I only update anymore if I think you lot would find something funny.
ironically that still seems to be about every day.
I was going to do my critique (i kept trying to spell that word with a q, like, quiretique or something. i kept going quir and i knew it was wrong but i couldn't gigure out how) on Mr. Brooks 'cause I just watched it. I'd gotten this far:
The movie Mr. Brooks really is quite bizarre. If you've never seen that movie, basically it's about a guy who's addicted to killing people. I think Dane Cook is in it. Anyway, the movie is very interesting in more than just it's plot line. It has a lot of big camera moves; there was much panning and sweeping, which was cool because they were trying to include both real people and the psychotic part of Mr. Brooks' brain, Marshall. Although it was kind of confusing because quite often Mr. Brooks would be in the middle of a conversation with Marshall (who doesn't exist) while other people are in the room and suddenly break into perfectly normal conversation with those people. After you got used to the sudden switches, though, it was pretty cool because it was a way to see into Brooks' mind while also not missing out on his interaction with real people. And it was better than one of those disembodied voices I think because first off it's just more engaging than seeing someone's face staring blankly and hearing voices. Secondly, it made you kind of think of the two as different people (obviously not literally), but as you get farther into the movie you realize that Mr. Brooks and Marshall are much more alike than perhaps Mr. Brooks would like to admit.
when me and jen got in a conversation resulting in this:
In this piece, Hmong by Jun, there is very little in the way of content. Pretty much there is only line and color. The line is all the same width and creates a sense of unity throughout the piece and a sort of understanding I think between the person and the tree. This is of course excluding the noose, which is thicker than all the other lines and I think highlights the figurative "choke-hold". The color, while remaining realistic in the tree, is obviously unrealistic for the human. This serves to strengthen the bond between "man" and "nature". The noose, which is a cruel, man-made device, is shown as black and thus evil or sinister. Also important to note is the relationship in size of the human to the tree. Again, I think this serves to establish a mutual relationship in which man and nature are inherently equal.
Now let's take a step back from the details and look at the whole picture. But if the human and the tree have such a strong bond, why is the tree ruthlessly killing that poor man? in essence killing the man? Besides, isn't it humans that are killing the environment, not the other way around? But that's what is so brilliant and unique about Jun's piece, she explores this idea in a different way. Yes, there is a very strong bond between man and nature, but if humans were gone, would trees live on? Obviously the answer is yes. However, if trees and plants were to suddenly become extinct, our existence on this planet would become so difficult as to be nigh impossible. In this way it is possible to view nature as "strangling" us. The fact that Jun is able to juxtapose these two radically different ideas (nature strangling us vs. black man-made evil) is just another hallmark of her controversial style.
Should you pay taxes to support struggling artists? In other words, is it important or
valuable that the arts be supported by public funding?
No, I don't think people should pay taxes to support artists. That should be left to private charities so people who want to support the arts can, and people who are struggling themselves don't have to shell out however many more hard earned dollars so someone can paint a picture. And even if they do have money to pay the "Art Tax," despite what many people think art is not necessary to survival and also some people just plain don't give a fuck about art. Why should they be made to pay? Easy. They shouldn't. There's lots of struggling actors and chefs and authors and music artists, are we going to support them all with the government money we don't have? Sorry this is short, but there isn't really much more to say. To make it any longer I would just be regurgitating what I've already said and really there's no point to that.
Some of you may be like, wtf she said she was "growing out of livejournal" but she's still posting clearly she's an idiot, but let me explain. I feel like even though i have still been posting at least semi-regularly, they rarely have anything to do with my life. even when you think they do... they don't really. Like yesterday's was mainly for me, and while it had a lot of information i didn't really write about what any of it meant or what i thought about it or etc. And this, while humorous (i hope) describes about .05 of my day. I used to vent here. Now I just... have random anecdotes.
I was going to do my critique (i kept trying to spell that word with a q, like, quiretique or something. i kept going quir and i knew it was wrong but i couldn't gigure out how) on Mr. Brooks 'cause I just watched it. I'd gotten this far:
The movie Mr. Brooks really is quite bizarre. If you've never seen that movie, basically it's about a guy who's addicted to killing people. I think Dane Cook is in it. Anyway, the movie is very interesting in more than just it's plot line. It has a lot of big camera moves; there was much panning and sweeping, which was cool because they were trying to include both real people and the psychotic part of Mr. Brooks' brain, Marshall. Although it was kind of confusing because quite often Mr. Brooks would be in the middle of a conversation with Marshall (who doesn't exist) while other people are in the room and suddenly break into perfectly normal conversation with those people. After you got used to the sudden switches, though, it was pretty cool because it was a way to see into Brooks' mind while also not missing out on his interaction with real people. And it was better than one of those disembodied voices I think because first off it's just more engaging than seeing someone's face staring blankly and hearing voices. Secondly, it made you kind of think of the two as different people (obviously not literally), but as you get farther into the movie you realize that Mr. Brooks and Marshall are much more alike than perhaps Mr. Brooks would like to admit.
when me and jen got in a conversation resulting in this:
In this piece, Hmong by Jun, there is very little in the way of content. Pretty much there is only line and color. The line is all the same width and creates a sense of unity throughout the piece and a sort of understanding I think between the person and the tree. This is of course excluding the noose, which is thicker than all the other lines and I think highlights the figurative "choke-hold". The color, while remaining realistic in the tree, is obviously unrealistic for the human. This serves to strengthen the bond between "man" and "nature". The noose, which is a cruel, man-made device, is shown as black and thus evil or sinister. Also important to note is the relationship in size of the human to the tree. Again, I think this serves to establish a mutual relationship in which man and nature are inherently equal.
Now let's take a step back from the details and look at the whole picture. But if the human and the tree have such a strong bond, why is the tree ruthlessly killing that poor man? in essence killing the man? Besides, isn't it humans that are killing the environment, not the other way around? But that's what is so brilliant and unique about Jun's piece, she explores this idea in a different way. Yes, there is a very strong bond between man and nature, but if humans were gone, would trees live on? Obviously the answer is yes. However, if trees and plants were to suddenly become extinct, our existence on this planet would become so difficult as to be nigh impossible. In this way it is possible to view nature as "strangling" us. The fact that Jun is able to juxtapose these two radically different ideas (nature strangling us vs. black man-made evil) is just another hallmark of her controversial style.
Should you pay taxes to support struggling artists? In other words, is it important or
valuable that the arts be supported by public funding?
No, I don't think people should pay taxes to support artists. That should be left to private charities so people who want to support the arts can, and people who are struggling themselves don't have to shell out however many more hard earned dollars so someone can paint a picture. And even if they do have money to pay the "Art Tax," despite what many people think art is not necessary to survival and also some people just plain don't give a fuck about art. Why should they be made to pay? Easy. They shouldn't. There's lots of struggling actors and chefs and authors and music artists, are we going to support them all with the government money we don't have? Sorry this is short, but there isn't really much more to say. To make it any longer I would just be regurgitating what I've already said and really there's no point to that.
Some of you may be like, wtf she said she was "growing out of livejournal" but she's still posting clearly she's an idiot, but let me explain. I feel like even though i have still been posting at least semi-regularly, they rarely have anything to do with my life. even when you think they do... they don't really. Like yesterday's was mainly for me, and while it had a lot of information i didn't really write about what any of it meant or what i thought about it or etc. And this, while humorous (i hope) describes about .05 of my day. I used to vent here. Now I just... have random anecdotes.