I can't really remember something that made my head explode, but I really want to address something that I'm happy about...I am happy that reading the text about the Renaissance does not make my brain explode. After reading somewhat difficult texts on Elizabeth I and her role in religious freedom and revolution, I definitely see the connection between Elizabeth's reign and the social and cultural changes that happened after Mary's ruling along with her husband...Phillip, I think.
Something that made my head explode is the use of four texts to come to a conclusion, which I still have not made. Last night, I was reading the 16th Century piece, along with some books about England published in 1922 (an interesting perspective) and a volume from a collection of books published in 1969, called The Renaissance. I love reading about a single subject spanned across three or more texts. The facts are the same, but the synthesis of all of the stories and information just makes my night a little better, and my mind satisfied in knowing I've answered my own questions.
I find it interesting that clergymen were the first to become educated in the form of literature. Weren't they the people who felt as though they already knew some answers? I wonder how a priest would react to philosophical piece of literature he did not agree with. I know there were some altruistic approaches to psychology during medieval times, but most philosophers who attempted to convince people were outcasted. People with psychological disorders were seen as possessed by demons or under the spells of witches. I think it makes sense that people would say things like this to cling onto a simplified explanation to ease their minds. Maybe people back then did not want to believe in psychopathy because if it can happen to a human, it makes them at risk, too. The sixteenth century brought people like Paracelsus, who was the first (documented) to recognize the subconscious as the motivation behind neurosis. Perhaps literature and art in general can be a sample of the subconscious. I like how authors would abide by the rules regarding censorship, but sneak in tidbits of their true feelings. It is important to reveal yourself, whether it be in pages that are never read or a script that is never produced in a play. From the packet, I also was intrigued by the fact that authors were given as much credit or as many rights as their publishers and printers. When life and literature is an endless sequence of remixes and renditions, who really deserves the copyright?
For the last week we've been watching presentations and we were introduced to the whole concept of "Medieval and Renaissance" similarities/differences. I've been learning a lot, and the art of a determined period of time is the self-portrait of that period's society. Per example, the Medieval people for the most part worked in groups and their music and art was a little more "flattened" opposing to the Renaissance that introduced the whole idea of individualism that was also reflected on their art.
If we are reflected on the art we produce now days I can imagine that in the future when people look back at our music and movies they will see us as psychopats who went around killing people (horror movies), they will see us as people who have no respect towards women (booty shaking music) and of course some of us will be seen as the "enlightened" who actually cares about something other than murder and sex.
I'm not sure whether or not I agree that art can represent a whole society when within the place there are many people who don't have the privilege of creating art, therefore they can't speak their minds and be portrayed as they would like to. But then again I'm not even sure if that was the message that I should be getting. We are currently living in a form that individualism predominates so I can't just ignore the fact that there were individuals back during both Renaissance and Medieval times who had their own mindset apart from the majority.
My brain remained pretty intact this weak actually, but what I found interesting was this whole rebellion thing, renaissance/rebellion. And it may seem like a lot of society, today's society rather, came from that. I feel like before that era, like middle age times people were like "kept in line" as a mass, and everybody was just all in so much awe, at least that's how it seemed. Like how when we were looking at the artwork, and listening to the music, the Middle Ages depicted this super religious society that was strictly uniform, and zoom into the renaissance, and it was a lot more of a realization of like "our time doesn't have to be consumed by the church all the time". It was like afterwards they realized that by putting a lot of that strict cultural practice aside, they had more times to actually THINK, and I think that's where a lof of the new revolutionary ideas came from.
And the Black Nag is like super awesome, and I'm absolutely going to do it at Prom.
I agree, the black nag was a very interesting dance from the past time. Not only did we learn and visually watch the dance, but if we compare today's dance to the black nag it's extremely different. I'm not a dance major nor do I obtain any knowledge of the style of dance, but I do know the difference in the body language, music, and the movement of the dances of the black nag where today's body language and music differs. The black nag was very conservative, women and men did not "drop it low" as today when you watch a music video girls are practically half naked, where women back in the day were covered.
This week was kind to my brain, with the exception of the final countdown of Senior Projects. However I really enjoyed exploring the Medieval and Renaissance time periods through the arts to compare and contrasts how different the societies were or alike. I am also determined to learn the Black Nag because it just looks like that much fun. I propose we have a Renaissance/Medieval Day in Honors English and we listen to music, perform the Black Nag, and have some snacks because snacks make everything better.
As for the music instruments of the different time periods, it really piqued my interests because I am a huge fan of playing weird or different instruments since I play the ukulele and the didgeridoo. I wonder if I can find a lute somewhere or a hurdy gurdy?
What really made my brain explode was how no matter what we listen to or read that is titled as "New" has been part of a cycle before our generation was even formed. In my opinion and from what I've observed and realized is that an inspiration is inspired by something or someone before the idea came along. What I mean is that things such as music, literature and even media are born from something else that was once known, but because of the how generations change and are created again life is granted to the Earth. That known song, story or media becomes unknown until the next generation recreates it again (bring existence; making it known again).
When you spoke of how new ideas comes from old ideas, it's like the video we watched in class, "Everything is a remix". It's true that we do base our work today off other artists that existed before us. We do it in writing, visual art, music, theatre, music, and etc. I feel like none of us are really original because we did not come up with the idea of what we are creating ourselves but we are "inspired" by others. If it were not for our past artists that existed, could have we have came up with the idea ourselves?
I thought it was really cool when I was reading the text and I saw the lines "That movement, generally known as the Renaissance, involved a rebirth of letters and arts stimulated by the recovery and study of texts from classical antiquity and the development of new aesthetic norms based on classical models." In reading these lines I found it really interesting that it tied right into that lesson we had about everything being a remix. The people during the time of the Renaissance made original works but they also studied a bunch of older texts and art and remade them into something that was their own. That's kind of all I got for this week I just thought it was cool that remixing has been happening for so long and that it connected with the videos we watched in class.
The discussions we had this week ,as far as observing the Medieval and Renaissance paintings, reading the packet, and even contributing in a discussion with my classmates, was interesting to me and a bit mind blowing. I never really got into any of this medieval or renaissance stuff, nor has it peeked my interest until now. What did it for me, was comparing the two pieces of artwork, the similarities and differences that are present between the time periods. I could seriously go on forever comparing every single aspect of the images and the meaning behind it, but I will only focus on a couple of things. The first thing I noticed in the first pieces was the "golden plates" over the heads of each person, which to me symbolized the holy spirit and it reminded me of the holy day known as Pentecost." According to book of Acts, the Church came into being on the day of Pentecost. As 120 worshipers, including the Disciples, were fasting and praying in an upper room in Jerusalem, the Holy Spirit descended upon them in a violent rushing wind that was heard throughout the city. Small flames of fire rested upon their heads, and they began to speak in other languages. As crowds came to investigate the commotion, the Apostle Peter spoke to them about Jesus and exhorted them to repent" (http://www.sharefaith.com/guide/Christian-Holidays/meaning-of-pentecost.html). If you look up Pentecost, you will see many images that are similar to the Medieval picture. Though Jesus was an infant in that image, it can predict what will be happening later on in his life. When I counted the number of people present in the image, and I counted twelve, which goes hand- in-hand with the disciples. That is what stood out to me the most in the medieval image. I didn't realize this until now, but it is quite interesting that the Renaissance is the time period where different religions were forming, such as the Lutheran faith. Martian Luther did not agree with what the Catholic faith was doing, as far as, selling indulgences to people so they would have a shorter wait in purgatory, which is not heaven or hell, but a waiting place in the Catholic faith. The Catholic church was corrupt in being repented from sins with simply just paying money. I am Lutheran and honestly, I can still see the similarities of practices of how the Catholic churches get money today. I am totally respectful of different religions and practices. It just fascinates me to notice that.
When we were analyzing the two art work of the Medieval and Renaissance time, we noticed different things in each painting. Like each painting had something that symbolized the good, the evil, what's mighty, who's mighty, the holy spirit, Jesus, and God. Each painting had a story from the holy bible that were shown in the work. Like you how you talked about the disciples, and whatnot, those things were shown in the paintings. Maybe it was just a painting that the artist did and we are just over thinking it.
My brain was able to soak in most the information about the Renaissance times and Medieval times. It was cool being exposed to various forms of art, such as dances, drawings, painting, and other captivating pieces. What really intrigued me this week was the article about the sixteenth century. I had no prior knowledge as to the history behind England; this article opened my eyes to the history behind England’s past. It also went into depth about how arty was evolving as a whole during this time in England. Some of the greatest writers were inspired by other great writers including Geoffery Chaucer, author of the Canterbury Tales. Theatrical performances were growing in popularity and paintings were evolving in detail. The Elizabethan Era was a time for change; a time for a woman to take charge of her country, and a time for art to grow in its many forms.
My brain hasn't really exploded from this more so from the fact that senior projects are coming up so I'm stressed about that. Sadly I can't really remember what was said in the class discussion but what stuck with me was something that I was able to pick up on in the packet. What stuck with me was the fact that back then they did indeed have a form of copyrights but their form wasn't meant to protect the author, instead it protected the publisher. Then nothing could be printed outside of London at the university of Oxford or Cambridge. Another thing was that the writers and poets only did this for their enjoyment and they were only paid according to the sale which was sold for a low price.
When I was reading the packet a couple of nights ago, I was impressed with the topics that were brought up. Some of the topics links to some of the things that we learned for the last two marking periods. One paragraph stated that a couple of people were following after Chaucer's work. A couple of weeks ago we all were talking about how everything is a remix and how everyone takes ideas from someone else and tries to make it better. Originality is dead. William Dunbar, Gavin Douglas, and Sir David Lindsay were the ones who tried to follow in Chaucer's footsteps. Another thing that surprised me was when I read about Mary Tudor taking over England. I never knew a woman was able to rule because of how women were treated back then. One thing the article did say about Mary was that she was not able to give back monastery lands. She was not able to redo the damage that her father and half- brother did. She was not able to to receive the heir because she was a woman. This reminds me of The Wife of Bath and how men were suppose to pass down their heir their sons. I think it's neat how I can relate most of the things we're doing now to what we were learning about in the past. My last comment I'm going to make is about the theater. I do not understand why comedy wasn't big back then. Tragedy came before that. I don't even know how that could be possible. Everyone loves comedy. This shows that a A LOT has changed over the past couple of years
I really enjoyed the dance and music conversation that we had. You can tell the differences between medieval and renaissance. The medieval music was dark and not that happy, and the dance part it was more a fun happy group dance. With a big group dance like that it was more of a dance the peasant people would do for fun. Also even the instruments were different used in medieval times. In the renaissance the music had more a happy tone and different instruments. The Renaissance dance was more serious But I think it was music it was more a royal dance. I think this because of the serious tone, the way they were dressed and facial expressions. The serious tone was in the music and still had a upbeat tune. The costumes were very covering of the body and the headpiece that the women wore was usually worn in the castle was for royal affairs. Then the facial expressions were serious because that dance could of told a story of something serious or the dance was meant to be serious. These conversations I found that were the best topics for me!
And as a side note i couldn't find why the dance is called Back Nag. But I can take a guess it was danced by the peasants during this time.
Last week was a pretty relaxing, easy, and go with the flow kind of thing in English class. And I liked it a lot, it was like a litte vaycay in Bavaro's room. My brain didn't explode this week, which i liked, I also liked listening to everyones tales, they were all really good and clever. This was probably one of my favorite assignments so far because it wasn't just serious, notes, quotes, serious, notes, quotes, and on and on. I think we all had a little fun doing this assignent one way or another. Watching the videos on the renaissance dancing and the medieval mumbo jumbo was also a plus. I found the dances entertaining and comical, although they were meant to be serious. Since I like learning bout other cultures and heritages, this kept my attention and I learned new things about the two groups this week.
Wow if only my mind were blown this week, I mean this had to have been the most interesting class ever... Just kidding that would be an understatement. Sorry, I let my sarcasm get the best of me again. I love honors english and there are so many things that I learn in this class. My mind is blown sometimes by the discussions we have, and things that people bring to the table. I really enjoyed listening to everyone read their modern day canterbury tales. Some people read their rhyming couplets and I was surprised at the vulgarness. Some of the stories just used lines that I did not expect to ever hear in a classroom setting, including some of my couplets. I really liked how everyone participated and read their canterbury tales. In the beginning the lamp really blew my mind I could not believe that it just turned on and off for no reason. But then I realized that it was only because the outlet overheated causing the lamp to shut off, any way that was beside the point. I really enjoyed the presentations and hearing what each person had to say. Everyone had really great ideas and I am so happy I got to be apart of the honors class. I thought that the information about the medieval times and Renaissance were very fascinating as well. The dances were really awesome, and the little kid who did the black nag is my new hero.
The medieval Vs. the renaissance. 2-D vs. 3-D. Which is "better", and why does one have to be better. If I were to draw a stick figure of a man, and then Nick were to draw an amazing three dimensional picture of a man I think many people would agree that Nick's drawing is better. And rightfully so, it probably would look better. But why? I mean what makes something that looks more realistic better? Is it because we find things that look more like us to be "correct". But then what about the melted clocks that Salvador Dalí painted? I mean that piece is freaking amazing and yet everything is not what it is supposed to be. Maybe, we as humans like things that take a lot of work. It could be a bad drawing, but if it took three years then people automatically think it's better. I find the whole subject very interesting. Why do we consider some things more impressive than others. Why is the Eiffel Tower considered better than the Hoover dam. They are both impressive feats of engineering. Why does one get more recognition than another. It seems to be human nature to pick favorites. Maybe that's why siblings have superiority complexes.
I think what really blew my mind this week was the striking similarities and differences in the artwork as it went from the "Dark Ages" to the "light and renewal" of the Renaissance. For example, the paintings we looked at had similar set ups, as Bailey pointed out, but we found that we thought the painting from the renaissance was better. We all seemed to gravitate toward the 3-Dimensionality of the painting, even though the first painting was amazing in its own right. I wondered why we, as a culture, have found that simple artwork or just things that are simple in general, aren't beautiful or worth our time. The more complex a piece is, the more we can read into its hidden meaning, and the more we're able to pick apart, the more revered it is but I think that a simple piece can be analyzed the same way. Each piece of artwork has value and meaning, no matter how simple, because the more you take away, the more there is to read into. I just really wish all people felt the same.
It was really interesting analyzing the similarities and differences between the artwork of the Renaissance and the Dark Ages.I thought it was pretty cool how the art form evolved over time, and how artists were able to create the realistic 3-d paintings and works of art of the Renaissance. This Enlightening that we talk about, I feel it was the rebirth of art and religion into something totally new and ground breaking. Great Renaissance men such as Michelangelo and Leonardo Da Vinci recreated what was possible in art and some of their ideas and inventions on paper were astronomical to the time period they were living in. And so I wonder if some divine intervention had anything to do with it. What if God saw the devastation, brutality and confusion of the human spirit on earth, and recognized the efforts of men trying to stay true and holy to his word and principles.
In a way it seems they possessed extra ordinary talent in art, music and literature. So what hold me back from saying that perhaps God granted them a higher level of artistic touch and understanding, giving them power to create such works of art that would preserve the influence of the Christian religion and bless the hearts of countless individuals over the centuries? Is this a valid statement?
I wonder I just wonder. And the more I do the more it seems to make sense.
Something that really blew my mind was the idea that heaven and hell were both up high. Whenever you think of the two you always assume heaven is above while hell is under us. I also never realized how many different ideas you could depict from art. As a theatre major I never actually analyzed pictures and noticed similarities, which could read a message . I liked the whole discussion about 2D vs 3D. The dances were also very interesting because they told a story. I cannot wait to put together more and learn about these times.
Tori and I were talking about the dances and how dance has evolved after a long time. I wanted to research a little more into it because I was curious. But the Black Nag has many similar moves to regular group dances that we have today. It makes my mind wonder what was before The Black Nag and what was before that, and before that, and so on. The music that went along with it, I am really curious to learn a little about that, and how it evolved from that time to today. QUESTIONS, WONDER, QUESTIONS AHHH!
My mind did not explode much this week. I enjoyed being able to connect art, something we know of so well, to the Renaissance, something we are relatively unfamiliar with. It was interesting to be able to understand something so foreign by analyzing it through something that comes naturally to us. Prior to this lesson, I honestly could not tell the difference between the Renaissance and The Medieval Times, let alone the art in the contrasting eras. Being able to see examples of works from both times made it easier to determine the norms and beliefs of both of these times, which made them easier to contrast both to each other and to our common era.
Everyone was present in class but i don't know if their minds were actually in class. Everyone is so distracted by their senior projects that we didn't really get to blow each others minds because quite frankly they weren't anywhere to be found, well maybe with their Imovies in mazza's room. However I still learned new things that I found were super cool.I really enjoyed getting a art lesson from all of the AP art kids. They really know what they are talking about. I believe the closest thing to mind blowing this week was when Alexis Maldonado compared the two pictures. She was showing how there was three parts to each picture.It was a three part picture whether it meant heaven, earth, and hell it was certainly a awesome observation that she made.It was fascinating to see the development of art over time and how the Renaissance really brought 3D art to the artistic spectrum. However whether it is 2D or 3D, both are highly respectable in my eyes because I can barely draw a stick figure (:
What really blew my mind this week was the dancing videos. Since I spend a lot of time doing traditional dances, I find it really interesting to watch other traditional dances. I was watching the videos trying to find connections between traditional Irish dances and the European renaissance dances. The music that they danced to was very similar and had a similar timing to Irish step dance music. The guy in the second dancing video did some moves that have the same properties as the moves I do when I am dancing.
I also thought the paintings were pretty mind blowing. I liked watching the art majors talk about the styles and make connections to different types of art. They compared the two paintings and we saw that the two were very similar. They both had a triangle shape between their characters, They both had the idea of normal people at the bottom and heaven or the holy at the top, and they were both in colors like red, and dark blue/black. It just blows my mind that two paintings from two different painters, styles, and time periods can have such similar properties and background.
It was interesting to see different types of art from Medieval and Renaissance times, and how art has evolved. One point I'd like to raise however is how we view this evolution as better. We see a technical shift from two dimensional artwork to three artwork and say, wow, thats so much better. But is it really? Ten or fifteen years ago when we were talking about having 3D TV's or being able to make a call and see the other person’s face we thought it would be the coolest thing ever. However, it has been met with mixed reception; I for one am not the biggest fan of it. We are always looking ahead, and never really appreciating what’s here right now. Maybe less is more, and ignorance is bliss. Do we really need more? Can we ever be content with the things that we have?
It was interesting for me to see the different types of art from the Medieval and Renaissance times. I enjoyed seeing how the art evolved from both time periods. I think the more complicated an art piece it, the more we are able to analyze it which I think is really interesting too. What blew my mind was the observation Alexis Maldonado made about the two pictures. It was something about heaven, hell, and earth. That observation definitely blew my mind. Even with all of the senior project hecticness, I think we all learned something and had our minds blow a little bit!
Keep calm and blog.