New York Times Presents: THE WORLD IS NOT GOING TO HELL IN A HANDBASKET

So I like this chapter.

Why?

First critique of media that I've read in a while that doesn't judge the media we live with and come up with a zero sum equation (did I use that right??) I like that it talks about the evolution of TV, and especially how TV has been used in other cultures, such as being more of a group activity in Germany (Except for the Nazi thing - that's just scary) Furthermore, the arguement with more channels means less overall control is tempting, however I felt the book didn't touch on the fact that it seems like many of these channels are being bought by media conglomerates to add to their lineup. Even if there are a ton of channels to choose from, A) who really watches them and B) if a few media giants are controlling them, how democratic is the system?

I'm just glad it didn't blame The Simpsons for the degredatino of society.

FInally.

Austin American Statesman repots: COMPUTER GEEKS' CODES OF 0'S AND 1'S REVEAL SECRET TO HUMAN EXISTENCE

This chapter was my favorite chapter by far. Not sure what that says about me. Not sure why it was many favorite. I think because this chapter more so then the others talked about societial power plays, which the inner sociologist in me loved.

I have two major points about this chapter that stick to my mind. The first is this idea of a "binary" world. I TOTALLY AGREE! As I have progressed through my formal education and my religous/spiritual dialogues, I have come to this same conclusion, however on a much broader scale. Our entire human existence, at least in the Western Christian world, hinges on this seperation of everything into two fundamental groups. Good/Evil. Love/Hate. Us/Them. With us/Against Us. Future/Past. Black/White. Rich/Poor. Night/Day. Sun/Moon. Believers/Non-Believers. The list could go on much longer. However, I love that this chapter puts this notion into the context of images - the one being looked at and the one looking, the spectator and the object, and the power that goes between the two.

LA Times Reports: USER DIES FROM PHOTOSHOP FRUSTRATIONS

In this amazing photo by Robert Frank, I find that the cowboy in the city idea doesn’t quite synch – maybe it’s my Texas background, but something doesn’t work. In this visual representation of his work I have reworked the photo so that the world in which the cowboy is in is glowing with a surreal magic while he himself is grainy, distorted, as if he is but a visitor to the world around him. Another intended meaning is the idea of the outdated cowboy – he is grainy, like films of yesteryear, while the world around him is glowing with energy and signs of progress, like the trucks in the background. This juxtaposition was something that I couldn’t look past in the picture, and I have a love for juxtaposed items in different forms of the creative arts, which is perhaps why I was drawn to this picture. I had issues with trying to create a picture that wasn’t too blatantly changed but at the same time was noticeably different. I was going for a tip-of-the-tongue effect originally – the viewer wouldn’t be able to identify the changes right away. However, I found that this method, while obvious to me, was not obvious to the viewer, which led me to accent the differences more.





In this leaflet my target audience was the future political movement for Texas to succeed from the Union. The message was to be simple and remind Texans of the flags that have flown over the state before and that they were overthrown at one time. The signs used are meant to conjure a sense of Texas pride by highlighting our unique shape and symbols of Texas greatness. The color scheme was to reflect the Texas flag and the use of the Lone Star State was to highlight our ability to be on our own.

Index – Pictures of the Alamo, Austin, and a Texas sign all are symbol of Texas that are associated with no other place in the world.

Icon – The picture of the shape of Texas on the back of the leaflet is an icon of the actual shape of the state.

Symbol – the word TEXAS and the font that was used (font infers a country & western idea)

CNN Reports: HOLLYWOOD PACKS UP AND GOES HOME, SPEILBURG CLAIMS HUMANITY'S "OUT OF IDEAS"

The Devil Wears Prada was a masterpiece. Superb.
Smart.
Witty.
Funny.
Engaging.
Fun.

I could go on for a while about how awesome that movie is and how much I love it. However, you probably won't hear me describe it using words such as groudbreaking, orignal, etc. etc. Why? While I do love this movie, I realized while watching how recycled not only the basic story line of outsider-turned-insider-becomes-disatisfied-and-rejects-insider-status-to-go-back-to-outsider-status.

This conclusion was not seemingly random (as this post isn't either) because all through life I had lived at the juxtaposed intersection where the indidivual and creativity is celebreate but where originality, the genuine kind, is nearly non-existent. In trying to be original we in fact pull from our own beliefs, experiences, and things we've seen. In the the "Sunscreen Song," a song that is actually a graduation speech put to music, one line reads:

Be careful who advice you buy, but be patient with those who supply it. Advice is a form of nostalgia, dispensing it is a way of fishing the past from the disposal, wiping it off, painting over the ugly parts and recycling it for more than its worth.

Mirando Piestly also explains this concept in what is arguabley the best line in the entire movie:

Miranda Priestly: [Miranda and some assistants are deciding between two similar belts for an outfit. Andy sniggers because she thinks they look exactly the same] Something funny?
Andy Sachs: No, no, nothing. Y'know, it's just that both those belts look exactly the same to me. Y'know, I'm still learning about all this stuff.
Miranda Priestly: This... 'stuff'? Oh... ok. I see, you think this has nothing to do with you. You go to your closet and you select out, oh I don't know, that lumpy blue sweater, for instance, because you're trying to tell the world that you take yourself too seriously to care about what you put on your back. But what you don't know is that that sweater is not just blue, it's not turquoise, it's not lapis, it's actually cerulean. You're also blindly unaware of the fact that in 2002, Oscar De La Renta did a collection of cerulean gowns. And then I think it was Yves St Laurent, wasn't it, who showed cerulean military jackets? And then cerulean quickly showed up in the collections of 8 different designers. Then it filtered down through the department stores and then trickled on down into some tragic casual corner where you, no doubt, fished it out of some clearance bin. However, that blue represents millions of dollars and countless jobs and so it's sort of comical how you think that you've made a choice that exempts you from the fashion industry when, in fact, you're wearing the sweater that was selected for you by the people in this room. From a pile of stuff.

Hardly anything in life is original anymore. Most ideas are simply reconstructions of ideas that have been handed down to the masses through the massive print and entertainment business. I'm not the first to write about this, I'm sure of it, however admititedly I havn't looked. S&C's lastest chapter seems to imply that everything just reaches back and uses other people's ideas for their own - the youth subculture take the fasions presented to them, dissects them, reassembles them, and then those new fasions are picked up mainstream, which causes the whole cycle to start over. I argue that while there may be tons of creativity left in the world, I'm not sure how much originality is left. Probably not much. Zip. Nata. That then leads to bigger questions - if we ran out of original ideas, when did it happen? Does this mean the end of progress for humanity?

Absolutely not.

I mean look how far reality Tv has progressed over the years as it continues it's highly creative form of entertainment...

That being said, this class that is an excercise in originality and creativity should be interesting...

shmily