You can't swim if you've never been in the water.

Would it be sad to say that I have never written for the sake of writing in any of my previous English class? Language is such a beautiful thing, however, I can not seem to find an interest in the subject. Maybe it was ruined for me and an early age by the people who created all the rules and restrictions, like why can I not say, "That hurted!" it feels right, right?

What I am trying to say here is that no one has ever showed me how words came to be, but instead, just gave me a book and told me this is what it is. My high school English teacher bragged about her expensive education at Duke and mention how she feels like the younger generation is losing the proper way to write and talk. I sat there thinking that she over paid then if that was what they taught her at Duke. In one of my art history class, they talked about how fashion style used to trickle down from the elite to the lower couple of hundred of years ago but now it is kind of opposite in some cases because we see underground street fashion influencing higher end fashion design. Is language the same way as that also?

Where I am going with this is that I learn a lot in this class. This was why I went to college, to expand my mind in ways a book cannot. I like the fact that there were no "busy work" also,thank you for that. The funny thing was I though this class was going to be very easy because there is no paper work, no in class assignment, nothing to turn in. However, I soon found out that it required a heavy amount of brain juice to lubricate the area of the brain where it had not function in a while. In the latter post, I am aware of an audience,I analyze pass the meaning on to forms,I am more aware of the media, over all coming out of this course I feel like I am more empowered. Instead of skimming the surface, this course encouraged me to dive straight into the deep end where at first things were a bit disoriented but I soon caught on and hopefully, like learning to swim, this will save my life one day (well...not literaly, but I hope you get the point.)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That is the line of no return, I am moving on now to different things. Will I ever post again? I really don not know. My room just got a little more quieter. I can hear my pet bird chomping away at his seeds. It is about 11:30 am, just around the time class would have ended. If I ever find myself brain dead stuck in some cubical one day. Hopefully I will remember this page and visit it again.

Thanks Kara and the UWP 1 -21 class.

Reality

We are bombarded with it in today’s media, the reality show, video games and the medium of which we call the internet is considered by many to be a reality of its own. Daily, we live our life traveling through the medium of time and space, most of which is complicated to describe, but we accept it as the “Real World” of which we exist physically. When we watch reality shows on TV we are suppose to be watching a show that is more “real” then what TV usually gives us, how can I know for sure? I can’t. What I do know about my existence is the fact that I can feel, see, smell, taste, and listen to the things around me. My senses work in unison to paint a picture of the world that I live in and I use my senses to tell the difference between what is “real “ of not. However, I predict that the word “reality” is shifting meaning as technology progresses. Soon, maybe a few generations after my generation, will probably have a totally different sense of the word.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines the word reality as: “The quality of being real or having an actual existence.” Breaking down the word, we come to the word “real” and by definition according to the OED, it means: “Having an objective existence; actually existing as a thing.” The word reality spawned from the Latin word “realitas” which from my understanding means…reality. This shows that people have always been thinking about what categorize something to be real.

Philosopher of the past often wonders about what is real and how can we prove it, for instance Descartes’, “I think, therefore I am” proof states that because he is conscience about being conscience then he exists. But Descartes did not have the Internet or stimulus technology around him that can mimic the reality for that he debates and ponder about. Maybe it is proof that I exist because I am thinking and questioning my existence, but then again sometime I dream that I am at an all you can eat buffet eating everything in sight and I can feel, smell, see the food, so is that real? It is like the matrix when Neo is asked by Morpheus if he wants to take the red pill or the blue pill, one pill will leave him in the matrix and other supposedly will take him to the real world. If there is a machine that can stimulate all of your senses then that can be considered as a reality machine. I can argue that I am real; therefore I exist in this reality, but what makes up reality is the question that I wonder sometimes.

In earlier history, the term reality is debated for the existence of mankind, which is why there was philosopher. Because the technological medium such as the Internet or television did not exist at the time the word was used more in the question of one’s existence to this 3d world we live in. Today, we are dominated by science that plays a huge role in what we think of as reality.

For instance: How to turn a sphere inside out.

Initially all of my logical senses tell me it’s impossible, but not according to science apparently. Analyzing this theory begins to question my beliefs on reality. People used to think that the earth was flat not very long ago, so what makes my beliefs on how things really are true? The connections between “real” and “reality” can be argued as nothing more than is but a mind sate. I am real; therefore I can understand this reality and have accepted it as being true. In my reality, I cannot turn a sphere inside out but someone has come up with an explanation so that I can understand how it would be possible according to my reality. I feel like I am going crazy thinking about this which technically means the lost of reality, but there is a very thin line between crazy and genius, maybe I see something people don’t see, a different reality! This brings the idea of Second Life into debate. To me and my entire group, we concluded that Second Life is nothing more than just a game. However, to a small population, one that is growing, it is not a game. Not a game? What is it then? To have a “life” on a virtual reality world, is that possible? According to some it is and they sometimes spend more time in that reality then they do in their own real life. This is where I think the term “reality” is shifting meaning from something we mostly associate with the actual real world, to now relating it with the internet medium.

One can argue very strongly that the internet is another “real world”, one that does not follow the same physical rules as the one we were born into, but is defiantly an active stimulus reality. Just like how I cannot imagine life without the internet now, maybe one day my kids will not imagine life without Second Life because it is the reality that they know, “The quality of being real or having an actual existence.”

I choose this keyword because it has been on my mind throughout the course. With the discussion we had in class with identity and medium, I thought that reality encompasses both of the terms. Also, I notice a trend of connecting the real with the virtual to create a whole different realm. From the days of philosophers pondering about the existence of man to the present day where science explains how to turn a sphere inside out, reality changes with time. I feel that we are slowly thinking away from our mind, by that I mean that we not long just sit and think deeply, but rather spill our thoughts like I am doing right now, onto this.

Banksy

I was exposed to many different art forms and cultures growing up in the Bay Area. I remember traveling down town San Francisco seeing a guy contact juggling with a crystal ball as a little kid and found myself appreciating movement as an art form. At my high school, guys would freestyle rap battle during my P.E class and that made me appreciate the ability articulate artistically. Over all, growing up, I was exposed to a lot of things that required me to use my sense to interpret it and it leads me to develop my creativity for arts and design, needless to say, I end up also appreciate graffiti and street art. Each time I ride the BART around the bay area, I would notice the graffiti art work along the way on walls, trucks, fences and billboards. At first, I only see scribbles and cool stylized drawings, but the more I look into it, I find that each graffiti artist has their unique style and way they create their work. It was not until a few years ago that I saw a picture that caught my attention.

My initial reaction was that it was very clever, and I wish I had thought of that. The satire of the picture both had a dark and a humorous side, which I appreciate very much because it is hard to get those feelings out of me using such a simple picture. I later found out the name of the artist, Banksy, a British graffiti artist whom identity remains unknown yet work is recognized throughout the world. What made his work so different from any other street artist? After all, all he does is create simple stencils and then add a tweak to the theme of the image. There is not anything really special with the art work itself physically, or is there?

The overall form is very simple black and white of the person but then he seems to be throwing a bouquet of colorful flower. The shape of the figure only has enough detail to make out the body expression and movement; it feels as if Banksy wanted to find the purest way to represent his message. Immediately after seeing the image, my mind started to wonder directly into the meaning because the picture itself was so simple; there was no other detail to pay attention to. I being to recall images of riots and demonstration and defiance come to my mind at first. However, after seeing the figure with the flowers, a different message comes to my mind, one that is still defiance but with a less violent intention. To not place a face on the figure makes it anonymous hence it can be you and I, and by connecting the viewer to the work, it becomes very powerful.

Who is this targeted towards? What is more important, the images or the message of which the image suggest? Without the picture we would not get the message, but if the picture did not have an underlying message, we would not have such an intriguing picture. I find this picture to be more interesting than the Mona Lisa, that is a bold statement, but it is because I feel a connection with this image. However, the connection only trend send through the time period of which I am in existence of. I can connect socially to the image because of events within of world that I currently live in, if it were on hundred years from now, this image might not have such an impact upon those viewers as it does to me currently.

Rather than choosing a gallery setting to display his images, Banksy uses the urban landscape as his gallery. He pushes for the unsocial norm, a parody of society but at the same time sends a powerful message to the people. By placing his artwork in public places, often on political sites, he further empowers his work. By blending the environment into his artwork, it actually takes part within the work, and the fact that no one actually really know who he is, makes it all the more intriguing. Banksy’s work is different than the normal graffiti stenciling we see. Although he is not the first to do stencils, he created a style that is his in a way that Andy Warhol did with screen printing.

Banksy has turned a crime of graffiti into creativity. To me, that is something new and I very much so appreciate all his stunts (which I think are the process of his work) to open up people's eye. A wall may just be a wall, but Banksy makes us think why there is a wall there in the first place. I would very much like to meet him but by not being able to put a name or a face to the work, I can assume it can be anyone, it can be you and I or the old man in the park, and that a very special message that I believe Banksy is sending to the world.

My SL is better than your RL!

Described by the creator as being a “3-D virtual world” where one can build their dream home or live out their fantasy and make some money while they are at it, my initial response to the game is: It is boring, but that was initially. Our group tried to talk to as many people as we can, most of who are unhelpful and some outright weird. However, there are some normal people, I suppose, who are using the medium for connection with a fan-based group or to just play a game.

Second Life reminds me of the Sims, except it takes it a step further and allow you to become your own identity within the game. I found it interesting that they will not allow you to create a last name for avatar. The only reason that I can think of as to why they will not allow last name is because they encourage the idea of recreating one self, or reinventing your life all over because this is Second Life, not first life. From what we observed as a group, there are few limitations within this medium. One can fly, run around naked, dance, do gestures, and with a little bit of money even have sex. Like how the real world is, there are different levels of life on second life, and many different lifestyles. Although we only have been observing these “life” I hope soon we will be able to actually take part in something to actually “live” in this Second Life of ours.

Another thing that interests me about SL is the Logo for the game. They really want to push on the idea of “Identity” and what better way of representing that then with a hand. Cave paintings dating thousands of years back shows hands are symbols of identity. The earliest form of graphical communication was the footprint (I learned from a Art History class). So to take some that is so primitive to be the representative of a medium that is so modern in the sense is interesting because the creators really want people to take it seriously, and most people do. The eye within the hand, I think, represents to power to take charge, the all-seeing-eye. By combining the hand with the eye in a simple graphical design, they have created a logo that represents identity and power. I guess someone who does not have a real identity or power within the real world will find SL very satisfying.

So what is this medium? It’s real to some, but not really. Can a computer screen really mimic the stimulation of daily life even better then life it self? I have yet to see anything on the Internet that has lasted very long because it is such as fast moving, ever shifting medium. So in my opinion, people will be bored with second life sooner or later and move on to the next thing, kind of like how I moved on from MySpace.

The Raftman's Razor

The discussion we had in class about the airline cartoons reminded me of a short film I saw a while back called, “The Raftman’s Razor”. (Please watch it below before reading on)

So many things were unique and intriguing within the six and a half minutes of film, every frame, the narration, the cartoon and style, something about this film that attracted me so much. I consider myself pretty harsh critic when it comes to films because I have seen so many to the point where I can predict the plot and ending of most movies that I watch. But in this case, the Raftmen has got a hold me like he did with the two characters in the film.

My initial reaction after watching this short film was one of confusion and wonder. For some odd reason I enjoyed the so seemingly pointless and boring film. However, as short as it is, it sparked many thoughts upon me then many critically acclaimed movies. The one question I had in mind was:

“What did the creator intended for us (the audience) to get from this?”

I sat in silence with the feeling of numbness in my body in concentration trying to think of the meaning of this movie. It was never questioned how the Raftman got in the situation he was in or even if he had any significance in the comic. This film had a different feeling to it, one that isn’t as satisfying or flashy as The Dark Knight, where the hero wins and the villain loses. Here instead, it takes us through another medium of storytelling, one that is philosophical yet dark, but has a beautiful song along with it.

Being the audience, I find myself intrigue with the two boys who are so into the Raftman’s comic. The film depicts them doing odd and comical things like most young kids do, but here, they are obsessed with this depressing comic that doesn’t make sense to the people around them, yet to them, it has an enigmatic tone which made them hooked. The comic itself is very plain but every detail in it is unique. I feel this film allows the audience to use their imagination to fill in the what-ifs. I believe that the director made this film so short because he knew that the audience would have to come back and watch it numerous of time, which was what I had done.

I couldn’t help it but to wonder and ask questions. First, why is this man in this raft in the middle of the ocean with a razor? Why would he shave at all in the moment like this? Why is he an Asian man? (Or so to seem to be) What is the whole message here?

The quotes used within the thoughts were all very interesting as well:

“Chaos is the soil in which truth grows.”

“God only smiles only on the inanimate.”

“Life is a series of meaningless poses.”

Such depressing quotes yet in a way it’s so true.

I finally came to a realization that maybe the film was meant for me, the audience, and that the director wanted to give us a whole new version of a super hero; yes, I will argue that the Raftman is a hero.

From what the visuals depicted, I can see that he is some sort of business man, or was dressed for the occasion because of his suit. I don’t know if airlines have rafts so I’m assuming he was on a boat that sank. Now why would he shave every time he wakes up? I believe that the shaving purpose is to show that he is not crazy; I know it sounds crazy, but maybe shaving is the only thing that is keeping him from giving up hope and killing himself. I find the Raftman to be more of a hero then more super hero because he is just a simple but in a situation with no excuses. What is mean by that is that if it was Superman or Batman, they would either fly away, or have some sort of gizmo to bring them back to civilization. However, here is a simple man in a suit in the middle of the ocean with a razor yet he still is able to keep his humanity under this circumstance, and I find very heroic.

So back to the question of what did the director intended for us to get out of this film? Is it about obsession? Is it supposed to be a self reflection? I guess I don’t have a solid answer even though I have re-watch the film over about 10 times now. Maybe the whole purpose was to make the viewer re watch it over and over, like how the comic is the same every time.

This is the documentary I talked about in class today:
The parts relating to games like Second Life is somewhere towards the end.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8qYhH2H_TM&feature=related

What is more mighty than God, the rich man need that the poor man have?

I must admit that I am caught up in the Olympic with all of these world records being broken and the medal race between countries, I can not help it but to feel a little national pride every time Michael Phelps destroys the world's fastest swimmers, and the men 4x200 relay was crazy! I tried to find a video of the relay online but cannot because of strict copyright by the Olympic committee they are not allowing any site to record or show any events. I am quite angry by this, are they serious? What harm can come of showing Olympic videos online?

What is different for me when watching this Olympic as to ones in the past, is the political tension between it. I can see it in the media, hear it news casting and commentators, and just feel it from all that I am surround with. I've heard things as far as comparing this Olympic with the 1936 Olympic hosted by the Nazis, to how the Chinese government is mistreating their people just to put on a good front for the world, and even death camp for cats. I also watched a documentary relating on the freedom of international free press and how there are still some shady business going on due to the fact that the Chinese government promise to allow total freedom of press in times of the games however as in the documentary shows, their actions are different then what they stated.

What I concluded from this is pretty much; nothing. To be honest, I am not surprise or shock of these reports because in the back of my mind I already know instinctively. We all know that China does not have the best of records when it comes to political and humanitarian issues but it seems like it is the popular thing to talk about these days. China at the moment has the most gold medals, every time a Chinese athlete wins gold the U.S commentator seems to follow up on a story that reminds the viewer of how the Chinese are bad and we should not trust them, and I'm getting tired of it. I am not saying that we should just forget all the suffering that is going on in this world, but to bring issues into the Olympic is not right in my opinion. To me, the Olympic is the one symbol that the world has left that is pure in it's intentions; to come together and compete. But now I feel as if the games are tainted by controversies and political propagandas.

To conclude back to my title question: What is more mighty than God, rich man need that the poor man have? The answer is : nothing. Analyzing that quote, i find that my definition of the riddle to be that nothing can be everything, and everything is nothing because there is no such thing as nothingness and same goes for everything. So how does that relate to my post? I guess the one thing I want to say is that I wish the world would focus on what matters more, not whats in, or trendy. We are trying to achieve everything and it seems like in the end we get nothing done. Maybe if we focus on the good side of the Olympic and not sneak in propaganda we might achieve something, whatever it is that we are striving for.