Movies vs. Books

Source

Whenever a movie adaptation of a book is released, the critics usually say, “the book was much better”. They don’t think that the movie does the book any justice. This is because movies are usually just a summary of the plot, a less complete version of the books they are based on. So why do books become movies if they’re rarely any good?

I found a review of the Hunger Games movie by the author of the Hunger Games series, Suzanne Collins. She describes perfectly how the movie and book are “individual yet complementary pieces that enhance one another”. If done properly, a movie can further increase the experience of the readers. Movies provide us with a more visual image. As Collins said, “it’s amazing to see things that are suggested in the book fully developed and so brilliantly realized through the artistry of the designers”. This creates a whole new experience for Hunger Games fans where they get to really picture the setting, the characters faces and all the other details describes in the book. However, some people may argue that they prefer the book. For example, they didn’t imagine the characters as the movie portrays them, which may lead them to think that the movie was not an accurate representation of the book. Therefore, the movies vs. books debate can be summed up by whether you prefer your own dreams or someone else’s. When you read a book, you get to decide what everything looks like; it is your own imagination, whereas a movie is someone else’s interpretation of the book. In the review, Collins also credits the director, Gary Ross for creating an adapation that is faithful in both narrative and theme. However, he’s also brought a rich powerful vision of Panem, its brutality and excesses, to the film. These are things that most of us cannot visualize when reading a book. The movie shows us the true extent of the inequality in Hunger Games. On the other hand, books provide us with a kind of emotional attachment that movies can’t seem to replicate. I love reading. Sometimes I get so absorbed in a good book that I feel like I know the characters already. Especially with a series like Harry Potter, most kids I know, myself included, “grew up” with the series. It is harder to foster this kind of bond with a movie. It is possible, but harder to do in just two hours.

Between the movie and the book, I think that more people have watched the movie than the book. That’s just the way our society is today. People are constantly rushing for time, rushing through life. Unless someone was deeply affected by the movie, or curious to know more, I don’t think they will read the book. However, my roommate is the kind of person who refuses to see a movie adaptation of a book unless she has read the book. Do you think watching the movie before reading the book will ruin the experience of reading the book?

The existence of a movie based on a book doesn’t change the value of the original for me. A good book will always be a good book, even if the film adaptations butcher the story. I accept the fact that some things do get lost in translation. To make a movie while still staying faithful to a book is probably one of the most difficult things to do. 

Comparing Art Forms

When there is a beloved series of books, such as the most popular Harry Potter, there is much pressure on the movie producers to make it good. People critique the movies because they have left something out that was originally in the book version. There is a blog specifically about the movie comparison to the book of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows Pt.1 written by Emily Ann Ward (a young novelist). She argues that there is no comparison. She says the movie can’t fit everything so it seems “half-assed.” I think if the movie were to put everything that the book includes in the movie, we would die in the theater.  I believe many people think the book to movie comparison in general favors books because the power of the imagination is so much greater than anything we ever see in a movie. Personal interpretation and detail the author and the reader bring to the books cannot be substituted by a movie. Movies, as novels, are used for entertainment. Movies tell us how we should think of the story. There is no imagination involved. I am not bashing people who don’t read the books, in some ways they are better off. But are people being too hard on these movie makers?

There is also a lot left out of the movies because we don’t necessarily see how the book was written. We can’t see the author’s word choice, or intuitive metaphors. I believe this leaves out a large role we don’t necessarily think about when reading.  However is this giving books the unfair advantage? The relationship between author and reader is lost in movies between actors and directors. However, movies in their own art form depend on their actors and directors to create the end product. I think comparing literary art to motion picture art is much like comparing visual art to performing arts. They can both be interpreted differently, and look very different but are two completely different forms. Although there is usually a similar plot line between book and movie, it is left to the interpretation of the directors or the movie company to decide what their product looks like. Should movies really be judged based on their books? Are we really giving them a fair chance? If a piece of music based off of a sculpture or a painting had the same title, would we judge it the same way?

I personally don’t think we would see it the same. The similarity between book and movie tell a story similarly. However, one is in our imagination and one is played by actors in a movie. These actors and directors are interpreting the book in one way. I think that the Harry Potter movies are so compelling because they are based off of books. If someone didn’t know the movies were based off of books, the Lord of the Rings series for example (many people didn't know they were books), would they be more willing to accept the movie?

Never Judge a Book by its Movie

I found an interesting critic on Yahoo Voices (first time reading something on this site) focusing on One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (sorry to beat a dead horse) and the book vs. movie debate. He argues the book "is by far better than the movie". He recommends that everyone should read the book before watching the movie because it is impossible to cover everything in the novel. Many parts are excluded or otherwise changed to fit the average time limit of two hours. When watching a movie, the presentation is shown the way the producers want you to see it. When reading a book, you imagine the characters the way you want to. This works both ways. Some may like that the book comes alive in movies with characters and scenery, but others may favor the imagination inherent in reading books. No scene in the book exists where the patients go out and play basketball. Also in the movie, McMurphy gets away and takes the boys fishing while in the book the fishing trip is organized. These slight changes show that the director wants to make the movie more fast paced and entertaining to the audience. Another interesting viewpoint is that if you read the book before the movie, you might have certain expectations for the movie which can lead to disappointment, neutrality or approval. 

Analyzing the critic, he is not an expert, so readers have to be critical. The best audience for these kind of reviews would be those who have read the book and watched the movie. He had several typos and did not even finish his sentence, so this decreases his credibility. However, I still enjoyed what he had to say, and he did bring up some valid points, but maybe not in the best English. The purpose of his post is to share his thoughts and feelings about the debate of books turned into novels, which is very prevalent in our culture. After seeing a movie based on a book, almost everyone leaving the theater will talk about the differences and which form they liked better. He posted his opinions on the internet so that everyone can stumble upon it (it was the first return on a google search of "one flew over the cuckoo's nest book vs movie"). He does a good job of persuading the audience that the book is better by emphasizing how movies always exclude or differ in many parts. And in the case of Cuckoo's Nest, the film added a basketball scene and makes the fishing trip spontaneous.

Do the books always win more audience approval than movies? I can't think of any movie that was significantly better than the book (Harry Potter...no. Hunger Games...no. To Kill a Mockingbird...no). Maybe The Notebook was better in movie form? Haha. What movie do you think is better than the book? Why do books become movies in the first place? It is all about the money and fame. The book pushes readers to watch the movie, and the movie encourages those who haven't read it to read it. Granted I think more readers will watch the movie, and less movie watchers will read the book. This is just because of society's emphasis on instant gratification. Movie watchers will not want to sit and read a book for a couple days if they have already watched the movie about the general plot of the book. However, some people are inspired to read the book if the movie was really good to receive more minute details. I did that with Twilight, not because the movie was really good, but I was curious in how Meyer crafted the characters in book form.


Personally, I feel like I'll always enjoy the books more so than the movies because I value the magical imagination that the book offers.

Reader and Reviewer Culture Today

Anyone and everyone can write a book review these days as long as they have access to the Internet. People no longer have to go through the long process of editing and so on for their review to get published in an official publication. These public reviews by normal people, meaning people like us, who aren’t exactly “experts” in the field of English and composition, give potential readers a different perspective on what a particular book is about.

I was going through the reviews for Tina Fey’s biography Bossypants and found that the “most helpful” review was one written by Alan Mazer titled “Good Read!”. At the top left corner of the review we can see that 503 out of 547 people thought his review was helpful. Does this mean that it is a good review? He begins the review by describing Bossypants as a “good memoir”; justifying why he gave the book a five star rating. By expressing the fact that he isn’t a Tina Fey fan, he makes his review relatable to a much wider range of readers and potential readers interested in the book. People who are fans of Tina Fey will probably have a biased opinion on the book, affected by their affection for the author. Therefore, in his review, Mazer speaks for most of the people who either don’t know who Tina Fey is, or has never been a big fan of hers. Since this book is a biography/memoir, the review describes Tina Fey as a funny and honest woman who has worked hard to “make it” in a male dominated industry. Mazer also recommends that not only Tina Fey fans, but working mothers and wives read this book as it may relate to what they themselves are going through. Furthermore, since he is a man and he admits to enjoying the book, he shows that Bossypants will appeal to a wider range of audience than just women juggling work and their personal life.

As I mentioned earlier, public reviews work to give readers an alternative perspective when deciding on a book. By allowing the public to post reviews on their website, Amazon stands to gain more profit. Even if a book gets a poor review by a professional, some readers might be swayed by a review written by somebody they can relate to. The public reviewers don’t claim to be experts; their reviews are just their personal opinions. Although “experts” who write book reviews try to be objective, they are still human and everyone has different tastes. Even so, many people still prefer and trust expert reviews, thinking that public reviews are less reliable. Do you think that this is a legitimate concern when it comes to book reviews?

With countless numbers of book reviews currently on the Internet, we can see that book reviews possess some form of cultural value. A review of a book written in the 1950s for example would be different or the same depending on the values held today and if they have changed from that time. Also, since it is only natural to want to fit in, public book reviews and ratings tend to skew on one side. They show potential readers that this is what majority of the public think of the book and this might affect a person’s decision when forming an opinion on the book.

Personally, I don’t read book reviews before I read a book so I can form my own opinion on it. I know that if I read the reviews, my mind will consciously or subconsciously create expectations for the book that were not there previously. What do you think? Is it better to read reviews before reading a book?

Honestly Opinionated

Honestly Opinionated

I don’t think I have ever read book reviews on Amazon.com before (I didn’t even know there were so many people who took time to write them). To be honest, I usually read books because my friends or family tell me they’re good. I decided to research the book Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury. The book overall got 4 out of 5 stars. I personally probably would have given it 5, but the rare few who gave the book a 2 or a 1 have drastically different views from those who saw this book as inspirational. Between two reviews that are entitled “changes the way I see the world” and “extremely thought provoking” there is a review called “what did I just read?” This person says, “If the book was written intentionally this bad so the reader would be driven to burn the book in some kind of elaborate ironic metaphor, then maybe I get it.” Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. However judging by the quality of this sentence, I don’t think I would trust this reader. How much of an impact does well written sentences and proper english have on the reader of these book reviews? I think that says more about the reader than the opinion in the review.

 There is also the question whether these book reviews are really in response to the book or are just responding to other book reviews. In one review I read, right after a poor review, the reviewer said “It’s short and sweet and makes you think, if you are capable of thinking.” I feel this is a stab at the readers who disliked the novel. Also, I think that may be a little uncalled for because the review right before his was a high schooler. Can we really trust the reviews of these books if they are written by what could be 12 year-olds? Are their opinions important?


 I believe in writing, as in any art form, there is an ideal audience. However, it is important to see the opposing viewpoint. I am sure authors learn a great deal, not only from the good reviews but especially from the bad reviews. But, do authors change their writing style or storylines to fit those who are discontent with their previous novels? Should they? On Amazon anyone can click on a reviewer and see everything they have ever reviewed. Many of the people who have reviews, review almost everything they buy whether it be novels or soundtracks.

Anyone can see what they have reviewed, and could even judge their review on the kind of other things they review. If I had a common interest in books or movies as a reviewer I definitely think that would sway my opinion of them to trust their recommendations. Although there are some who dislike the book very much, would that persuade you from not reading the book if there are still good reviews? (And vice versa?) There is such access to these reviews with the internet now and people are not afraid to voice their own opinion. I think this is ultimately helpful to not only readers but authors as well.

Don't Simply Believe What You See First

I chose the predictable route and examined One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest on Amazon. I found two versions of the book on the site, and I read both of the pages. To be honest, I have never really paid much attention to book reviews. I normally pick up a book to read by friend's recommendations or I read the back of the book. Do you read book reviews before reading the actual book? The site includes reviews by official publications:

"A glittering parable of good and evil." —The New York Times Book Review

"A roar of protest against middlebrow society’s Rules and the Rulers who enforce them." —Time

These short reviews compared to reader's extensive posts decreases the helpfulness. They are really vague also, so they do not provide much substance.

The book distributor website offers a nice function that shows you the highest rated reviews first, so all of the ones on the front page are positive. It is really interesting to see that readers do put in a lot of time crafting their response. They provide background information about Kesey to contextualize the gist of the novel and some recap some of the novel too and they finally write their own take on the novel and what they took away after reading it. Reading the insightful reviews really does make me excited to read the book. Some examples:

"I recommend you run, not walk, to get this book."

"I was, forever inspired and ultimately liberated in mind to finally realize that you can take away a man's life, but never his freedom."

Some of these people are really selling the book. Naturally, I wanted to find some bad reviews amongst all this praise. Quite a few gave the book one or two stars because of its tragic nature:

"Great reading, but for God's sake don't read it when you're depressed."

One of the bad reviews was from a mother who picked up the book after her son read it for a high school English class. She gives it discussion merit, but essentially despises the book because evil triumphs in the end and that depressed her.

From examining both sides, I think Amazon should not only show the higher rated posts on the front page because the lesser rated posts does have merit. I completely understand why the mother did not like this book, and I feel that is a very important aspect to consider when trying to get a thorough feel for a book.

These book reviews represent that people are still passionate about literature and they would take the time to review books they've read so others can engage in a deeper conversation with them or simply be encouraged to read the book themselves. The online book reviews perpetuates the US literary/readership culture. I also really like the shift from only official publication's reviews to reviews by everyday people. The change definitely added more personality, flair and humor into responses and I feel more compelled to read what other people thought about the book rather than a name brand company's take on it. Do you enjoy the blurbs of praise from official publications in the front of many books?

The purpose of the book reviews is not simply to persuade others to read/buy the books, but it fosters a literary community where others can join in the conversations of other readers or challenge their take on the novel. Another could be for the affirmation and accomplishment the reader feels after posting a review. It could be some people's traditions to post a review after they finish a book. This could help improve their memory of the book's content by applying critical analysis. What other purpose do you think book reviews serve?

Amazon invites book reviews for the obvious reason of making more money. This could be their motive for only putting five starred reviews on the front page. By allowing readers to provide feedback, they could gain loyal fans to their websites which in turn would increase their revenue also. I see this mainly as a business tactic. Do you see this in another light? If so, how?

J.K. Rowling

The Harry Potter series has made J.K. Rowling one of the most well known authors in the world. As a huge fan of the books, I decided to look up her twitter account. She doesn’t have a long descriptive profile, just author. I think this reflects on how she sees herself as just an author instead of “author of the Harry Potter series”. She does have a link to her website though for people who are interested to learn more about her.

Also, I was surprised to find that she is not very active on twitter. Most of her tweets are just statements to clarify that this is indeed her real twitter account. She also admits that we will not be hearing much from her as she says, “pen and paper are still my priority”. I feel like she’s suggesting that she doesn’t have time for twitter because she is focusing on her writing. Additionally, by using the words “pen and paper” instead of just her writing, we can tell that J.K. Rowling is old school and doesn’t really care much for these social networks. She probably made the twitter account so her fans would know that she is the real J.K. Rowling and not to follow any imposters.

Her twitter does have links to other of her more active online profiles like her official website and Pottermore. Her website tells more about the author and her other projects (Rowling has a new book that will be published this September) whereas Pottermore is more like an online platform for all things Harry Potter. It gives the readers a chance to rediscover the Potter series with additional notes from the author and more detailed descriptions of the characters. You can also connect with other Harry Potter fans and even your friends on Pottermore. I think this reflects on how the digital age has changed literary culture. Readers today have the opportunity to explore their favorite books more in depth. With the help of the social media, the book has grown to be more than just a children’s book; it created a whole new world for the fans and readers of the series to explore and completely immerse themselves into. Personally, I don’t follow J.K. Rowling on twitter but I do have a Pottermore account. In a way, Pottermore can be seen as J.K. Rowling’s version of twitter, where she isn’t limited to just 140 characters to express her feelings yet still be able to stay connected to her fans. Do you think people will just forget about Harry Potter without sites like Pottermore? 

From looking at other social media profiles and blogs, not just J.K. Rowling’s, we can see how readers today have access to the kind of writing by their favorite authors that they would never have been exposed to if not for the internet. Readers are able to gain insight to the authors mind and style of writing. While exploring Pottermore, I was actually surprised when I realized how personal writing could be for an author. J.K. Rowling incorporated so many elements of her personal life into the books that readers wouldn’t normally notice. 

Jodi Picoult

I have read a few books by Jodi Picoult, and I have enjoyed them thoroughly. So, I decided to look her up online and see what her facebook page was like. I have been to her website before which is her promotional website for her books (jodipicoult.com). However on facebook I see posts that she has personally written about her political views, and pictures she has recently posted from events she has attended. Her headshot appears in both her website and her facebook profile. I personally think she’s overusing the shot, and could have more variety. She has built herself an online profile full of pictures of books and book signing sessions. She has many fans, and her latest picture is a large billboard with that same headshot. I think she is kind of a diva as far as authors go. I don’t see many other book billboards these days. Her online profile does look very professional. She is always dressed will in all of her pictures, and she is self promotional without going over the top. I think she has a nice balance between personal posts, and promoting interviews and new books. One thing I noticed about both of her pages is how much she involves her kids. She is obviously happy to be a mother, and I think that appeals to a lot of people. She has most recently written a book with her daughter called, Between the Lines. She is not only promoting her own career, but starting her daughter’s. She seems more human than most authors. It may seem egotistical to put a large picture on the back of a book, just as all of hers have, but I am starting to think it is smart. She is a celebrity in the world of novels. Her headshot is just as recognizable to me as any other celebrity. Does this make people want to buy her books more? Should an author have to do all of this advertising to sell a book if it is a good book? Her political orientation can not only be found in her books and her writing, but it is the first thing on her facebook page. She has posted a link to the Huffington Post article about Obama backing the issue of gay marriage. I personally like this because I read the Huffington Post and support gay marriage, but if someone did not support the issue would that hinder their view of the books? Would they stop reading her books all together? She has taken a political stance and I admire that, and I don’t think she takes it too far. I enjoy her books, and her websites actually make me want to read more of her books. They are simple, and interesting. She has a family value in her sites which makes her seem more like a real person. Her family vacation pictures definitely outline that. Her three children obviously mean the world to her, enough to put them as co-authors of some of the books she writes. I think that is a very smart idea.

The Mastermind of Love

 

I decided to follow Nicholas Sparks on Twitter. I have read five of his books and hope to read them all one day. He is my go-to when I want to experience every human emotion possible. He tweets almost everyday, mostly quotes about his novels and movies. He also re-tweets many of his followers. An example of a reader response he re-tweeted was: "@SparksNicholas #inspiration making me believe in true love". He also has many pictures of him and his fans on his twitter account too. He has a link to his website at the top of his twitter.

On his website, he lists all the books he has written. An informal interview with the author is also posted under the synopsis with questions asking why particular things happened in the novel. He has a biographical section, FAQ, novel learning series for when teachers want to use his books in the classroom, writing tips and recommended reads. On his writing tips page, he listed several writing books for people to read, two of which were On Writing by Stephen King and Elements of Style by William Strunk. Interestingly, I read King's book in AP Language, and we talked about Elements of Style in English 367.02. Something that stood out to me is that he created the Nicholas Sparks Foundation selling signed copies of his books benefiting his non profit organization for education. He and his wife have donated $10,000,000 to local, regional and national causes - including education, veteran support, Alzheimer’s care and research, childhood disease research and care, and animal rescue organizations, but education remains a top priority. All in all, his website is a much better representation of him than twitter. Information wise, twitter is very limited due to the 140 character constraint, but the advantage is getting to know the author on a more personal level. I feel very connected to him because of his genuineness. I also liked how it highlighted other activities he enjoys doing besides writing, such as running 30 miles a week, spending time with his five children, lifting weights four times a week and Tae Kwon Do.

He is really technology savvy because his website contains the links to his Facebook, WhoSay, Twitter, Google+ and Youtube. This is a good move for literary culture because the internet is such a pervasive part of our lives now, and it makes receiving and posting information really fast. We learn much more on social media, than by just reading the front and back covers of the book. If we stuck to the traditional novel, all the information we'd get is where the author lives, his family, his books and awards he's received. That does not tell much about a person. On the other hand, their facebook, twitter and personal blogs could contain all the information you've ever wanted to know about the author. Hard copied books do not offer that much space for the author to engage with the reader on a personal level.

This might have been the first time that I have researched an author's life and social media presence. I don't follow author's social media because I enjoy reading for the content the story holds and don't really care that much for who wrote it. Do any of you follow your favorite author on the internet? And why? Authors are in a totally different sphere than celebrities. Most people do follow celebrities because it is entertainment, and when given the chance to see them in real life, they would jump at the opportunity. Whereas, most people would not be so enthused at a book signing. Will this ever change?

When I think of literary culture, I think of a community that is fostered by literature. This is so easily seen on facebook fan pages of people, brands and things. The most eminent might be the virtual Harry Potter world of Pottermore by J.K. Rowling. All of these outlets brings people with common interests together. Virtual communities are very effective when it comes to easy accessibility. What do you think of traditional book clubs? Do they work or will they become obsolete one day?

Food for Thought?

Photo by Judith G. Klausner

Personally, I believe that art, as a form of self-expression is representative of a particular culture or society. Anything can be considered art as long as it has some meaning to it. An Oreo will always just be an Oreo – even with cameo portraits carved onto the fillings – unless it is given a deeper meaning or purpose by the artist. In this case, the Oreo along with the other materials used in the From Scratch series by Judith G. Klausner gives us further insight to the modern American society.

From Scratch is a series of artwork by Judith G. Klausner made up of detailed Victorian-styled cameo portraits carved out of Oreo cream, hand-cross-stitched Chex cereal and extensive bread embroidery. Her choice of materials are designed to address the gender issues within American culture.

The photo above is an example of how Klausner uses ordinary, packaged food and turns it into some thought-provoking piece of artwork. When more and more people are criticizing processed foods, Klausner defends it with the reason that they provide women with a choice to pursue a career outside of the household. In other words, her art commends the role of processed food in helping women break away from traditional gender roles.

The availability of processed food has undoubtedly made life easier for women who are struggling to juggle a full-time job as well as other household responsibilities. Although packaged food may not be the best choice health wise, Klausner makes a fair point to defend her art, saying,

“The food on our table may not be as tasty as it once was. It may not even be as wholesome. But it is important to take a step back and recognize the trade that has been made, and that what we have gained is not to be undervalued”

She urges us not to overlook the benefits offered by packaged food and how it has given so many women in America a chance for a life they wouldn’t have had fifty or sixty years ago. But is this a reasonable trade? Is it justifiable for us to sacrifice health for a career?

Judith Klausner’s use of Oreos, gummy candies, Chex cereals, ketchup and barbeque sauce to create her art positively illustrates these overly processed food. She takes the food that we perceive as fake and commercialized and turns it into something amazing. Her work inspires us to rethink our preconceived ideas of the role that processed food plays in our everyday lives. It is interesting to see how something so commercialized and overlooked by the majority can be employed as a positive social commentary. Art gives us the chance to look at something from a different point of view.

In the past, Klausner worked with insects and fingernails as well as other materials that would freak out the general public. With From Scratch, she now has a more widely acceptable art form, making it easier to spread her message. As she said in a recent interview with DigBoston.com, “One of the interesting parts about working with food is that it’s a much more relatable material. What I was going for was to help someone look at something differently.”

Is Classical Music Worthy of Our Time?

In recent years many Symphony Orchestras have suffered from pay-cuts, and mostly lack of appreciation from the general public. I go to the symphony at least twice a month to enjoy the music. My exposure to classical music was present since birth. My parents are both professional musicians, so I really heard a lot of it. The first instinct I had was to fight music any way I could. I started taking piano when I was six years old then I picked up the flute. However, I have met many people my age who don’t even know what a symphony is. If it doesn’t have a catchy tune that repeats over and over about someone who’s done you wrong, then why listen? Why Listen? Classical music is unique in that it doesn’t have lyrics. This is a problem for the majority of the general population. Many people need to have lyrics to know exactly what the song is about. Classical music is thought provoking. It makes everyone think just a little bit more about what the music could be about. It doesn’t spell it out, so it is up for interpretation. However, if you factor in what the composer was doing when he wrote this piece, when it was composed in relation to history, and in what country, you may very well get chills. Why Listen Live? Every musician has their own experience they bring to the table. Let’s take an orchestra for example, even a local one like the Columbus Symphony. Each one of these members has dedicated their entire life to playing their instrument. What people witness when they go to concerts is not only one person’s dedication to their instrument but about 50 or 60 people’s dedication. That is 4 hours of practice (on average) a day for their whole life. That’s a total of 60 full days a year spent working to perfect this craft. And, isn’t because they know they will find a job, it is because they love play their instrument. The orchestra produces its sound because of what each individual has experienced in their lifetime. Each person on stage has their own story, and usually they’ve done some pretty incredible things. Differences Between Classical and Popular Music. Unlike popular music, symphony orchestras can play live music and it won’t be considered a “cover.” The pieces written for the orchestra are not only written by one person, but they are incredibly intricate. Symphonies matter because of the meaning behind the beautiful melody, or the angry harmonies. They are not spelled out for the listener, so most people just don’t bother. People view popular music as the people’s music, and it is very convenient to only have to listen to a 3 minute piece of music as opposed to 15. But, why should that stop us from being interested and educated about this unfamiliar art? Why do people think that classical music isn’t interesting enough or too “too boring.” Dying Art Form. Many orchestras are suffering from the lack of interest in the general population. They are also suffering from the lack of interest in their management. Many donors or board members for orchestras all over the country donate time and money because it is socially the right thing to do in the upper class. Many people don’t care about the music programs in schools with levy’s failing left and right, so why should they care about professional musicians? The reason in my opinion is that music is human nature. Music is one thing that has been around for centuries and centuries. Music makes people feel happy or sad based on the chord structure, based on the key signature. The time signature in music makes them want to dance, whether it be slow or fast. Popular music is also human nature. Ke$ha has a place in the music world just as the New York Philharmonic does. I personally wouldn’t want to be listening to Tchaikovsky’s Symphony No. 4 at a club or a party. But why give Ke$ha a chance, but not the New York Phil? Music affects how we are, it affects our mood, and it affects our life in more ways than we realize. All anyone needs to do is give this kind of music, this kind of art a chance.

To "Art" or Not to "Art"

As I was trying to find a unique form of art to explore that also serves as social commentary, I stumbled upon Kenneth Tin-Kin Hung's Page. He uses popular culture, political figures, historical references and imagery found on the internet to a new image or video that questions identity, politics, sexuality and power. You might ask if this is real art since he is essentially using someone's original piece to supplement his own. I would say it is still is. His art has a motive, while others seem to don't (David Smith's sculptures as seen above) ... 

I took a Freshman Seminar last quarter on how we can use child psychology to understand what it means to be human. We read Descarte's Baby by Paul Bloom and he featured a chapter about art. We considered what it means for something to be art. A way that art is really different from other objects is that all other artifacts are designed for a purpose, but "there is nothing less useful than a painting or a sculpture, and the very idea of using one for a functional purpose betrays misunderstanding" (Bloom 86). So what is the goal of art? Some people find it pleasurable to engage in purchasing outrageous and unnecessarily expensive art because they serve as displays of status and power. Others go for the intellectual appeal. They like displays of skills, and conversation that can be provoked by visitors to their house. In addition, realistic pictures can serve as a substitute for the real thing. Examples are beautiful portraits of nature and scenery. For me, I would call something art if the creator intended for it to be art. It all comes back to intention.
 
Back to Kenneth's art, the piece I will focus on is his "The Fast Supper" and "Fat Free Nirvana". He is depicting the contemporary societal problem of obesity by using historical references. He satirizes the famous "Last Supper" painting by Leonardo da Vinci by showing Jesus consuming large amounts of fast food and unhealthy snacks, growing more and more obese until he finally explodes. This definitely fits into the category of social criticism because he is trying to raise awareness about the dangers of obesity. The fact that he used a famous religious event to parallel this growing issue is to relate the magnitude of the fast food industry in American society. Another detail is that all the foods on the table are labeled with religious terms and symbols, which seems to say that Americans treat their fast food as a way of life, like religion. The explosion of Jesus symbolizes his core message that Americans need to adopt better eating habits and stop the dependency on fat, greasy foods before health problems kill everyone.

In the "Fat Free Nirvana", he presents the solution to the fast food and obesity problem by showing how the man lost weight by eating more fruits and vegetables. But at the end, it showed a emaciated man, and I think that admonishes against the other side of the issue, anorexia. He did a really great job portraying this issue impacting America. Do you think his videos are effective?

For it to be effective, social critique should be reproduced and distributed to the masses. Hung does exactly this because the two videos are available to anyone around the world with Internet access. Granted not everyone has access to the Internet when considering third world countries, but computers are becoming more prevalent in our lives. I think art can produce "real" political, social change if the medium can be widely seen by everyone and internet is certainly the way to go for this. Art does provide a social good even with Kesha's Animal album. She has a song entitled "We R Who We R" and it can be interpreted to mean "be yourself". Granted her other songs on the album are more provocative and doesn't offer socially good messages (i.e. "Take It Off"). Nevertheless, classical music, such as Mozart might do society more good than popular music like Kesha, but they are both still forms of art. Both of the artists spend time creating their sounds intended for an audience to hear it. What do you think of Kesha's music as art?

Do you think social criticism will become more prevalent in art form?

Post Number One

In Robert Yates’ Revolutionary Road, there was an underlying misogynistic theme. April was inferior to Frank and the wives of suburbia liked this masculine/feminine lifestyle. In contrast, The Huffington Post’s blog: “The Phony ‘Gender Wars’” talks about how women are becoming “a more powerful economic force than men.” Women are starting to break off on their own and are no longer thought of as weird or abnormal to raise a family on their own or be single. According to Eric Klinenberg’s new book Going Solo, “Marriage isn’t cool anymore.” Women are getting ahead in their careers and their financial situation.

Unlike the 1950s, the 21st century is a place where less people are concerned who brings home more bacon. Women felt contained by their house, by their ‘picture window’. Women could vote, but their economic opinions, and independence hardly crossed the minds of most males. Women are now financially more independent and have the public opinion more on their side. However, the question arises: Do some relationships falter because the woman makes more money? Does being a dominant male matter anymore?

Single women today have been more of a role model now then ever. Television shows make the single life out to be something to strive for. Women no longer need to have a man involved in their life to make them happy. Although there are definitely exceptions to this rule, the majority of books and TV shows today make the woman out to be a strong and defined individual. They are not tied to a man.

This blog post was written by Rick Newman (male) and this even shows that the views of men have changed from the 50s. In the past several decades, masculinity has shifted in the sense that it is no longer based around women, and being the one holding the job. Masculinity in that sense would be a complete turn-off for any women now. Newman argues that the “winner-take-all competition between the two genders, an oversimplified meme that has set off plenty of hyperventilating in the media.” I think he is right about this. I think the media sometimes unnecessarily embellishes the “gender wars.” Women who try to get ahead of men shouldn’t be worried that they are in competition with are men. They should worry about how they win. Even though there are some people who are blatantly sexist, I believe the majority today are not.

The housewife/house-husband debate is still going on. If the wife makes more money than the husband does she work and he stay at home? How does that affect his ‘masculinity’? Is he being contained?

However, to flip the views of the 1950s upside down and say that men should be stay-at-home dads and the females should work, or else the female is not feminine may seem very strange, and my guess is that not many men would like that. There would probably be a handful of men who would be thrilled by this idea, just as there are only a handful of women. The ideal life for a woman is different now. Maybe every woman in the 50s wanted to be a housewife, just as the majority of women now want to have a career. I couldn’t imagine having the life April Wheeler did in Revolutionary Road, but I wonder if it was just because of the containment of society or would I still want to have a career as I do now if I lived in the 1950s?

Men Resisting Containment

This blog by Etan Thomas, author of Fatherhood: Rising to the Ultimate Challenge depicts the modern day father’s resistance towards society’s efforts of containing men to traditional gender roles. In his post, Thomas talks about how a Huggies commercial portrayed dads as being incapable of taking care of their own children. Outraged by what he thought was an unfair portrayal of men’s role in child rearing, the author did some research to prove that this “helpless” image of fathers who cannot care for their kids without the help of women is more of a gender stereotype than a fact. He uses his personal experience as well as evidence from the U.S. Census to further successfully prove that men are not as inept at taking care of children as implied by the commercial.

Even though society has made all sorts of progress in promoting gender equality, some stereotypes remain. In my opinion, this blog post shows efforts of resisting containment. Men no longer have to and neither do they subscribe to the traditional gender roles that were most popular in the 1950’s. In our society today, it is becoming more and more common for men to take on the role of stay at home dad while more women are entering the work force.

This commercial by Huggies however successfully exhibits how society constrains individuals’ choices such as men who decide to stay at home and raise their kids. In the 50’s Cold War era, women were the ones being forced to abide by the socially accepted roles assigned to them. It is interesting to see how men today are now faced with a similar situation and how they react towards it.

Stay at home dads today are commonly mocked and insulted by people who do not understand why they do it. In a passage by Roland Martin in the authors book mentioned earlier, Martin points out that there are many other commercials, not just this one by Huggies, insinuating that mothers have a better relationship with their child than father’s, who are described as impatient and useless when it comes to household matters. Whether we are aware of it or not, any attempt to stray from social norms are never reacted to positively. This is why there are many people who try to contain these men who are proudly taking care of their kids and they are doing it well. People who just don’t get it may be hostile towards these fathers just because they don’t comply with what society deems is “normal”.

However, these fathers are not just letting the negative remarks slide. They are taking action and refusing to be made fun of for what they do. They demand respect and recognition and I think they deserve it. Women are constantly being praised for their work at home as a mother and are always told to be proud of what they do; why should it be any different for men? Isn’t the modern American society aiming towards gender equality?