User:Lolly

From UMassWiki

Contents 1 Contexts that make me me 2 On the Right Track? 3 Revisited, remodeled, redone: Laura 2k7 4 Art Snob or Insightful? 5 Taming the Beast 6 Bibliography 7 In the End...All you can do is Reflect

Feedback

[edit] Contexts that make me me

I am choosing to write about the "contexts that make me" because I believe that you cannot truly understand someone without knowing their history. To know me is to learn about my ethnic, cultural and social background. By describing my past an an essay, it will help readers get a more in-depth description and comprehension of my character.

[edit] On the Right Track?

Reflecting on my writing in this class so far is somewhat difficult at this point in time, due to the lack of material I have to assess. Looking back at the two biography essays, I see both areas I am satisfied with and areas I could improve upon. Because there was a limited amount of material about which to report, it was a struggle to form a cohesive essay on the contexts that define a person. I tried to avoid listing facts in the essays, and focused on expanding upon a theme. The first theme I used was about noting how first impressions can be misleading in getting to know a person. In the second, more extensive essay, I tried to add how a person's background and upbringing helps construct their character. In terms of audience, I geared my writing toward a general audience rather than to my subject or an authority. As an author, I made my opinion well known with a clear point of view in the essays. In hindsight, I could have collected more information about my subject (Evita Florendo) to better emphasize how her personality has been shaped by her experiences. With more facts, my essay could have developed much further. Overall, I am confident about the work I have produced so far, and anticipate developing and learning more about myself as a writer.

[edit] Revisited, remodeled, redone: Laura 2k7

Laura Greenslit is far from a wild child, although some of her past begs to differ. Her quiet demeanor can be seen as somewhat of a front in a sense, but not in a bad way. No, Laura does not pretend to be someone else who she is not; she instead keeps what is the most important close to her heart, instead of just being another part of the crowd and wearing it on her sleeve. The values and experiences that she carries with her today tie back into the past to give her a greater sense of who she is now. The world through her eyes is one of complexity and splendor, one of wild-child ways while still keeping a down-to-earth mindset, and one of undying love for the places, people, and things that have made her who she is today.

Laura’s love of history has brought her to major in the subject here at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. The framing of the country in which we live today, the events that have shaped its grandeur and disgrace, and the people who have made the centuries of progress and setbacks have earned a lace of high regard in Laura’s heart. She can only hope that someday her life will be as full of grace, progression, and productivity as those who have lived before her. Laura’s life began in the town that should be a city, as she calls it, of Framingham, Massachusetts. Laura’s heart runs deep for diversity and all things different, which she says is her favorite part of her hometown. Her family consists of one brother who is a pro-soccer player and coach for the team at Northeastern University, a mother who is an at-home nurse for Laura’s grandparents, and a father who is an office manager. She greatly enjoyed her high school experience mainly because of the sports that she played. She was a member of the soccer team, and ran indoor and outdoor track as well. She had a great time especially with her relay team in track, which eventually went to the National competition. She was also involved with art- drawing and painting were her main activities in that field.

Laura says that when she was a child her dream was to be a professional dancer and artist because of her love for art and the fact that she danced ballet for ten years. Growing up in the summer, she would hang out with her friends, when they would play games such as kick the can, and also go swimming and ride their bikes. As she got older, she worked as a camp counselor at the YMCA in her town. Here at UMass-Amherst, Laura lives on Hobart Lane, in off-campus housing. The aspect of UMass Amherst that she enjoys the most is the freedom that she has here, and the thing that she enjoys least is the fact that she feels that it is too crowded, and hard to get places. For fun Laura enjoys going to concerts- she mainly likes classic rock, indie, and funk music. She says that the best concert that she ever attended was her friend’s band, Forest Henderson, when they played at the Middle East club in Cambridge, Massachusetts. She enjoys their band so much because their music is unique and universally appealing, and also that the guys are great people. Another great concert experience she had was going to see the band Benedict Arnold, because she says their music is a good blend of rap, jazz, soul, and funk. Her favorite movies are Good Will Hunting, which she enjoys because it is insightful and eye-opening, Indochine, and Requiem for a Dream. Her favorite book is Zen in the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. --Adc92388 15:57, 20 November 2007 (EST)

[edit] Art Snob or Insightful?

Jeanette Winterson presents an analytic and critical eye in her essay, “Art Objects”. She explores a variety of opinions which all pertain to society’s perception of art. Her most obvious point highlights that the harried tempo of our society has conditioned us to carelessly browse over a myriad of works. We only fawn over priceless or famous art, meanwhile desisting from incomprehensible or aesthetically displeasing compositions. Winterson invites us to take a closer look. She points out how impatience distracts us from truly investigating art, while also defending the works that are quickly dismissed as “bad art”. The difference between good art and bad art is commonly approximated in terms of worth, degree controversy or popularity. She states that “The viewer does not see the colors on the canvas, he sees the color of money” (Winterson 331). Winterson urges the audience to search past media fixation and the gossip surrounding the artist to understand the true nature of a painting- its beauty, originality, and frequently overlooked detail. Another issue that Winterson confronts is the dismissal of contemporary works as a decadent wake of the antique classics. Artists such as Van Gogh or Constable had been famously rejected and shelved for their unconventional techniques during their lifetime, and then celebrated posthumously for their creative and original approaches. “We forget that every true shock in art, whether books, paintings, or music eventually becomes a commonplace, even a standard, to latter generations” (Winterson 337). Winterson exposes the hypocrisy of it all, while advocating that art must be celebrated for the piece itself, not the surrounding hype or criticism. It is understandably difficult to separate the media and society’s dense connotations toward a work of art and to create one’s own opinion, and Winterson believes that anyone could value and understand art without prejudice. The key to loving art is immersion, that “the only way to develop a palate is to develop a palate” (Winterson 336). The more one studies art, the sharper his or her critical eye will develop. Above all, Wilson hopes that in the future art will never be dismissed as elitist or irrelevant; that everyone has the potential to appreciate art just as much as she.

While Winterson’s assessment of art was very carefully compiled and strongly defended, the essay had quite an objective tone. She has such a concrete opinion about art that she has appeared to have convinced herself that she completely defined and understood art in its entirety. Her voice resembles an omniscient art Brahmin. When exploring art, I believe it is an inexpressible experience that is purely personal. Everyone must come away with something different from a painting, be it an emotion, a memory, an inspiration or a mere reflection. I do agree with Winterson that many people dismiss art without truly delving into the depths of the composition, simply remarking “I don’t like it”. But it is also difficult to force people into seeing or feeling something they can’t see or feel. Much like sensing the presence of God, some will never feel the presence of art. And while Winterson clearly has much conviction behind her voice when trying to expose the beauty and possibility in the art world, it isn’t always that simple as to dictate the steps and stipulations necessary to appreciate art. Art is subjective, so there is always the possibility that there is no right or wrong way to enjoy a work of art.

[edit] Taming the Beast

Ever since the first human took a tool to the walls of a cave and captured his first painting, individuals have been expressing themselves in artistic forms. Be it performance, painting, writing or music, art exposes the depths of the soul and reveals the beliefs, moods, styles and trends of a culture. But for almost as long as humans have been creating art, others have stifled, or censored it. Music has been one of the most censored forms, continuously strangled by authorities fearful of the possible social and psychological damage that a piece of music had the potential to create. Even Mozart, who’s classical symphony “Marriage of Figaro” portrays the playful deceit of a student toward his master, was frequently censored in the eighteenth century (Economist 91). Two hundred years later, the censorship debate still ensues. There are many questions to ask pertaining to the encroachment on the first amendment, freedom of speech. What good will censorship do for society? What will it do for the art form? Does music really influence and/or corrupt our minds? Of course there is the question of morality, which appeals to both sides of the debate. While some believe that controlling an artist’s freedom to create is immoral, others believe that the content of music will foster immoral behavior and perpetuate the corruption of young people. Overall, the censorship of music hinders creativity, limits freedom of speech and stifles the communication of information. The silencing of US citizens would ultimately lead to further infringement of basic rights and increasing bureaucratic control over our everyday lives.

The protest against mainstream censorship first appeared in the 1960’s, on television programs such as the Ed Sullivan Show. The networks frequently stressed to featured music artists to tone down their acts or change song lyrics altogether. “In 1963, Bob Dylan was instructed to substitute for ‘Talkin’ John Birch Society Blues’; he refused and walked out…the Doors were asked to amend the lyrics of ‘Light My Fire’; they ignored the request and performed the song unchanged.”( Inglis 175) While kids were delighted to watch their favorite artists on TV, adults and authorities tried their best to contain any song which had the slightest allusion toward promiscuity or recreational drug use. Effort to tone down suggestive lyrics was chiefly motivated out of fear. Fear that teenagers that listened to the Doors and Bob Dylan would engage in sex and drug use, fear that innocent citizens would no longer conform to moral society, fear that society itself would become victim to guys with guitars singing whatever they wanted.

Cut to 1991, when gangster rap was just emerging as an aggressive, in-your-face genre. NWA, also known as Niggaz With Attitude, were a young group out of Compton, CA. They rapidly gained popularity on the music scene, but the exposure soon proved to be too much for censorship groups to handle. Much of their rap contained violence against police officers, prostitutes and women. Song titles such as “One Less Bitch,” and “Fuck the Police,” seemingly pushed the authorities too far. “The British Obscene Publications Squad impounded 23,000 copies of the album Efil4Zaggin by the US rap group NWA. The group's record company, Island, was charged with distributing an obscene publication.” (Street 287) Thirty years had passed since the Ed Sullivan Show censorships, still the same fears of corruption and violence burrowed in the minds of moral America.

The music debate truly came to a head in the 1980s when the Parents Music Resource Center, or PMRC, decided to crack down on music they deemed to be inappropriate. They demanded that the record industry “[create] a more detailed ratings system, lyrics to be printed on record sleeves, the contracts of those who engaged in violent or explicit behavior to be reassessed, [and] broadcasters to be pressured not to air controversial songs.” (Denselow 266) Artists such as John Denver, Frank Zappa and Dee Snider of Twisted Sister acted as opposing witnesses in the hearing, claiming that misinterpretation is one of the lead causes of censorship. Frank Zappa even stated that by encroaching on musicians’ civil liberties was “the equivalent of treating dandruff by decapitation.”(Zappa 1) The concluding decision resolved to add what is now known as the “Tipper Sticker,” named after the founding member of the PMRC, Tipper Gore. Stickers would label records “Parental Advisory: Explicit Content,” that were deemed inappropriate at the discretion of the Recording Industry Association of America. While the PMRC did not achieve most of their censorship objectives, ironically Frank Zappa’s album Jazz from Hell was tagged with a Tipper sticker even though it was completely an instrumental album.

Considering how much time and effort TV networks, government hearings and censorship groups have spent trying to control the content of music; one must consider the form itself. How can an art which is so abstract and harmless, merely instruments and words, be deemed such a threat to society? Though many fear that just stating an act of violence can induce someone to commit the same crime, is it true that humans can be persuaded that easily? Artists do tend to paint very vivid worlds with their songs which can entice listeners easily. An atmosphere of a party can be created by a fast beat, or a psychedelic setting can be generated by slow guitar riffs and sound distortion. But by repressing artistic expression based on the illusion of a setting infers that listeners are being hypnotized into participating in illicit activities. The Networks, hearings and censorship groups are perpetuating the stigma that Americans cannot think enough for themselves to decipher between their real lives and the fantasy that music constructs. In Youth, Leisure and the Politics of Rock n’ Roll, S. Frith believes authorities fear “that because music can arouse strong emotions, it also has the power to shape collective values and behaviors,” therefore they feel the need to interfere on behalf of protecting the moral fiber of this country (Frith 1). If censorship is enabled, further leeway for government infringement upon civil liberties can ensue. Soon, book, painting and theater bans will turn America into one bland, vanilla country where there are no varying ideas. The beauty of freedom is that it allows for new thoughts, new information to distribute far and wide.

It is important to first understand why ongoing collective efforts by authorities and activist groups have been so opposed to the creation of explicit music genres. How has music pissed them off so extensively that they actively pursue its destruction? John Lynxwiler and David Gay of the University of Central Florida claim that “heavy metal and rap music represent a type of audio pornography that endorses sexist, violent and anti-religious behaviors.”( Lynxwiler , Gay 63) However, authorities can only assert so far into the morals of Americans citizens, they must have concrete evidence of corruption in order to prop their argument up. This is where Marilyn Manson and Columbine debate comes into the picture.

1999 witnessed one of the most horrific high school tragedies at Littleton, Colorado in which two students, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, massacred their high school and shot to death twelve students and a teacher, eventually taking their own lives. In the wake of the heartbreak, “conservative scapegoating” of shock rocker Marilyn Manson ensued. The media alleged that had Manson inspired the two students to kill with his explicit music. One reporter claimed that “The vacuum left in the lives of Littleton’s teenage mass murderers…was filled by immoral entertainment conglomerates willing to sell them the likes of Marilyn Manson, satanic rock gum and suicide peddler.”(Bronfman 1) In Rolling Stone magazine, Manson pointed the finger right back at the media, retorting that there is no black and white reason for anyone’s actions, and that ignorant reporters lumped the killers, who were dressed in black when they massacred the school, with Manson, who is a predominately gothic idol. He explained “Speculation snowballed…[and] the media picked something they thought was similar.” Manson also attacked the media’s crucifixion of the entertainment industry, asking “So is entertainment to blame? I’d like media commentators to ask themselves, because their coverage of [Columbine] was some of the most gruesome entertainment any of us have seen.”(Manson 24) Though it has never been proven that the students were even fans of Manson’s music, many questions were raised as a result of the musical witch hunt, including “Why haven’t Marilyn Manson’s thousands or millions of other fans shot up the local high school?”(Burns 6) The scapegoating of Manson proved that because no one could put their finger on the motives of Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, some were willing to blame a medium and a social figure that they couldn’t understand. Witch hunting is based on fear and ignorance, which has largely contributed to the ongoing struggle for music censorship.

Thinking back on musical influences, it is hard to imagine one of your favorite bands of all time not existing. Music can be an educational experience, revealing different cultures and exposing a myriad of perspectives. In addition, songs have the power to ameliorate the moods of many listeners, acting as a form of therapy. If music vanished, part of life’s educational experience would disappear. That unique feeling it produced and the sense of satisfaction after listening to the distinctive melody, beat, harmonies and lyrics would no longer contribute to the soul.

The most prevalent complaint among authorities is the vulgarity in song lyrics that can appear on TV or blare over the radio into the ears of children at any given moment. Truthfully, many genres of music such as hip hop and rock are filled with expletives and strong sexual and drug allusions. Clearly a seven year old ,who is just learning to expand his vocabulary, shouldn’t be listening to a song titled “Smack my Bitch Up,” by Prodigy. Nor should the same child be watching MTV, where scantily clad women and men scamper across the screen and clog the airwaves, while boozing is considered a common visual. Therefore, it is the parents’ job to monitor their kid’s exposure to potentially damaging material. What mother lets any kid under twelve watch MTV anyway?

In conclusion, the ancient art form of music has been threatened for centuries with justifications of corruption, filth and damage to society. While TV networks, the PMRC and even the US government have all tried to stifle public exposure to artists deemed inappropriate, the music industry shows no sign of expunging explicit music such as heavy metal or rap, these genres are crammed into the top of Billboard Hot 100. The United States prides itself on being a free state, where every man has the right to speak how he feels. The music industry is based around appealing to emotional stimulation, proving the censorship battle as absurd. Are we really going to suppress one of the founding ideals of which this nation was built? It merely takes parental control to separate material from the one demographic that could truly be affected by vulgarity: children. Overall, people are responsible for themselves, and if they blame seemingly distant, figures like musicians for their own mistakes, then we will all live in a society of hypocrisy and irresponsibility.

[edit] Bibliography

All my sources are in Works Cited.

Bronfman Jr., Edgar. “Forget God, Get Littleton.” Human Events. 55(1999): 1-2.

Burns, Gary. “Marilyn Manson and the Apt Pupils of Littleton.” Popular Music & Society 23(1999): 3-6.

Denselow, Robin. When the Music’s Over. London: Faber, 266.

Frith, S. Youth, Leisure and the Politics of Rock N’ Roll. New York: Pantheon, 1981.

Inglis, Ian. “Responses to Censorship in the USA: acquiescence, withdrawal and resistance.” Shoot the Singer: Music Censorship Today. Ed. Marie Korpe. London: Zed Books, 175.

Lynxwiler, John and Gay, David. “Moral Boundaries and Deviant Music: Public Attitudes toward Heavy Metal and Rap.” Deviant Behavior. 21(2000):63-85.

Manson, M. “Columbine: Whose Fault is it?” Rolling Stone. 24 Jun. 1999: 23-24. Street, John. “Musicologists, Sociologists and Madonna.” Innovation in Social Sciences Research. 1993: 287-89.

Zappa, Frank. Testimony before the US Senate. 19, Sept 1985. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_zappa>

“Hold that Tune.” Economist 28 Nov 1998: 91.

[edit] In the End...All you can do is Reflect

For the majority of my duration as a writer, my teachers have assigned basic, one-page essays arguing for a simple thesis. The teachers described the one-page format as the “home base” of writing, the foundation of composition, the ABC’s of journalism. After a few years of the unvarying, unremitting essays which I could write in my sleep, I felt as though writing had no expansion, that I would never be allowed to infuse some of my own creativity into the lackluster format. The essays had been hammered into my head, and I felt like a machine, as if my brain had no input in the writing process.

In college and as a history major, my new enemy evolved into the dreaded research paper. The one-page essay soon skyrocketed into a quantity of ten to twenty pages. Citations, checking the validity of statements and supporting with evidence became the new horrors of my writing experience. And they were all based on historical facts, nothing of my own opinion. Who really cares how many mistresses Henry V had, anyway? (In case you’re wondering, he had two).

My senior year brought me to this writing class, English112. After writing ridiculously extensive research papers for the last three years, I figured I would climb back down the ladder to basic, one-page essays. They would mainly describe my experience at UMass, aka typical freshman papers. However, the format of the class was relatively different than what I had expected. Instead of condensed, brisk essays, Steph introduced wordpress.com, a blogging system.

When I first realized that the class would be creating our own personal blogs, I truly anticipated the process. I had always pictured bloggers as witty citybodies who listened to underground jazz and wrote poetry; a modern day beat, I suppose. It had always seemed like an untouchable medium, that only elite critics or journalists could utilize. Writing my own blog, knowing that my thoughts were susceptible to judgement and ridicule on a grander scale instilled hesitation, but also curiousity. The aspect that really attracted me to blogging was anonymity. On the class comment pages, most students agreed that anonymously writing is extremely liberating. Sharing my ideas without my name stamped on the cover lessens the distance between what I want to write and what I actually do write and share.

In retrospect, this class taught me that writing doesn’t have to be the formalized, rigid process which I have undergone in the past. Writing can be leisurely, and can teach you a lot about yourself. By reflecting on the body of work I have submitted this semester, I learned less about the way to cite quotations, the way to formulate a thesis, and more about myself as a writer: I could add in my papers, and I could omit. Writing short responses has helped train me to get to the essence of what I want to say, and to cut out the clutter. Overall, this class has expanded my creative writing skills, but also my appreciation for the medium as well. Whether we’re discussing The Wall, Hawaiians, or Israel and Palestine, there’s always room for comment.