It's funny how a person can be kicked off of a stage by music.
~Nadia
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Friday, February 23, 2007
Semiotic Domains: Culture
The following comment is part of a reply from Kevin Leader to a Xanga entry I posted yesterday.
"We are all a part of a huge number of cultural groups, and you and I share enough of them (e.g. Malone, faith, Canton, music, Xanga) that I don't really think about the cultures that we don't have in common -- specifically, that my background is that of a white man and yours is of a black woman. I'm so used to not wanting to think of other people as "different", especially along racial lines, that I become a bit naive to the fact that people from different backgrounds face different challenges.
But that doesn't make us "different" in any way that needs to separate us, but rather we are different in ways that define our God-given individuality, which offers more opportunity to enlighten us than to divide. Reading about your challenges that fall so far outside my scope is really meaningful to me, so I appreciate it a lot. (Of course I'm thinking through this as I write, so forgive the ramble.)"
When I read this, I immediately thought of this class and semiotic domains and affinity groups. I also felt immediately compelled to consider what other cultural differences there are between my peers and I, and maybe explore them. What other differences are there because of cultures that I am and am not a part of? I have compiled this list:
I am:
- Nigerian American
- American Born
- A woman
- Twenty years old
- A college student
- A Christian
I think those things are just a small part of who I am, but I also think they're the biggest and most obvious parts of who I am. And they may make up the biggest cultural differences. So here are some things that I obviously am not.
- Caucasian
- Asian
- Nigerian born
- Chinese born
- In my thirties
- A high school student
- Muslim
- Jewish
- Atheist
I took each category from the first list, and named another type of the same category. But I didn't choose them randomly. I specifically chose categories that I felt that I would like to (am able to somewhat effectively) explore. I know people from each of these affinity groups and I will explore each of these the best I can. I will get back to you on this.
Here is a link in case you're interested in viewing the Xanga entry:
http://www.xanga.com/ScarlettHalo/572125280/item.html
"We are all a part of a huge number of cultural groups, and you and I share enough of them (e.g. Malone, faith, Canton, music, Xanga) that I don't really think about the cultures that we don't have in common -- specifically, that my background is that of a white man and yours is of a black woman. I'm so used to not wanting to think of other people as "different", especially along racial lines, that I become a bit naive to the fact that people from different backgrounds face different challenges.
But that doesn't make us "different" in any way that needs to separate us, but rather we are different in ways that define our God-given individuality, which offers more opportunity to enlighten us than to divide. Reading about your challenges that fall so far outside my scope is really meaningful to me, so I appreciate it a lot. (Of course I'm thinking through this as I write, so forgive the ramble.)"
When I read this, I immediately thought of this class and semiotic domains and affinity groups. I also felt immediately compelled to consider what other cultural differences there are between my peers and I, and maybe explore them. What other differences are there because of cultures that I am and am not a part of? I have compiled this list:
I am:
- Nigerian American
- American Born
- A woman
- Twenty years old
- A college student
- A Christian
I think those things are just a small part of who I am, but I also think they're the biggest and most obvious parts of who I am. And they may make up the biggest cultural differences. So here are some things that I obviously am not.
- Caucasian
- Asian
- Nigerian born
- Chinese born
- In my thirties
- A high school student
- Muslim
- Jewish
- Atheist
I took each category from the first list, and named another type of the same category. But I didn't choose them randomly. I specifically chose categories that I felt that I would like to (am able to somewhat effectively) explore. I know people from each of these affinity groups and I will explore each of these the best I can. I will get back to you on this.
Here is a link in case you're interested in viewing the Xanga entry:
http://www.xanga.com/ScarlettHalo/572125280/item.html
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Statements From The Merchants of Cool
I believed that altogether I have watched The Merchants of Cool at least three times. And each time I watch it, there are two statements that stick out in my mind more than anything. The first one comes from NYU Communications professor, Mark Crispin Miller.
Miller says:
"The MTV Machine doesn’t listen very carefully to children. When corporate revenues depend on being ahead of the curve, you have to listen. You have to know exactly what they want and exactly what they’re thinking so that you can give them what you want them to have. Now that’s an important distinction. The MTV Machine doesn’t listen to the young so it can make the young happier...The MTV Machine tunes in to it can pitch what Viacom has to sell"
I have listened this statement over and over. I've read it and re-read it. And you know something? I don't quite know what to make of it.
Even after watching the Merchants of Cool several times I have a hard time digesting this statement. I asked myself, "Is this true?" Can MTV gives us whatever they want as long as we think we're asking for it? It seems like that's what he just said. But the idea seemed rather absurd. But then when I see the scene of the teenagers partying on Spring Break it becomes evident to me that this must be true.
Spring Break partying on television = Spring Break partying in real life. Funny how that works.
The other statement that stuck out in my mind was from the thirteen year old girl, Barbra. Barbra said:
“I wanna be a model, I wanna be an actor...I want people to notice me and just be like, ‘Wow, she is pretty.’ I have to look good for people. I need to look good. Like if I don’t look good for people, I’ll be really upset and it’ll like ruin my day. Um, so whenever I go out with friends, like even just over to their house I need to look good.”
I think that when I was younger (maybe not quite so young as thirteen) I might have agreed with her. Looking good for people is important. I must look nice. I cannot leave the house without make up. I have to be pretty.
I'm not exactly sure when my mentality changed, but when I heard Barbra say this, my thought was, "Look good for what people?"
Why do girls have to look good? Who are they trying to impress? Are they trying to be appeal to boys?
I gave this some thought and reached deep down, way to the back of my mind to find the time when I thought the same way as Barbra. And then I remembered what people I wanted to look good for. All people.
I had to look good for everyone. I was always everywhere being seen by everyone all of the time, and I had to look good. I had to have make up on, my hair had to look nice. Some people could get by without make up, but not me. Why? Because my make up looked fabulous. And since I looked fabulous with the make up, I only looked worse without it. And worse was bad.
Why did I have to look good for everyone?
I don't know. I think I somehow adopted this notion from celebrities. You know, celebrities really do have to look good all of the time. They're constantly being followed around by cameras. And if they look too thick, too thin, or unkempt, their pictures will be plastered on the the front covers of all the magazines. And if a teenage girl shows up to school and doesn't look fabulous, everyone will notice. Maybe they'll talk about her.
People on TV are always pretty. I remember watching a girl cry in a movie once and thinking, "She sure is pretty when she cries."
So of course Barbara feels a need to look good for everyone all of the time. A lot of people feel that way. Hopefully it's nonsense that she has out-grown by now.
-EDIT-
At first I said there were two statements that stuck out in my mind. But I just not went back to watch part of it again, and I have another one. Let's compare the midriff to the mook.
“If the he is arrested in adolescence, she is pre-maturely adult. If he doesn’t care what people think of him, she is consumed by appearances. If his thing is crudeness, her’s is sex.”
Big difference between a glamourized male and a glamourized female.
I don't really have anything to say about that right now. I just wanted to throw that statement out there for you to read and re-read. Go back and re-read it.
~Nadia
Miller says:
"The MTV Machine doesn’t listen very carefully to children. When corporate revenues depend on being ahead of the curve, you have to listen. You have to know exactly what they want and exactly what they’re thinking so that you can give them what you want them to have. Now that’s an important distinction. The MTV Machine doesn’t listen to the young so it can make the young happier...The MTV Machine tunes in to it can pitch what Viacom has to sell"
I have listened this statement over and over. I've read it and re-read it. And you know something? I don't quite know what to make of it.
Even after watching the Merchants of Cool several times I have a hard time digesting this statement. I asked myself, "Is this true?" Can MTV gives us whatever they want as long as we think we're asking for it? It seems like that's what he just said. But the idea seemed rather absurd. But then when I see the scene of the teenagers partying on Spring Break it becomes evident to me that this must be true.
Spring Break partying on television = Spring Break partying in real life. Funny how that works.
The other statement that stuck out in my mind was from the thirteen year old girl, Barbra. Barbra said:
“I wanna be a model, I wanna be an actor...I want people to notice me and just be like, ‘Wow, she is pretty.’ I have to look good for people. I need to look good. Like if I don’t look good for people, I’ll be really upset and it’ll like ruin my day. Um, so whenever I go out with friends, like even just over to their house I need to look good.”
I think that when I was younger (maybe not quite so young as thirteen) I might have agreed with her. Looking good for people is important. I must look nice. I cannot leave the house without make up. I have to be pretty.
I'm not exactly sure when my mentality changed, but when I heard Barbra say this, my thought was, "Look good for what people?"
Why do girls have to look good? Who are they trying to impress? Are they trying to be appeal to boys?
I gave this some thought and reached deep down, way to the back of my mind to find the time when I thought the same way as Barbra. And then I remembered what people I wanted to look good for. All people.
I had to look good for everyone. I was always everywhere being seen by everyone all of the time, and I had to look good. I had to have make up on, my hair had to look nice. Some people could get by without make up, but not me. Why? Because my make up looked fabulous. And since I looked fabulous with the make up, I only looked worse without it. And worse was bad.
Why did I have to look good for everyone?
I don't know. I think I somehow adopted this notion from celebrities. You know, celebrities really do have to look good all of the time. They're constantly being followed around by cameras. And if they look too thick, too thin, or unkempt, their pictures will be plastered on the the front covers of all the magazines. And if a teenage girl shows up to school and doesn't look fabulous, everyone will notice. Maybe they'll talk about her.
People on TV are always pretty. I remember watching a girl cry in a movie once and thinking, "She sure is pretty when she cries."
So of course Barbara feels a need to look good for everyone all of the time. A lot of people feel that way. Hopefully it's nonsense that she has out-grown by now.
-EDIT-
At first I said there were two statements that stuck out in my mind. But I just not went back to watch part of it again, and I have another one. Let's compare the midriff to the mook.
“If the he is arrested in adolescence, she is pre-maturely adult. If he doesn’t care what people think of him, she is consumed by appearances. If his thing is crudeness, her’s is sex.”
Big difference between a glamourized male and a glamourized female.
I don't really have anything to say about that right now. I just wanted to throw that statement out there for you to read and re-read. Go back and re-read it.
~Nadia
Friday, February 9, 2007
No News is Good News
Everyone had a lot of great things to say about the news today. One of my favourite things someone said (though I cannot remember who it was) was that the news is full of depressing stories. Every day we hear lots and lots of bad news. People are sick and dying and killing each other, the world is going to hell, and mostly that people are sick and dying and killing each other.
This made me think of The Nightmare Before Christmas. If you remember in this story, there is a part of the movie that everyone thinks that Jack Skellington is dead. Jack Skellington is loved and admired by everyone in the community. They look up to him. It is even inferred that he is the most important person in Halloween Town. Not even the Mayor knows what to do without him.
But then something horrible happens. While Jack is trying to make his own Christmas by flying across the world as Santa Clause, there is a misunderstanding and the police shoot him down. BOOM! His sleigh looks as if it has been blown to smitherines. This is obviously horrible news. And when the Mayor finds out he takes what struck me as the most absurd and ridiculous action ever when I first saw this movie.
The Mayor hops into his little vehicle thing that has a loud speaker on top and begins driving around Halloween Town to announce Jack's death. And in the most agonizing and greif-stricken voice, he cries out,"Terrible news, folks! The worst tragedy of our times! The King of Halloween has been blown to smithereens! Skeleton Jack is now a pile of dust!"
I absolutely could not believe it. In my mind, that was not how news is to be delivered. There was way too much emotion in that report. The news itself would be startling and upsetting enough without such emotional emphaisis. And his choice of vocabulary? Inconceivable. You can't say that he has been blown to smitherines and is now a pile of dust. Please say, "We have just received word that Jack Skellington has been killed," or something along those lines.
In our world, news is usually delivered in a emotionless tone of voice. It's informative-sounding and matter-of-fact. But whether we are hearing good news or bad news, it is usually delivered in mostly the same kind of voice. Imagine if there was emotion behind every news report. I don't think we could bear it. By the end of the hour our hearts and minds would be so heavy with greif that we'd probably collapse.
I used to spend a lot of time hanging out at the Repository. I would attend "budget meetings" (which has nothing to do with money) where what news would go where in the newspaper was decided. This is where I learned the term "gallows humour." It means being able to joke about things that would normally be viewed as morbid and unfunny. People who work in news do this because they encounter so much bad news on a daily basis and that can really make a big impact on a person. "You have to laugh or you'll cry," one of the editors said to me when explaining it.
I actually don't have much more to say on the matter. I just had to get the thoughts in my head into some sort of blog form while they thoughts were still fresh from class.
~Nadia
PS I love Tim Burton
This made me think of The Nightmare Before Christmas. If you remember in this story, there is a part of the movie that everyone thinks that Jack Skellington is dead. Jack Skellington is loved and admired by everyone in the community. They look up to him. It is even inferred that he is the most important person in Halloween Town. Not even the Mayor knows what to do without him.
But then something horrible happens. While Jack is trying to make his own Christmas by flying across the world as Santa Clause, there is a misunderstanding and the police shoot him down. BOOM! His sleigh looks as if it has been blown to smitherines. This is obviously horrible news. And when the Mayor finds out he takes what struck me as the most absurd and ridiculous action ever when I first saw this movie.
The Mayor hops into his little vehicle thing that has a loud speaker on top and begins driving around Halloween Town to announce Jack's death. And in the most agonizing and greif-stricken voice, he cries out,"Terrible news, folks! The worst tragedy of our times! The King of Halloween has been blown to smithereens! Skeleton Jack is now a pile of dust!"
I absolutely could not believe it. In my mind, that was not how news is to be delivered. There was way too much emotion in that report. The news itself would be startling and upsetting enough without such emotional emphaisis. And his choice of vocabulary? Inconceivable. You can't say that he has been blown to smitherines and is now a pile of dust. Please say, "We have just received word that Jack Skellington has been killed," or something along those lines.
In our world, news is usually delivered in a emotionless tone of voice. It's informative-sounding and matter-of-fact. But whether we are hearing good news or bad news, it is usually delivered in mostly the same kind of voice. Imagine if there was emotion behind every news report. I don't think we could bear it. By the end of the hour our hearts and minds would be so heavy with greif that we'd probably collapse.
I used to spend a lot of time hanging out at the Repository. I would attend "budget meetings" (which has nothing to do with money) where what news would go where in the newspaper was decided. This is where I learned the term "gallows humour." It means being able to joke about things that would normally be viewed as morbid and unfunny. People who work in news do this because they encounter so much bad news on a daily basis and that can really make a big impact on a person. "You have to laugh or you'll cry," one of the editors said to me when explaining it.
I actually don't have much more to say on the matter. I just had to get the thoughts in my head into some sort of blog form while they thoughts were still fresh from class.
~Nadia
PS I love Tim Burton
Monday, February 5, 2007
This Might Be More Than 500 Words
There are times during class that I get very excited. I become very interested in what we are learning and cannot wait to take what it is that I have just learned, and make new discoveries with it. Today I was fascinated when I learned the term "Dogme 95." Just the name excited me. I was like, "Dogme 95, what's that???" I remembered seeing a movie called Dogma and I wondered if it had anything to do with that. Did it have anything to do with the year 1995? I didn't know! But I didn't have to wait a long time to hear Andrew Rudd's definition. After all, these thoughts were flashing through my mind in seconds' time because I first heard this term within the same moment and same sentence that he explained it.
I listened intently as he told us of this wonder. It was a movement, it had rules - very strange rules. And the more I heard, the more intrigued I became. How could it be possible to create a any kind of film under these standards? Or rather, how could it be possible to create any kind of film that a human being might actually watch and enjoy, under these standards? Well, according to my professor it was possible. And I wanted to know how. I listened eagerly for examples. "Tell," I begged in my mind,"Please tell me Andrew Rudd, where can I find these Dogme 95 films? What are they???"
But to my dismay we continued on to the next subject without the slightest mention of an example. What, had I missed it? I raised my hand to ask for examples, but he didn't see. After a while, I put it down. After all, we were on a whole new topic now. And it was just as interesting. Besides, hadn't he mentioned something about a link on his blog? Surely I would find my answer there.
So off I went to Rudd's Media World. This would be a world of answers. I took off to this world in hopes of finding a way to watch a Dogme 95 film. I wanted to see for myself what sort of phenomena this was. And this is what I found:
Check out this Wikipedia entry on Dogme 95 -- and if you're really brave watch one of the films (beware they're not exactly "malopriate").
What are your impressions about this movement.
Excellent. Here we go...but wait. Check out what entry? Where was the entry he spoke of? There was no link. Was I missing it? And how could I watch one of the movies? Were they available online? Could I go to Blockbuster and rent one? Where were they???
Wikipediatime.
So off I went to the world of online encyclopedia. And there I found an entry concerning Dogme 95. But I didn't really read much more than what I had already learned in class. This, in fact, inticed my curiosity even further. So I was ecstatic to see a list of Dogme 95 films at the bottom of the page. But I found no way to watch any of these movies. Only descriptions to make me even more curious. And I saw a trailer, but it was not in English.
Oh sad day.
Feeling unfufilled and defeated, I headed back to Rudd's Media World once more in search of some sort of over-looked explination. But I found none.
Instead, I decided to go back to my own blog. A new entry was due, and I decided that I would discuss one of my favourite films ever. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. What better film to relate to everything we'd been discussing in class. But when it came time to start typing up my blog, I didn't feel like it. So I instead described to you today's long an fruitless quest that was not my journey to the world of Dogme 95. Thank you.
THE END
~Nadia C. Terrell
PS I have no word count on my crappy word processing program here at home. I'm thinking this post might have exceeded five hundred words. I do not appologize. Thank you. = )
I listened intently as he told us of this wonder. It was a movement, it had rules - very strange rules. And the more I heard, the more intrigued I became. How could it be possible to create a any kind of film under these standards? Or rather, how could it be possible to create any kind of film that a human being might actually watch and enjoy, under these standards? Well, according to my professor it was possible. And I wanted to know how. I listened eagerly for examples. "Tell," I begged in my mind,"Please tell me Andrew Rudd, where can I find these Dogme 95 films? What are they???"
But to my dismay we continued on to the next subject without the slightest mention of an example. What, had I missed it? I raised my hand to ask for examples, but he didn't see. After a while, I put it down. After all, we were on a whole new topic now. And it was just as interesting. Besides, hadn't he mentioned something about a link on his blog? Surely I would find my answer there.
So off I went to Rudd's Media World. This would be a world of answers. I took off to this world in hopes of finding a way to watch a Dogme 95 film. I wanted to see for myself what sort of phenomena this was. And this is what I found:
Check out this Wikipedia entry on Dogme 95 -- and if you're really brave watch one of the films (beware they're not exactly "malopriate").
What are your impressions about this movement.
Excellent. Here we go...but wait. Check out what entry? Where was the entry he spoke of? There was no link. Was I missing it? And how could I watch one of the movies? Were they available online? Could I go to Blockbuster and rent one? Where were they???
Wikipediatime.
So off I went to the world of online encyclopedia. And there I found an entry concerning Dogme 95. But I didn't really read much more than what I had already learned in class. This, in fact, inticed my curiosity even further. So I was ecstatic to see a list of Dogme 95 films at the bottom of the page. But I found no way to watch any of these movies. Only descriptions to make me even more curious. And I saw a trailer, but it was not in English.
Oh sad day.
Feeling unfufilled and defeated, I headed back to Rudd's Media World once more in search of some sort of over-looked explination. But I found none.
Instead, I decided to go back to my own blog. A new entry was due, and I decided that I would discuss one of my favourite films ever. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. What better film to relate to everything we'd been discussing in class. But when it came time to start typing up my blog, I didn't feel like it. So I instead described to you today's long an fruitless quest that was not my journey to the world of Dogme 95. Thank you.
THE END
~Nadia C. Terrell
PS I have no word count on my crappy word processing program here at home. I'm thinking this post might have exceeded five hundred words. I do not appologize. Thank you. = )
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
