stay with your riots here at home... You will know what you are doing, why you are doing it, and how to communicate with those to whom you speak." But she called Nussbaum out for not doing his homework. Project H for one, and many others, do just that-humanitarian design locally. But also complicated his oversimplification, saying working locally doesn't necessarily mean your geography, but is about you "commitment" to a place. 

  At one point, in a bit of a defensive argument for how her work does not fall into this framework that Nussabaum is using, she eloquently said "this is the power of humanitarian design: When it's not about design anymore, it's about an educational process that produces creative capital where it did not exist before, in beautiful ways, by underestimated individuals."

    Bruce Nussbaum, "Do-Gooder Design and Imperialism, Round 3: Nussbaum Responds"(Fast Company, July 13, 2010)

  In this piece, Nussbaum responds to Emily Pilloton’s piece. His main point is that his original article was not one of statements, but one of questions he was posing to the design community. A topic he thought needed to be discussed. His article certainly garnered a huge response and an interesting discussion.

  Nussbaum goes on to clarify his original impetus for writing this. It is not that he necessarily thinks of us as imperialists, but he is noting the reaction of people who are in the countries we are designing for viewing the design projects as colonialist interventions. Nussbaum simply wants to think about how we react to this claim and is there anything we can learn from it. He tells a personal story about working for Headstart and some of the backlash in the black, latino, and native american communities to the organization. Nussbaums says, ”Do I think we should have ended Head Start? Not at all. But acknowledging and engaging the historic legacy, the cultural threats and the parental concerns might have improved the efficacy of the programs. And helped more kids.” I agree with this. The point of this work is to be helpful in some way. Asking these questions is about improving the power and effectiveness of the work. It is not a personal attack.

  Robert Fabricant, "In Defense of Design Imperialism" 

(Change Observer, July 15, 2010)

  Robert Fabricant writes an elegant piece latching on to one idea that has come up in this discussion: “ Is the local model the only way to meaningfully engage in social-impact initiatives?” This is a personal question for Fabricant, who is VP at frog, a firm doing more and more social impact work globally. Naturally, the piece in a non-defensive way discusses why global isn’t necessarily bad and some of the issues that must be contended with to be successful. He touches on the particular affordances of technology based projects in working globally. Among other points, is that technology in many ways is “reducing local differences” skewing the ideas of what is local and what is global. Another point he stresses is the importance of thoughtful and strong local partnerships, regardless of whether you an on the ground studio or are working from afar. But the most interesting idea is that commitment is most important element to success. Design thinking is not a “magic elixir” that can have a major impact on its own. It is one piece, but real impact comes from sustained impact and focus on understanding complex and interrelated problems of the area you are designing in. This is why local can be much more practical. But whether local or global, the problems are complex and require much of the same attention.

[jennzzzz-blog-blog]

LE SHIT.

Damn geography paper 4 tomorrow. :'(