History Day

     When I was in high school I participated in a program called National History Day. It's a pretty cool idea to get kids involved in history and thinking about the events that changed the world--though they definitely don't realize they're doing it. At least, I didn't realize that I was learning about world-changing events and their consequences.
     This year the theme was Rights and Responsibilities and the projects were all good choices. Where I became more and more frustrated over the course of the day was in their inability to string words into complete sentences. Now, I understand that twelve to fifteen-year-olds won't have the same confidence with language that I do after sixteen years of education, but they can at least build a sentence that makes its point without throwing me into a maelstrom of confusion at the mere sight of it.
     I was actually proud to see the projects and see how everything has changed because of the technology available. When we completed our exhibit (I was in a group with two other young ladies) we had to go to the library for primary sources or ask the librarian for help finding and having them sent to us. Now there are so many archives online students can find and access without too much stress that they have more informed presentations and they are more connected to not only their history but also current events.
     The competition is good for the students if they 're hoping to move forward to college and, in my experience, gives them something to strive for academically. The experience is similar to what I experienced working on projects in college--not only do you need to understand research methods, but you must know how to convey your argument clearly and concisely.
     I enjoy working with the program and my greatest frustrations rise when students don't give their best efforts then hope to convince me, as a judge, that it is their top work. Sorry kiddos, been there, done that, I still have the paper somewhere. It's a good program and deserves recognition for introducing young teens to the process and rigor of academic research.

Protecting His Friend, or Himself?

     Have you ever had one of those days where someone said one thing, and it ruined your entire day, and leeched into the next day? That was today. I was chatting with a few friends last night, at dinner, when I mentioned that a mutual friend was interesting and I'd like to get to know him better. Nearly everyone at the table was okay with this decision, but the friend who had introduced us (we'll call him Jack) completely put his foot down. The others: (and these are not their real names) Edward, Lucy, Collin, Peter, and Bernard actually seemed supportive, but Jack insisted that our mutual friend (Calvin, for lack of his literary favorite) was interested in someone else, and this is after Jack'd tried to pair him with a girl from class.
     Normally that'd be okay, but the way he phrased it as "Calvin is off-limits" rather than just suggesting I wait until he'd figured out what's going on with that to pursue anything new. It made me angry that Jack was butting into my life, and kind of indignant that he was butting into Calvin's life. We're at completely different points where we want different things from our relationships and Jack doesn't seem to get that I'm going to do my best not to hurt Calvin.
     I keep trying to figure out why he'd do something so decisive as step in front of any "relationship train" that might move, and a couple of my friends and I came up with answers that don't fit with what I know about Jack: he likes me (that's not going anywhere and he's the kind of guy to move on when he realizes it's not), he's afraid I'll hurt Calvin (okay...), Calvin will hurt me and he wants to prevent that (really?!), he's afraid to lose Calvin to a relationship like he lost Peter to a relationship (that's not going to happen any time soon), and there are more, but those are the ones we're dealing with now. I just want Jack to let whatever is or isn't going to happen happen, let us figure this out for ourselves and you'll keep both friendships and might even develop both further. The only thing that's made the day any better is my other friends' encouragement, that's what friends are for: to make your day better.

Library Woes

     Yesterday I made a trip to the library with my grandmother: not a completely unusual occurrence, but it was not what I expected. Instead of going to the library we normally visit, we stopped by a branch closer into town and I was surprised at the difference between both size of the building and the selection. At our usual library the main room is probably sixty feet long and eighty feet wide. The entire selection of books, movies, audiobooks, music and the public computers take up that space. The fiction section at the library we visited yesterday was about the same size. What made it unexpected was the fact that we're in the same county and run by the same library system.
     My question is: why? Why is a library is the same system--in a more populated, yet more rural area--so much smaller than one closer to town? Wouldn't the thought be, if the library is one of the only modes of entertainment and public enhancement make it more varied and bigger? I don't understand. Okay, I understand that the system wouldn't want a larger library in an area where people wouldn't use it, but if the library was larger, it follows that more people would be able to use it. I guess my largest frustration is that I have read most of the selection at the local library, and now I have to go to other branches if I want to explore something new.
     On the plus side, I now know that particular library has a good selection of general fiction, and a spectacular media section. I think I'll send in a letter to the main office.

Just a thought...
Stephie

Does it Hook You and Drag You In?

     In reading for Capstone, I came across a literary critic who, just after his mother's death, used photography and photographic theory to try and recapture his mother. that was Roland Barthes' (said "Bart") foray into photography in Camera Lucidia, which was originally written in French. The fact that it was translated helps to understand why the actual words on the page don't always make sense.
     The main things Barthes talked about were the punctum, studium, and unary photograph. When he talked about these different ideas he used the word affect to describe the emotions it made him feel. The punctum is described as a detail in a photograph that hooks into the reader and draws their attention. Studium is something that you notice, but the attention doesn't get caught on. A unary photograph is a photo that is so perfectly composed that it doesn't do anything to the attention--the observer says "hmm" and walks away--like the pictures that come in picture frames.
     My argument is that everything has this sort of element--it's not in the art itself, but in the observer's experience. The three parts are dependent on each other to exist, but without the observer there is nothing for them to relate to and create the affect that Barthes seems so stuck on. I understood affect to be the emotional meaning that creates the three responses, when you look at a wedding photo you're usually happy because weddings are happy occasions.
     It's difficult to make my argument make sense to other people because I'm not applying a photographic theory to photography, so I have to explain as well as show that what I'm saying is not only possible, but also plausible. I'm enjoying the application of my take on Barthes's theory, but no matter how interesting I find it, explaining his theory is a pain.

Just a thought....
Stephie

Existentialism

     Nearly everyone I've talked to about existentialism has been confused about it. I'm a little confused how they can be so confused. From what I understand it's just the belief that existence is created from the choices and experiences of a person. Every person has the right to make their own decisions--this is where liberty and freedom come into it--and if a person doesn't have the freedom to make their own choices you're experiencing oppression. That's my understanding.
     Part of it though is a willingness to live with the consequences of your actions. I think that's where people get confused. We talk about how life isn't fair and how bad things happen to good people, which is true, but at the same time it's because the good people take responsibility for their actions that bad things happen to them. People I've classified as 'bad' in my life have had the tendency to let other people take the blame for their mistakes and missteps. And I've noticed that because the other people (the good people) are more willing to take the blame, even when it doesn't belong on their shoulders, the people I've always labelled 'bad' don't have to take responsibility for themselves.
     What happens when the 'good' people no longer are willing to take responsibility for someone else's actions? I like the ideas put forth by the school of Existentialism, for the most part, they make the world make sense.

Just a thought....
Stephie

Perception

     Charles Bukowski once said something about the world being smeared with the color of forgotten love. I thought it was a beautiful image, but something about the color stayed in my head. What color is forgotten love? Is it a murky kind of purple, or a deep clear blue; maybe it's a rich red, the color of blood, or a rust red--dried blood.
     I'm working on my senior project, my capstone, and the theme is "Image + Words = Picture". This confusion about what color Bukowski's forgotten love is plays into this idea. Every single person makes a judgement when they see an image. The meaning derived from the image is connected directly to the  culturally agreed upon definitions and personal experiences of the viewer.
     There are things the brain filters out of what we see. The biggest example of this is your nose. It's always there, right in the middle of your vision, but you don't ever see it (well, unless something about it changes like a scratch or make-up). Your brain knows it's there, but it filters it out because there's so much more that you should see. I wonder if that is where the term "right under your nose" came from? You don't see it because your brain has erased it from what you realize you see.

Just a thought....
Stephie

Cussing

     My dad used to tell us kids a story about his grandmother: one of the kids would cuss in front of her and she would say "There's no such thing as a bad word, only bad intentions." I always liked the story (even if Mom and Dad didn't agree in being so laissez faire about the whole cussing thing) and remembered it when I came across an article on how cussing isn't the biggest problem in the world; God has bigger things to clean up in our lives.
     The basic premise is that Christians shouldn't cuss. But to get around cussing they create a language that is "acceptable" yet still stands in for the same thing. Then the article delves further into the concept of sinful and non-sinful language for example, a close friend gets an amazing gift for Christmas and you say "I hate you", it's joking and expressing your jealousy in a way the friend understands. But in a different situation, someone hurt your feelings and you want to return the favor so you say "I hate you" it becomes sinful--because of your intentions.
     The article goes on to talk about intentions as opposed to actions and how people who flaunt their language as a way of sounding cool aren't as cool as they think, but the writer notes there is something about using foul language that is unacceptable in and of itself. I just got to thinking about what we consider cussing and what is acceptable language, but I always come back to my great-grandma's philosophy: there are no bad words. Only bad intentions dirtying the language with which they are expressed.

Just a thought....
Stephie