Nikki Lee has a funny way of fitting in. Given that she was born in Korea, yet can so easily infilitrate various ethnic and social groups is pretty amazing. I can imagine that when coming to America for the first time, she was overwhelmed by the multitude of culutures present in our country. Because of this, it would be easy for an outsider like herself to imitate certain mannerisms and appearances. I'm sure she did not run into many Hispanics while going to school in Korea. The photographs she appears in only prove how certain stereotypes can be broken. As an outsider looking in for the first time, she had the ability to adopt certain ethnic group's style and culture. This could be attributed to the fact that the various groups she joined were in themselves a kind of minority; lesbians, punks, exotic dancers, etc. In the end they accepted her because she was different, like themselves. I found myself unable to distinguish Nikki in various photos because she did such a good job of transforming herself; whereas if she had tried to blend into some 'white' cultures she may have stuck out more. I thought her ultimate goal was simply a social experiment, and the art itself was only proof of her transformation. Overall this was a very interesting ordeal she put herself through that few others might be able to accomplish.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Monday, February 23, 2009
Revision explanation
After reading the comments from my original post, and reading Richard Ohmann’s article I took to enhancing my book review of Another Roadside Attraction. It was my goal to incorporate the questions I presented towards the middle of my original review into the opening paragraph of the revised one. I felt this would grasp the reader’s attention by getting them to really think about the questions I was posing. I also tried to remove any bias I may have for this piece of work, given that it is one of the better novels I have read in the past few years. I wanted to give the person reading the review an opportunity to understand the important messages Robbins meant to explore in this book. There were also a few words I took out/added in order to enhance the overall feel of Another Roadside Attraction, especially those that seemed more redundant. I really liked the way I ended my original post though, so I decided to keep that same flow in the revised version.
Book Review Revision
There will always people who know, or think they know more than the average person. Often these people gravitate towards a position of authority, take for example the Catholic Church. What if these people only thought they knew what they were talking about though? And what if these select few individuals with authority commanded power, influence, and guidance to thousands, no millions of followers? In the end, would it even be worth proving their dogma wrong? Think of the repercussions, who would benefit in crushing the hopes, and beliefs of these people even though their very existence was a lie? These are the kinds of questions Tom Robbins hopes to address in his novel, Another Roadside Attraction.
It’s interesting how little has changed in the nearly forty years since this novel was written. While Another Roadside Attraction was written in 1971, its implications still reign in as true as ever. The Catholic Church went though a transformation in the late 1960s following the Second Vatican Council. This council sought to modernize the church to more closely conform to the changing morals of the time. In retrospect, very little changed after that, and today we see the Catholic Church reverting back to a more conservative ideology following the nomination of Pope Benedict XVI, Joseph Ratzinger. This cyclical theory is similar to one that drives Another Roadside Attraction. Insert Amanda, John Paul, Marx Marvelous, and Plucky Purcell. Four individuals who hold one of the greatest secrets known to man, while working at a hot dog stand in the Pacific Northwest.
Amanda is a mystic, believing everything happens for a reason. Some outside force, not 'one being’ in the sense of god, but rather a collection of emotions and feelings, guide her. John Paul is a wild man, who understands the natural world and is happily confined to his simple and aesthetic life. Plucky on the other hand is an instigator who wants nothing more than to shake up the system, content with fighting ‘the man’ anyway he can. Then there’s Marx. A realist through and through, believing all things science explains all things in existence. Take these varying attitudes and place them smack in the midst of the counter culture of the late 1960s, early 1970s.
Tom Robbins’s writing style reflects the day-glow attitude of the time, as the reader is repeatedly jumping around from time and place throughout the story. Robbins is also very annoyed. Amanda, Marx, John Paul, and Plucky act like four forces of human will. Each one thinks on their own accord, and each one thinks they are right based on these convictions. The contrast of opinions between the characters is what really drives this story and keeps you interested. The message of anti-establishment, pro-secularism that flourished during the counter culture of the late 1960s has never really gone away, and recently has become prominent again. To me, this is why this book still stands the test of time; we have always and will always questions the origins of man, it’s our nature as human beings. By the end of this novel, the story has risen and fallen several times; taking plot twists this reader would never have anticipated. Each character is shaped by each other’s personal perspective based on the secret they hold, and each becomes more enlightened in the process. They finally become awakened by the fact that no single solution, but rather several usually solve a problem. By the time the conclusion is reached, each character learns why some truths are better left under wraps.
It’s interesting how little has changed in the nearly forty years since this novel was written. While Another Roadside Attraction was written in 1971, its implications still reign in as true as ever. The Catholic Church went though a transformation in the late 1960s following the Second Vatican Council. This council sought to modernize the church to more closely conform to the changing morals of the time. In retrospect, very little changed after that, and today we see the Catholic Church reverting back to a more conservative ideology following the nomination of Pope Benedict XVI, Joseph Ratzinger. This cyclical theory is similar to one that drives Another Roadside Attraction. Insert Amanda, John Paul, Marx Marvelous, and Plucky Purcell. Four individuals who hold one of the greatest secrets known to man, while working at a hot dog stand in the Pacific Northwest.
Amanda is a mystic, believing everything happens for a reason. Some outside force, not 'one being’ in the sense of god, but rather a collection of emotions and feelings, guide her. John Paul is a wild man, who understands the natural world and is happily confined to his simple and aesthetic life. Plucky on the other hand is an instigator who wants nothing more than to shake up the system, content with fighting ‘the man’ anyway he can. Then there’s Marx. A realist through and through, believing all things science explains all things in existence. Take these varying attitudes and place them smack in the midst of the counter culture of the late 1960s, early 1970s.
Tom Robbins’s writing style reflects the day-glow attitude of the time, as the reader is repeatedly jumping around from time and place throughout the story. Robbins is also very annoyed. Amanda, Marx, John Paul, and Plucky act like four forces of human will. Each one thinks on their own accord, and each one thinks they are right based on these convictions. The contrast of opinions between the characters is what really drives this story and keeps you interested. The message of anti-establishment, pro-secularism that flourished during the counter culture of the late 1960s has never really gone away, and recently has become prominent again. To me, this is why this book still stands the test of time; we have always and will always questions the origins of man, it’s our nature as human beings. By the end of this novel, the story has risen and fallen several times; taking plot twists this reader would never have anticipated. Each character is shaped by each other’s personal perspective based on the secret they hold, and each becomes more enlightened in the process. They finally become awakened by the fact that no single solution, but rather several usually solve a problem. By the time the conclusion is reached, each character learns why some truths are better left under wraps.
CHUCK D
I had the privilege, and I do not say that lightly, of helping interview Chuck D February 17th before his scheduled lecture at Columbia College Chicago. Afterwards, I also attended his lecture at the Film Row Center. As a member of the hip-hop sensation Public Enemy, Chuck D is considered one of the most influential members in the African-American community. His appearance fell during February, which is also Black History Month. The focus of his lecture revolved around the impact of hip-hop and rap music within the black community and its future. According to Chuck D, you cannot know anything about your trade unless you study it. As a graduate of Adelphi University in Long Island, New York, Chuck D is no stranger to the importance of education. He has been touring the country, giving college lectures for nineteen years and it showed immediately. Chuck D knows how to work a crowd, considering he’s been performing on stage since the late 1980s. First he had to mention Flava Flav, because he knew there were at least a few people in the audience who were curious about his relationship with the reality show star. Chuck D made one thing clear from the start though. Flava Flav gets women to cry if they don’t receive a clock; himself, he reads books, and betters himself so he can give lectures like the one at Columbia.
Chuck D made one thing clear from the start. Knowledge is power, and in this ever-changing world we live in, the more you know, the better off you will be. Become talented in multiple facets of your career. He mentioned more than once running into aspiring hip-hop artists who tell him one thing, “I make beats!” To which Chuck responds, ‘Yeah, but what else can you do?” ‘Most often,’ he remarked, ‘they rarely have anything else to say.’ This is a great analogy to any one person’s interests. Sure you can be good at one thing, but how else can you incorporate this passion into the industry, or the world? Can you rhyme? Can you produce? Can you sell yourself?
While Chuck D is a learned man who can captivate and hold an audience, he still brings his own speaking style the table. The lecture was interspersed with various profanities, and at one point he even apologized for using so many. I didn’t understand why he did this though, I mean he’s Chuck D, just telling it like it is. I think the funniest part of the whole lecture was when he talked about how big of a waste of resources a Hummer is. He incorporated this by telling the audience Coolio was the first person he ever knew to drive a Hummer. Chuck even admitted he still drives a ‘hoopty,’ which to anyone unfamiliar with the term refers to an old, beat down car. I thought this was a very telling thing about Chuck D’s character. Here’s an accomplished, talented, multi-platinum selling artist who could not be more humble. His presence was inspiring, especially his political activeness. He finds it ironic that there’s a rapper today named Rick Ross, who bases his career of the 1980s crack king pin, ‘Highway Ricky Ross.’ Chuck implored the audience to realize that the CIA supported the original Rick Ross, and that the whole attitude of immortalizing the gangster lifestyle is only holding the black community back. Chuck D put it very simply, ‘Sure you can like Soulja Boy…if you’re in the sixth grade.”
Chuck D made one thing clear from the start. Knowledge is power, and in this ever-changing world we live in, the more you know, the better off you will be. Become talented in multiple facets of your career. He mentioned more than once running into aspiring hip-hop artists who tell him one thing, “I make beats!” To which Chuck responds, ‘Yeah, but what else can you do?” ‘Most often,’ he remarked, ‘they rarely have anything else to say.’ This is a great analogy to any one person’s interests. Sure you can be good at one thing, but how else can you incorporate this passion into the industry, or the world? Can you rhyme? Can you produce? Can you sell yourself?
While Chuck D is a learned man who can captivate and hold an audience, he still brings his own speaking style the table. The lecture was interspersed with various profanities, and at one point he even apologized for using so many. I didn’t understand why he did this though, I mean he’s Chuck D, just telling it like it is. I think the funniest part of the whole lecture was when he talked about how big of a waste of resources a Hummer is. He incorporated this by telling the audience Coolio was the first person he ever knew to drive a Hummer. Chuck even admitted he still drives a ‘hoopty,’ which to anyone unfamiliar with the term refers to an old, beat down car. I thought this was a very telling thing about Chuck D’s character. Here’s an accomplished, talented, multi-platinum selling artist who could not be more humble. His presence was inspiring, especially his political activeness. He finds it ironic that there’s a rapper today named Rick Ross, who bases his career of the 1980s crack king pin, ‘Highway Ricky Ross.’ Chuck implored the audience to realize that the CIA supported the original Rick Ross, and that the whole attitude of immortalizing the gangster lifestyle is only holding the black community back. Chuck D put it very simply, ‘Sure you can like Soulja Boy…if you’re in the sixth grade.”
Monday, February 16, 2009
It’s interesting how little has changed in almost forty years. Even though Tom Robbin’s, Another Roadside Attraction, was written in 1971, its implications still reign in as true as ever. The Catholic Church went though a transformation in the late 1960s following the Second Vatican Council. This council aimed at modernizing the church to more closely follow the changing morals of the time. Looking back though, very little changed after that, and if anything the church has reverted back to a more conservative ideology. This is the same cyclical theory that drives Another Roadside Attraction. Insert Amanda, John Paul, Marx Marvelous, and Plucky Purcell. Four individuals who hold one of the greatest secrets known to man, in a hot dog stand in the Pacific Northwest.
Amanda is a mystic, believing everything happens for a reason, and guided by some outside force, which she frequently taps into through the novel. John Paul is a wild man, who understands the natural world and is more or less confined to the simple and aesthetic life. Plucky is an instigator who wants nothing more than to shake up the system. Marx is a realist, who believes all things science will explain all things in existence. All this takes place smack in the midst of the counter culture of the late 1960s, early 1970s, and the writing style reflects the day-glow attitude of the time.
Tom Robbins does not follow any logical writing style, jumping around from time and place repeatedly throughout the story. Robbins is also very annoyed. There are always people who know or think they know more than the average person. It’s likely these kinds of people might hold some sort of authoritative position, like the Catholic Church. Well what if these people only thought they knew what they were talking about? And what if these people with authority commanded power and influence over thousands, even millions of followers? In the end, would it even be worth proving them wrong though? Think of the repercussions, would it be worth it to crush the hopes, and beliefs of these people even if their very existence was a lie? These are the kinds of questions Robbins hopes to address in this novel.
Amanda, Marx, John Paul, and Plucky act like four forces of human will. Each one thinks on their own accord, and each one thinks they are right. This contrast of opinions is what really drives this story and keeps you interested. The message of anti-establishment, pro-secularism of the counter culture has never really gone away, and recently has become prominent again. To me, this is why this book still stands the test of time; we have always and will always questions the origins of man. By the end of this novel, the story has risen and fell several times; taking plot twists this reader would never have anticipated. These characters are shaped by each others personal perspective in regards to the secret they hold. They finally become awakened by the fact that no single solution, but several usually solve a problem. By the time the conclusion is reached, each character learns why some truths are better left under wraps.
Amanda is a mystic, believing everything happens for a reason, and guided by some outside force, which she frequently taps into through the novel. John Paul is a wild man, who understands the natural world and is more or less confined to the simple and aesthetic life. Plucky is an instigator who wants nothing more than to shake up the system. Marx is a realist, who believes all things science will explain all things in existence. All this takes place smack in the midst of the counter culture of the late 1960s, early 1970s, and the writing style reflects the day-glow attitude of the time.
Tom Robbins does not follow any logical writing style, jumping around from time and place repeatedly throughout the story. Robbins is also very annoyed. There are always people who know or think they know more than the average person. It’s likely these kinds of people might hold some sort of authoritative position, like the Catholic Church. Well what if these people only thought they knew what they were talking about? And what if these people with authority commanded power and influence over thousands, even millions of followers? In the end, would it even be worth proving them wrong though? Think of the repercussions, would it be worth it to crush the hopes, and beliefs of these people even if their very existence was a lie? These are the kinds of questions Robbins hopes to address in this novel.
Amanda, Marx, John Paul, and Plucky act like four forces of human will. Each one thinks on their own accord, and each one thinks they are right. This contrast of opinions is what really drives this story and keeps you interested. The message of anti-establishment, pro-secularism of the counter culture has never really gone away, and recently has become prominent again. To me, this is why this book still stands the test of time; we have always and will always questions the origins of man. By the end of this novel, the story has risen and fell several times; taking plot twists this reader would never have anticipated. These characters are shaped by each others personal perspective in regards to the secret they hold. They finally become awakened by the fact that no single solution, but several usually solve a problem. By the time the conclusion is reached, each character learns why some truths are better left under wraps.
Monday, February 9, 2009
Hair Trigger 28
Reading through Columbia College Chicago’s annual Hair Trigger magazine only reinforced my belief that our current generation is just as unsure of themselves and the future as past generations. The 2006 issue of Hair Trigger, the twenty-eighth edition in the series, is put together to showcase Columbia student’s writing and photography skills. The cover of this issue depicts a Vietnam veteran standing on the beach, flag waving in the wind with the vast emptiness of ocean in the background. In the end, this photograph summed up the tone of most every essay and story I read throughout this publication.
From the start I could not help feel very impressed by the caliber of writing that these young students displayed for all to see. Being a student of this school, I could relate to many similar experiences and issues explored through these writings. Whether it was fiction, non-fiction, or a drama prose, the stories were all powerful, and well written. The ambitious writing styles of each student are what make this magazine worth reading. There were points where I was lost in the creative styles used by these writers. I truly could not believe that these were written by people my age, and I couldn’t help but be very impressed, and proud of my fellow classmates effort.
The variation in writing styles was refreshing, yet I was surprised to find how distinctive many of these essays and stories were. Now I know many of them were fictional, but I couldn’t help but notice that many of the stories drew from personal experiences. Whether they happened to the writer, or someone they knew is open to debate, but it was gritty and clearly meant something to the writer.
A repeating theme throughout many of these stories was sex. Sex played an intricate role over and over. It was more than quote, un-quote sex though, it dealt with the uncertainties of life, and the pressure adolescents face as we mature. They’re about coming to terms with reality and the myth behind many fallacies associated with sex, and losing your virginity, and feeling used. One drama excerpt, titled After Hours, was extremely well written. It was not grammatically correct, and included several words favored by my generation, including ‘like.’ But it was the honesty of this scenario that struck me as extremely compelling. I know kids like that, and I could relate, making the stories seem believable, even if they were pulling these narratives out of their Asses.
The photographs that break up the literature towards the end of the magazine were also powerful. They were pictures of ordinary people. I couldn’t think of a more appropriate source for these photos, given each student writer faces the same challenges that the subjects of the photos did or still do. I would urge anyone interested in finding out about the wealth of talent exhibited here at Columbia College Chicago go check out any issue of Hair Trigger because you will not be disappointed. I look forward to reading further into this magazine as the years go by.
From the start I could not help feel very impressed by the caliber of writing that these young students displayed for all to see. Being a student of this school, I could relate to many similar experiences and issues explored through these writings. Whether it was fiction, non-fiction, or a drama prose, the stories were all powerful, and well written. The ambitious writing styles of each student are what make this magazine worth reading. There were points where I was lost in the creative styles used by these writers. I truly could not believe that these were written by people my age, and I couldn’t help but be very impressed, and proud of my fellow classmates effort.
The variation in writing styles was refreshing, yet I was surprised to find how distinctive many of these essays and stories were. Now I know many of them were fictional, but I couldn’t help but notice that many of the stories drew from personal experiences. Whether they happened to the writer, or someone they knew is open to debate, but it was gritty and clearly meant something to the writer.
A repeating theme throughout many of these stories was sex. Sex played an intricate role over and over. It was more than quote, un-quote sex though, it dealt with the uncertainties of life, and the pressure adolescents face as we mature. They’re about coming to terms with reality and the myth behind many fallacies associated with sex, and losing your virginity, and feeling used. One drama excerpt, titled After Hours, was extremely well written. It was not grammatically correct, and included several words favored by my generation, including ‘like.’ But it was the honesty of this scenario that struck me as extremely compelling. I know kids like that, and I could relate, making the stories seem believable, even if they were pulling these narratives out of their Asses.
The photographs that break up the literature towards the end of the magazine were also powerful. They were pictures of ordinary people. I couldn’t think of a more appropriate source for these photos, given each student writer faces the same challenges that the subjects of the photos did or still do. I would urge anyone interested in finding out about the wealth of talent exhibited here at Columbia College Chicago go check out any issue of Hair Trigger because you will not be disappointed. I look forward to reading further into this magazine as the years go by.
Monday, February 2, 2009
I was left with various questions for Anna Deveare Smith after her lecture was concluded. She had exited the stage at this point though so I was left only to ponder the queries she had posed for us, the audience. ‘Why was there so much trash left after the inauguration of Barack Obama on January 20th, 2009?’ Now I had not attended the inauguration, merely watched it on TV, but after hearing of the refuse strewn about so carelessly, it really started to bother me. It was not the way Anna Deveare Smith orated her lecture, because truthfully it was short and consisted mostly of audience participation.
Here we are as a nation, still ecstatic after electing the candidate of ‘change,’ yet people still can’t remember to throw their garbage away.
Before the lecture began, I was completely unaware of the accomplishments and awards Anna Deveare Smith had received throughout decades of work in the arts. Truthfully I did not know one thing about her. What I did notice right away was that this lecture was not about her, or her accomplishments. She began the lecture with a tribute/impersonation to the late Studs Terkel, whom had clearly shaped her definition on the merits of art. Again, her lecture paid little attention to her artistic contribute, rather it was about the future of the arts, and the artistic community, and the opportunity for anyone to contribute to them. She genuinely wanted to know how we, as students and faculty of an art school will respond to the president’s call for change.
She was encouraged by the possibilities that lay before us, but in the end I could not help but feel there was a tone of disappointment in her speech. No one really gave her the ‘right’ answer to her question, which was more or less about the future of institutions, like Columbia College of Chicago. I’m not saying there was a right answer to this question, given that it was open to much interpretation. The notion that one of us in the audience may have had the correct answer to her question though is unrealistic. She knew this. Instead it was the idea that institutions have the ability to collaborate, and collaboration is what will eventually lead to change in any aspect of life. Many people collaborated to elect Barack Obama, but many people collaborated to trash Washington D.C. nearly two weeks ago as well.
It was evident that Anna Deveare Smith cared more about what we had to say, compared to fielding questions about her more famous literary works, Fires in the Mirror and Twilight: Los Angeles 1992. If you were to go see Anna Deveare Smith lecture again be prepared for a brief look into her own genius, and rather a deeper look into society’s as a whole. In the end, the forty-minute lecture was short because it had to be, there’s no time to waste. The opportunity for collaborative change is here, just remember to throw away the trash.
Here we are as a nation, still ecstatic after electing the candidate of ‘change,’ yet people still can’t remember to throw their garbage away.
Before the lecture began, I was completely unaware of the accomplishments and awards Anna Deveare Smith had received throughout decades of work in the arts. Truthfully I did not know one thing about her. What I did notice right away was that this lecture was not about her, or her accomplishments. She began the lecture with a tribute/impersonation to the late Studs Terkel, whom had clearly shaped her definition on the merits of art. Again, her lecture paid little attention to her artistic contribute, rather it was about the future of the arts, and the artistic community, and the opportunity for anyone to contribute to them. She genuinely wanted to know how we, as students and faculty of an art school will respond to the president’s call for change.
She was encouraged by the possibilities that lay before us, but in the end I could not help but feel there was a tone of disappointment in her speech. No one really gave her the ‘right’ answer to her question, which was more or less about the future of institutions, like Columbia College of Chicago. I’m not saying there was a right answer to this question, given that it was open to much interpretation. The notion that one of us in the audience may have had the correct answer to her question though is unrealistic. She knew this. Instead it was the idea that institutions have the ability to collaborate, and collaboration is what will eventually lead to change in any aspect of life. Many people collaborated to elect Barack Obama, but many people collaborated to trash Washington D.C. nearly two weeks ago as well.
It was evident that Anna Deveare Smith cared more about what we had to say, compared to fielding questions about her more famous literary works, Fires in the Mirror and Twilight: Los Angeles 1992. If you were to go see Anna Deveare Smith lecture again be prepared for a brief look into her own genius, and rather a deeper look into society’s as a whole. In the end, the forty-minute lecture was short because it had to be, there’s no time to waste. The opportunity for collaborative change is here, just remember to throw away the trash.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)