Prompt #6

I have a personal connection with the phrase "Make love not war." When I was about 14 or so I walked into a store and bought a t-shirt with this slogan on the front. I never understood the saying farther than that the "make love," part was indirectly saying to have sex. The phrase does have some relevance to the story of Lysistrata. The idea of a sex strike against war is essentially stating "make love not war," backwards. If you get rid of the war, we will make love. I'm not sure if that kind of peace tactic would fly in modern society. Take the Iraq War for example, our current dilemma. International disputes and certain religious beliefs can not be reversed by simply taking sexual satisfaction out of the equation. That doesn't mean it isn't worth a shot.

The eternal struggle between men and women is just that, eternal. Men and women have always competed to prove themselves better than the other. Men have had the power through much of history, this only prompted women to fight back when the time was right. In the last two centuries they have fought to gain equal rights under the law. Although women are now just as capable and equal to do what men do in America, there are still many countries that do not treat women equally under the law. All that aside the most relevant and current struggle between men and women can be observed in romantic relationships.

Men and women have different views on certain aspects of relationships including sex, when its okay to call after the first date, cheating, not cheating and other trivial, but seemingly important things. This struggle may never be a thing of the past, but who would want the world to be full of perfect relationships. Without that we would be living in Stepford. Which if you know the story still ended up with men controlling the women. There is no way that two “races” as inclusive yet still outwardly observed as very very separate entities can ever truly get along, though recently the lines have been blurred, but traditionally men and women have always clashed on certain topics.

Lit & Writing II Blog Entry # 4&5

The movie Troy is a classic example of how Hollywood likes to twist traditional stories to appeal to modern crowds.

There are many differences between the movie Troy and its inspiration: The Illiad. First and foremost Hollywood has changed some minor plot details. In the scene shown in the video of this prompt, where Achilles fights Hector, they change the action in such a way as to make the scene look more like a clash of two titans and two masculine figures in the movie; another fine example of the "dude factor." In the text however, Hector runs away from Achilles before he is killed. 

One additional thing I would like to touch on is the description of the violence in both versions of the story. Surprisingly the "dude factor," rule goes the opposite way. Instead of Hollywood making things more shocking than reality could possibly be, the movie simplifies the killing every time someone dies. The text of the Illiad includes some pretty extensive description as to what bones are broken and what organs or punctured and how far the blood spurts out of someone's neck. Hollywood defies the "dude factor," tendency and censors the violence. If you really think about it, including all the gory details that The Illiad has with the element of visuals that Troy brings, the movie might start bordering on the line of tacky. Audiences are smart enough nowadays to identify over-dramatization of violence, and deem it tacky.

The relationship between brothers Hector and Paris is altered slightly in the movie. The poem clearly depicts Hector nagging Paris for being a coward through the entire book. The movie suggests the same, but much of the time the insults are not as outward. This is yet another example of how visuals of movie versions of books can add information without the narration or dialogue blatantly stating.

Lit & Writing II Blog #3

One specific modern-day hero that comes to mind is one of the most celebrated, mimicked and recognizable heroes of all time: Bond...James Bond. This sexy do-gooder fights crime, and always gets the girl in the end. Even with this cookie cutter outline of this character through out the James Bond movies there are little hints of a darker or just deeper parts of his personality.

With a few exceptions Hollywood doesn't like to cross a couple boundaries when outlining a main character or hero. Religion is often not brought up for the sake of being commercial and applicable to all people who would see the movie. Up until recently a hero's sexuality was alway straight, masculine, and sometimes womanizing. The homosexual idea was and is still not respected or even acknowledged. Granted, the majority of the population that may go see a movie is straight. From past experience and knowledge of how producers cater to certain demographics, these are just some characteristics of the hero figure in modern day movies.

Achilles being a modern day hero would be a toss up. I assume Hollywood would commercialize his personality to reflect what the viewer could identify with. If Achilles were represented well and true to the actual man there might be a few more upset people walking out of the local movie theater. I would assume crowds would simply cover their ears and refuse to acknowledge the whole relationship between Achilles and Patroclus. 

Lit & Writing II Blog #2

My knowledge of Spartan society extends only as far as them being bred warriors from a young age, their entire culture was based around creating the ultimate army, and that war was held studied and revered by the Spartans.

Athenians on the other hand were more peace loving, philosophical, and seemingly more wholesome people. The focus for children was much more broad than the Spartans. The word Spartan is immediately associated with war and fighting.

A spartan warrior was treated much like a sports prodigy in the modern day. If a high school boy seemed to have a knack for football and the circumstances were right (the parents, coaches, and personal goals) this talent would be nurtured and unquestioned. I have seen it before when someone, especially in sports, shows immense potential a coach or other mentor will encourage that kid to dedicate their lives to getting better at that sport. This kind of mentality and behavior is similar to how boys in Spartan culture were surrounded by. They had no say as to wether they wanted to be warriors or not. I assume that if you were surrounded by that kind of culture you wouldn't know any different so there wouldn't be any questions.

This kind of up-bringing is kind of unfortunate in a way. You never know if one of those Spartan boys could have been one of the great artists of that time. They could have been any number of other things. We will never know I guess.

It does kind of bother me that your fate is decided even before birth of what you are to do the rest of your life. Unfortunate is the only word that comes to mind. The whole attitude about overt masculine mentality and demeanor bothers me. 

As far as Hollywood is concerned, the media and the production behind the kind of movies that are released knows that the general uneducated public will automatically respond well to any sort of violence and what I like to call the "dude factor." The "dude factor" has so much appeal that the influence of this kind of media has trickled down into the lowest depths of our culture and even our own mannerisms and psychology. (I witness a painful amount of this disease in my hometown).

 

HCD-1020 Blog Entry #1

My knowledge of greek mythology extents not far from knowing who Zeus is and saying "so and so is the god of....." I do know a couple deities off the top of my head: Zeus, Hera, Athena, Hercules (?), Apollo, Aphrodite, and Poseidon. I've heard the names of these greek gods and goddesses from stories and books I've read over the years, and from knowing a little bit about astronomy, but most of it comes from reading the Illiad and the Odyssey before.

Hearing these stories, you get a sense that the personalities of these characters are more tangible than you would at first assume. Zeus's tendency to act impulsively and selfishly is extremely relatable to people. The human characteristics these deities have are what I think makes the myths easy to follow and learn from. This was the Greek's religion after all. It just happens that in this case the idols to which the people looked up to were not as mysterious as far as knowing their inner workings.

Timothy Treadwell and Frankenstein

Timothy Treadwell and Frankenstein, in their own "stories," took it upon themselves to intervene with something nature had already set into place, whether it be human bodies laying to rest after the person has died, or trying to become close to a species of animal which has proven not to be a docile as assumed. The question whether players in both cases are evil or not is a complicated question. Your opinion sort of rests upon your personal beliefs. Can an animal be "evil," if it is only following its natural instinct, what ever that may be, and end up harming a human being? I do not feel this is the case. Frankenstein's actions on the other hand, were he a real person, I would deem evil. Messing around with the bodies of people who have passed away crosses over a line of respect for that human being. There are ceremonies and rituals and other traditions that a family performs (most of the time through another person) to take care of the deceased person's belongings and body in hopes they can lay at rest. I don't think tampering with any of those this is kosher in the least.

These two people are definitely comparable. Their actions were both not condoned by the general public. They also to a certain degree went off into solitude to do such things. They also both thought of themselves as a parent figure to their creatures, Treadwell's being the bears and Frankenstein's being his monster.

Treadwell's circumstance is undoubtedly an unfortunate one, something no one should ever have to experience. He cared deeply for these bears enough to spend 13 years of his life defending them. He is like Frankenstein in a way such that his most admired creature one day rebelled against him

Post #2: Art Speaks Volumes

Opinions and views of artists almost always comes through in their work, often times without even realizing it. Personally, through photography, things that I actually take pictures of and the artistic thought behind my photographs reflects a lot about me. If I had to define my artistic vision, even after lots of searching, I always come back to one word: beauty.

When I go to make a photograph my initial inspiration is always beauty, or sometimes the lack thereof. Beauty means many different things to so many different people that the idea of capturing that feeling that people hold on their minds in a print or image is really what drives my work.

Taking that further, beauty can be defined in ways other than physical. People's challenging pasts, breaking away from those times and coming out on top stronger than before is amazing and very inspirational to me. And produce work I keep that concept in mind, if that is my goal. Through art you can what ever you want and (sometimes... well hardly ever) never be criticized.

Think about that last statement, and realize how untrue it is. Censorship is a huge topic to have up for discussion, not only as artists and making sure our voices are heard through our work no matter how PC or not they are, but as Americans. Our daily news shows we love and religiously watch go through so many levels of censorship before they hit the airwaves so the truth doesn't offend, scare, or anger any of their precious viewers.

Don't directly quote me on this, because the source of this information escapes my mind at the moment, but some european countries have the same type of news shows as we do but far less sugar-coated. Graphic images and frank and honest stories are on daytime television, things such as the war in Iraq to local crime reports. I makes you wonder what is really happening behind the news stories we see and read here.

Getting back to the subject of art and those who make it, it now becomes our responsibility to tell the truth and make people realize things they wouldn't normally stop and think about. Speaking more for commercial art, there are still many censors on what can be published under a companies name preventing anything that might tarnish their name. There is still an outlet for artist to say really anything through their work. That, to me, is really what defines a good piece of work: the "hmm," factor.

Someone great once said: "if it disturbs you, its art" (I don't know who they are but that's not important). If an artist can make an average person walking by a work of art stop and say to themselves "hmm," and have that second of higher thought get their brain focused on something other than how they put too much sugar in their coffee that morning, that is a small achievement in my book even if that person's phone rings seconds later destroying that blip. Something that disturbs you, whether physically mentally or behaviorally (like your morning B-line home at the end of the day) has art at work somewhere.

This is why it is so important for artist to communicate to people what might not be easily said with words on a plane other than common understanding. We really are in a place of power. The gift of making people feel is a great one.

There is no one point of art other than to communicate. It's what you say that gives this three letter word that everyone is buzzing about meaning. So, what do you have to say?