walkingshadow (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
walkingshadow) wrote2005-02-02 11:13 pm
walkingshadow) wrote2005-02-02 11:13 pm
you're a stranger now unto me
Wow. Everyone seems to have leapt onboard the fannish quiz meme, so I will have to run through the flist and be forced to admit how little I know. In the meantime, it's time to talk about icons again!
Pick one of my icons for any reason whatsoever. Then tell me why you chose that particular one.
Visual Anthropology this morning was a good time, as usual. After a few emails back and forth over the weekend, it was determined I'll be in the Society of Waste group with three others. I'm excited about it. Today we got through maybe half of our photo presentations; people talked a lot, but we were also hindered by the break imposed on us by the fire alarm going off in Turlington Hall. Two fire trucks and twenty minutes in the cold gray mist outside later (in which we fondly reminisced about high school fire drills and phoned-in bomb threats), everyone was let back in and we continued. I'm encouraged by the fact that I'm in the mid-range of ability in this class. There are a couple of really good photographers, most of them with arts or photojournalism majors, and some with obviously no experience and very uneven results. I'm learning a lot here, and I haven't been able to say that about most of my classes lately.
The reading for today was about world's fairs, people on display, and whether that makes people into commodities (our verdict: yes). Also about museums: why (anthropology) museums are so largely unsuccessful, and what could be done with that space instead of what is usually done. One of the largest problems with putting people on display is that not only does it exoticize them, it fixes them in time; they're made to perform their most elaborate rituals and wear their most appealing clothing, regardless of what kind of role those things play in their daily lives. Then, not only are they packaged into little boxes of representation ("India is like this"), they're forced to stay there and engage in those same customs forever, or they're branded inauthentic. The message is that we change, but other societies are static; it usually revolves around the state of the society at the point of European contact, and both dismisses the idea that they weren't always like this throughout their history (dismissing, essentially, that they have a history) and refuses to let them ever do anything else. The prof pointed out how interesting it was that colonial powers so often build museums for the people they've conquered.
I forgot to mention the article we went over two weeks ago. Or perhaps I did, but I didn't include my favorite part. The article opens with a scene from The Passenger:
"Michelangelo Antonio's 1975 film is about a documentarian making a film about a national liberation front in an unspecified north African country. Mr. Locke, played by Jack Nicholson, tries to interview a rebel leader and has the following coversation:
And that's what this class is about.
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
tenebris pointed me to Language Log, and it is my new FAVORITE thing. It's a bunch of linguists posting about issues and things they notice and things they disagree with or thought were interesting. Geoffrey Pullum lays out prescriptive vs. descriptive grammarians so clearly that I think I'm going to print it out and distribute copies; a while back he explained, syntactically, why The Da Vinci Code was so. badly. written (with follow-up on Secrets of Angels and Demons here). You know, a few weeks ago I took The Da Vinci Code into the bathtub with me where I got through about eighty pages while my toes pruned up; the bathtub is pretty much the only place for it. They've been despairing over the grammar questions on the SAT lately. There's a ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-syndicated.gif)
languagelog RSS feed if you'd be interested in that sort of thing.
I napped for three and a half hours after I got home from class this afternoon. My shelf in the refrigerator is full of juice, soy sauce, and little else, my cabinet is stocked with applesauce and olive oil, and I'm about to order pizza.
Pick one of my icons for any reason whatsoever. Then tell me why you chose that particular one.
Visual Anthropology this morning was a good time, as usual. After a few emails back and forth over the weekend, it was determined I'll be in the Society of Waste group with three others. I'm excited about it. Today we got through maybe half of our photo presentations; people talked a lot, but we were also hindered by the break imposed on us by the fire alarm going off in Turlington Hall. Two fire trucks and twenty minutes in the cold gray mist outside later (in which we fondly reminisced about high school fire drills and phoned-in bomb threats), everyone was let back in and we continued. I'm encouraged by the fact that I'm in the mid-range of ability in this class. There are a couple of really good photographers, most of them with arts or photojournalism majors, and some with obviously no experience and very uneven results. I'm learning a lot here, and I haven't been able to say that about most of my classes lately.
The reading for today was about world's fairs, people on display, and whether that makes people into commodities (our verdict: yes). Also about museums: why (anthropology) museums are so largely unsuccessful, and what could be done with that space instead of what is usually done. One of the largest problems with putting people on display is that not only does it exoticize them, it fixes them in time; they're made to perform their most elaborate rituals and wear their most appealing clothing, regardless of what kind of role those things play in their daily lives. Then, not only are they packaged into little boxes of representation ("India is like this"), they're forced to stay there and engage in those same customs forever, or they're branded inauthentic. The message is that we change, but other societies are static; it usually revolves around the state of the society at the point of European contact, and both dismisses the idea that they weren't always like this throughout their history (dismissing, essentially, that they have a history) and refuses to let them ever do anything else. The prof pointed out how interesting it was that colonial powers so often build museums for the people they've conquered.
I forgot to mention the article we went over two weeks ago. Or perhaps I did, but I didn't include my favorite part. The article opens with a scene from The Passenger:
"Michelangelo Antonio's 1975 film is about a documentarian making a film about a national liberation front in an unspecified north African country. Mr. Locke, played by Jack Nicholson, tries to interview a rebel leader and has the following coversation:
Locke: Yesterday when we filmed you at the village, I understood that you were brought up to be a witch doctor. Isn't that unusual for someone like you to have spent several years in France and Yugoslavia? Has that changed your attitude towards certain tribal customs? Don't they strike you as false now and wrong perhaps for the tribe?
Native: Mr. Locke. There are perfectly satisfactory answers to all your questions. But I don't think you understand how little you can learn from them. Your questions are much more revealing about yourself than my answer would be about me.
Locke: I meant them quite sincerely.
Native: Mr. Locke. We can have a conversation, but only if it is not just what you think is sincere, but also what I believe to be honest.
Locke: Yes, of course, but . . .
(The rebel now turns the camera around so that Locke is centered in the frame.)
Native: Now, we can have an interview. You can ask me the same questions as before."
And that's what this class is about.
tenebris pointed me to Language Log, and it is my new FAVORITE thing. It's a bunch of linguists posting about issues and things they notice and things they disagree with or thought were interesting. Geoffrey Pullum lays out prescriptive vs. descriptive grammarians so clearly that I think I'm going to print it out and distribute copies; a while back he explained, syntactically, why The Da Vinci Code was so. badly. written (with follow-up on Secrets of Angels and Demons here). You know, a few weeks ago I took The Da Vinci Code into the bathtub with me where I got through about eighty pages while my toes pruned up; the bathtub is pretty much the only place for it. They've been despairing over the grammar questions on the SAT lately. There's a languagelog RSS feed if you'd be interested in that sort of thing.I napped for three and a half hours after I got home from class this afternoon. My shelf in the refrigerator is full of juice, soy sauce, and little else, my cabinet is stocked with applesauce and olive oil, and I'm about to order pizza.
no subject
This one made me snort-giggle and say "Don't worry. I won't hold that against you. Here, have a hug." :)
I like the way that person's fingers are splayed out on the book. It's like he wants to hold onto everything the book has to offer.
no subject
Who needs a hug more than Harry Potter? *cuddles him* The guy reading is just some guy from a picture I yanked off gettyimages.com, but I love how serious he is about it.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
Thank you. :)
no subject
Because it makes me imitate his facial expression every. single. time., in public or not.
no subject
no subject
His little face! :snoggles Rupert:
no subject
(Now if only I never had to use him again . . . )