Sara Hefny’s AP Comp. Blog

Downe chooses words of endearment to try to convince his wife to come join him in America. He describes how amazing his life is and how the only thing that could make him better is if his family were beside him…yada yada yada.

Bringing cars to college (in favor):

Bringing a car to school will aid and assist me this fall, because I will be commuting for work on an almost daily basis. If I purchase a parking permit, it will be worth the investment because it will save the time it would take to arrange alternate sources of transportation from Seattle to Lynnwood Having a car on campus would give me the peace of mind knowing that if I needed to be somewhere for any reason at last minute, I would be able to hop into the car and go as opposed to looking up bus schedules and taking a complicated, extended route in getting to my destination.

Bring Cars to School (opposed):

I don’t think I should bring my car to school this fall because I won’t get much use from it. I can always take the bus to work and because the school provides everybody with a UPass, all public transportation is free and I would save money on gas and insurance. Parking permits on campus are really expensive and even if I do decide to buy one, there’s no guarantee that I’ll have a spot for parking every time I need it. Plus, if I decide to sell my car before this school year ends, I can use the money I get from it to help pay for my trip to Europe this summer.

I’m conflicted.

Paris Goes Gothic: A Speculative Look At Past and Present Artistic Relations

Paris Hilton and Nicole Richie have nothing in common with 1930s midwestern farmers. However, it is not by chance that both are depicted in their own version of Grant Wood’s American Gothic. Wood’s original painting of the Midwesterners made a statement about this time by creating a whole different form of art called regionalism. The photographer of Hilton and Richie’s Simple Life picture was trying to make money off of two heiresses’ attempts at living just like the rest of us. The similarities seem to end at the title of the respective pieces of art. Yet, upon closer examination, we can find similarities in what the images mean to the audiences in each period of time. Both images of American Gothic provide an insight into each culture and era and are worth more than their rationed “thousand-words”.

The original, Wood’s depiction of the pair outside their midwestern house is one of the first examples of the newfound Regionalism, an art form emerging solely to depict Midwestern life. Regionalism was designed to stand in contrast to Realism, the form of art that had dominated the United States since the beginning of the Industrial Era. The former concept was created to highlight the rural life and, according to Sister Wendy, “left no room for social criticism.” While the lack of controversy seemed predictable in theory, Wood’s American Gothic stirred up a bit of criticism from those who felt the image was demeaning and praise from those who saw the image as a tribute to American values.

The former saw American Gothic as a demeaning depiction of a life outside the city. The melancholy expressions on the faces of the subjects were taken as a satiric insult on the part of Wood to criticize rural life and its simplicity. While he insisted that this was not his reasoning for the expressions, many people continued to speculate that Wood resented the area he lived in and used artistic expression to let go of some of that resentment. Using some of the same examples critics pointed out in aversion, those who praised the image thought American Gothic was an honest and noble portraying of the values America stood for during the Great Depression. The somber expressions come with a sense of stark Puritanism and the plain, almost bland colors emphasize the belief that just the necessities are needed to maintain a good life, without need for frivolity. The stoutness of their stances and the pitchfork in the man’s hand pay tribute to hard work and strong moral convictions.

Panning over to the modern-day American Gothic, it seems like a larger-than-life, Technicolor version of a washed-out, old painting. Paris Hilton and Nicole Richie stand side by side in scanty clothing with matching dour expressions on their blemish-free, touched then retouched faces. At first glance, this photograph is a satire, a parody about an old era’s morality and lifestyle. However, in its attempt at such, the photograph and the subjects of it are unconsciously redefining the historical painting, replacing their contemporary with ours. The PhotoShop-ing, landscaping, and even subjects of this photograph are particularly definitive of our modernization and today’s culture.

Paris Hilton and Nicole Richie: both rich, both famous, and both an accurate representation of the modern America. These two women have exemplified all the stigmas that go with America today. The very idea of having a TV show called The Simple Life, where rich heiresses rough it out with the rest of America, highlights America’s self-imposed superiority and reeks of condescendence.

Upon examination, symbols of the moral change in our culture begin to appear. Virtue is replaced with vice as the strap of Richie’s overalls hangs nonchalantly down her back, leaving her bra exposed for millions to see. The camera-created sfumato shows a hazy, but sizable farmhouse in the background, in contrast with Wood’s modest rambler in the original image. The pitchfork is still there, but no longer stands for hard work and strong ethics, but a weak effort to convince the audience that the dynamic duo really attempt the hard work that The Simple Life claims. However, it is awkwardly placed in front of Hilton and away from Richie, who is holding it. Unlike Wood’s subject, who clutches the prized farm item close to his body, Richie is holding it away from her body, as if she’s not really sure what she’s supposed to do with it. So, while we’d like to believe that the heiresses developed some sense of moral conviction and a semblance of work ethics, the lack of genuineness in the entire photo simply makes them look haughty and out of place.

These sets of images, while different in style and symbolism, share a commonality about their presentation of the era from which each resides. The first artist does this intentionally, making a deliberate effort in his depictions to show the world as he sees it. The second image, meant to be a way to poke fun at an old classic, unknowingly gives the audience an insight to what their era is really all about, a harsh truth that couldn’t be admitted deliberately. Yet, because it is done on an subconscious level it is honest and the juxtaposition of these images give us insight to how far forward (or backward) America has moved.

Bibliography:
Beckett, Wendy. “American Gothic.” Sister Wendy’s American Collection. Apr. 2008. PBS. 15 Apr. 2008 <http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/sisterwendy/works/ame.html>.

Gray, Melissa. “American Gothic.” National Public Radio. 18 Nov. 2002. NPR. 15 Apr. 2008 <http://www.npr.org/programs/morning/features/patc/americangothic/>.

Sandall, Roger. “American Gothic.” Ideas and Argument. Mar. 2006. 15 Apr. 2008 <http://www.rogersandall.com/Spiked_American-Gothic.php>.

Unknown. The Simple Life. 2005. FOX. Ideas and Arguments. 15 Apr. 2008 < http://www.rogersandall.com/Spiked_American-Gothic.php >.

Wood, Grant. American Gothic. 1930. Art Institute of Chicago, Eldon. Sister Wendy’s American Art. PBS. 15 Apr. 2008 <http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/sisterwendy/works/ame.html>.

“Ahhh,” yawned Sally Mae, stretching her svelte limbs towards her teeny bopper poster-ed ceiling. She rolls over and snuggles once more under down comforter, nuzzling her pillow as the protests of her alarms fade out of her mind and she slips once more into dreamland. Ninety minutes later Sally’s bleary eyes, shaded by heavy lids, peer towards her clock. 8:30. Shit. She jolts out of bed and frantically scans her room for a pair of sweatpants to throw on and dashes to the bathroom to get ready. Mid-brush, Sally realizes that she has Social Psychology first period, and all she had planned to do in class was watch a biased documentary attempt to be controversial and then listen to the mundane responses of the classmates who still have a shred of motivation left. Shrugging, she puts down her toothbrush and hops back into bed, spending the remainder of senior way the way it ought to be spent.

I find the picture of the man about to be stabbed by the American flag to be powerful and subconsciously explanatory. I feel like the symbolism of this picture displays all that is wrong with America: the white man possessing power and using that power to hurt the lives of those who aren’t in agreement with him or the same as him. The fact that the photo is candid and not staged in any way makes the statement that more powerful. It shows that the photographer isn’t trying to send a biased messaged, but it recording the reality of American society in a timeless image. It’s kind of horrifying to think this took place, especially so soon after the Civil Rights Movement and in a city like Boston, but it shows that regardless of how much progress we think we’ve made, there is still much to be done in order to improve the interaction between American citizens as well as each person’s mindset.

I thought the little game we played in guessing what the situation was in each portrait was fun and tricky. I liked how there was a lot of hindsight bias that everyone had after hearing what the portraits were and the situations under which they were taken. My favorite one was the picture of the family with the two daughters and the mother and one of the daughters is kind of caught in between the mother and the father. It really reminded me of my own family and the tug of being a proper lady but still wanting to hold onto the tomboy spirit and being Daddy’s little girl. It reminded me of the book Caddie Woodlawn and how her mother wanted her to act like a lady, but she was her father’s daughter through and through and refused to get caught up into the feminine process of cooking and cleaning and instead enjoyed riding horses bareback and fishing. It’s interesting how portraits can say a lot about the dynamic of a family and how the relationships between people affect the nature of the photograph.

I accidentally cheated and looked at the caption under the photo. Luckily for me, I was already a master at photographic rhetorical analysis and the caption beneath the picture only served to confirm what my acute perception had already picked up. It is clear by the girl’s environment that she is in some kind of area, probably her home, that has been destroyed. Her emotions are conveyed by her body language and it’s clear that she is distressed, as demonstrated by the hands covering her face. The gray path of destruction behind her is only made more so when contrasted with the brightly colored balloons trailing from behind her. Why the girl would be holding brightly colored balloons in a destroyed place is beyond me, but in a metaphorical sense, I’m sure we could get it to mean that it symbolizes the times when things were better and she could stroll through her town without seeing ruin and rubble from every angle. From the expression, it is clear that the girl is still mourning and does have a sense of hope yet that her town will be rebuilt. Rightly so as, according to the caption, the destroyed city center that poses as the backdrop for the picture has not been rebuilt since its destruction in 2002.

I compared the reviews of the Chicago Reader (http://www.chicagoreader.com/movies/archives/2004/0104/040123.html) and the Detroit Free Press (http://ae.freep.com/entertainment/ui/michigan/movie.html?id=118520&reviewId=14184). The latter felt as if the documentary did little to unveil some of the mystique that surrounds Robert McNamara and still leaves the audience wondering what was going on in his head at the time. On the other hand, the reviewer for the Chicago Reader was adamant that the documentary should be required viewing for those in the same position as McNamara, if not the whole country. He discussed the ability of holding the audience’s interest, backing it up by saying “it held my attention both times I saw it, four months apart. Morris has learned a lot over the years about how to tell a story while gradually unveiling a personality.” Despite his admiration for the film, he felt as if the content itself was a bit hurried and overwhelming to process. When he said, “In some ways the film’s Web site (www.fogofwarmovie.com) is more useful than the film — maybe because there’s less to meditate on and more to think about,” he was addressing the rapid-fire montages of facts and statistics and could hardly be used as evidence because they were coming at the viewer so fast. The reviewer for the Detroit Free Press addressed this problem as well as elaborated on the believability of the documentary by adding, “Nor will those who are convinced McNamara will never be able to wash his hands clean of the blood from Vietnam be likely to have their minds changed by his argument that he was one of the good guys.”  This claim is backed up by a myriad of characteristics of the movie that were less than stellar, the first of which being the demeanor and attitude of McNamara himself. Despite his age, his eloquence and sharpness almost discredits him in the film, a concept that the reviewer capitalizes on by noting “Yet he is still so lucid and articulate you find it almost impossible to imagine, as he contends, that his foreign policy advice was regularly overruled by his superiors, especially President Lyndon Johnson.” 

I agree with a lot of what the Detroit Free Press reviewer had to say about the documentary. He brought up quite a few reasons as to why the documentary was weak that I agreed with once reading, but had never occurred to me while watching. In fact, he did a better job convincing me of his point in his little article than McNamara managed to in over an hour and a half of carefully edited cinematography.

Shelley’s defense of poetry seemed like one of those pieces of writing that you couldn’t be affected by emotionally unless you were the subject in which he was writing about. There were so many claims that seemed like they could only be validated if you actually experience and the people who agreed with it would have been the types in the audience of Keynote speaker who nod their head knowingly, with a slight smirk on their faces at the naivety of everybody else in the room. While I respect poets and their writing as much as the next person, I didn’t feel the need to defend it as passionately as Shelley did. It seems that by trying to pedestal poets as much as he did, he succeeded in having the audience address faults about poets that had probably not even occurred to them until he addressed them in a rebuttal.

Is All You Need Really Love?

If the adages are correct, love is a many splendored thing, it lifts us up where we belong, and it’s really all we need. Pardon me, proverb-makers, but I think it’s safe to say that if love were the only thing in the world I had, I wouldn’t last very long. Regardless, the attempted reification of love is a pursuit that began thousands of years ago, as documented by the ancient Egyptians. We can conclude that love is a feeling that has been around since human existence, even going so far to say that our ability to love is ingrained in our bodies. Love doesn’t always seem like the most attractive goal, in fact it often seems like something we wish to avoid. The concept that love is blind makes those who claim to love or be in love seem naïve and unaware of reality. What’s amazing is that despite all the pain and suffering that seems to coincide with love, people still vie for it like a newly released Wii game. So how can we describe a feeling that causes people to go to hell and back just to achieve it and still aren’t satisfied once they have it?

Movies, songs, poems, and plays are dedicated to acting out love, trying to define it, or pin it down to one concrete definition. When asked, my friend said that loving someone was “being willing to do anything for that person even if it means losing them, just because their happiness and well being is more important to you than, not only your own, but having them for yourself in the first place.” This seems like a reasonable explanation, except it really doesn’t sound like much fun. In fact, Kate Winslet’s character in the movie ‘The Holiday’ shows us just how miserable love can be. Her idea of love is that has the sheer power to shape and define lives. Indeed, the most famous cases of love have ended in heartbreak, death, or a combination.

Take, for instance, the greatest love story of all time: Romeo and Juliet by William Shakespeare. This famous is couple made amorous history as star-crossed lovers who betray their feuding families to be together. Unfortunately their affection for one another eventually leads to their demise and their happily ever after doesn’t end up so happy as Romeo dies in Juliet’s arms and she quickly follows suit. Does the popularity of this piece of literature say that we as a culture find tragic love tales heartening? Are we so dramatic that we must go to extremes to prove love to one another?

Our desire for glamorous, ostentatious expressions of love do not stop with our preference in literature. Simply claiming to love one another is not enough to satiate our desires; we now must go to outrageous measures to declare our affections. Huge diamond rings, rose petal-ed walkways, and billboard messages in the sky are no longer unheard of but envisioned by teeny bopper girls country-wide. Love no longer seems to be a deep, lifelong commitment, but a fad of sorts; the kind that comes with bouquets of roses, expensive dinners, and sweet nothings.

But what of the love that is spoken of by those we come to admire for their wisdom and knowledge? The Bible, arguably the most widely acclaimed book in our country, devotes several passages in its text to show love as a deep, spiritual sense of being. Corinthians 13 says, “Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud…It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails.” Surely there has to be some truth in the Bible, as well as the matrimonial vows people take during a wedding ceremony where the bride and groom solemnly swear that they will have each other “to have and to hold from this day forward, for better or for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish; from this day forward until death do us part.” There is hope in knowing that love has not completely succumbed to petty lavishes and shallow materialisms, but the list only continues to grow with possibilities of what love actually means.

Duke Ellington, one of the founding fathers of modern jazz speaks about an irony in defining love. He says, “love is indescribable and unconditional. I could tell you a thousand things that it is not, but not one that it is.” This idea of love being indescribable is not a novel one, yet it hasn’t seemed to deter scholars and students from trying to pinpoint an indisputable, factual definition for it; to try to put a box around it. Since the dawn of time, men and women have had all sorts of things to say about everything, yet love still hasn’t been confined to one definition. This makes me think: isn’t this what makes love so special? The idea that we can’t even wrap our minds about what it means and how it feels, but the way it just is gives a hint as to the vastness of love’s possibilities. An unknown source wisely said, “Never try to define love. Once defined love is confined. Once confined — It dies.” I have to say that I agree.

What Is Love?