Cultural Event Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Cultural Event - Essay Example t in the modern world is the festival stands for reaffirmation of hope, religious tolerance, a renewed commitment to friendship, spreading the word of peace and harmony and above all, celebration of â€Å"simple joys of life†. For many Hindus, Diwali is also the New Year’s Eve and it is held on the final day of the Vikram calendar, a type of Hindu calendar followed by Indians from the Northern part of the country. The day after Diwali is known as Annakut and it is considered as New Year’s Day for Hindus living in the Northern part of India (Diwali Festival 498). Diwali is always in October and November on the Gregorian calendar (Hindu Council of Australia para 2-6). The festival is accompanied by various rituals with the choice of ritual to be performed by an individual depending on the location of that particular person. However, lighting of candles, electric lights and fireworks is the most common practice for many Indians when they are celebrating Diwali festival. As the name suggests, ‘rows of lights’ are lit in the new moon night as a way of welcoming Lakshmi, the goddess of wealth and on Bengal, to honor the goddess Kali who is so honored (Hindu Council of Australia para 2 -6). In other words, Diwali is celebrated at night more than during the day. Indians attribute much value to the Diwali symbols since they consider them to bring forth the significance of Diwali. The symbols stand for happiness and prosperity which is celebrated with great zest and enthusiasm because Diwali many Hindus associate the festival with prosperity and wealth (Anon para3-9). Lord Ganesha and Goddess Lakshmi are the most important symbols of Diwali and people literally worship them on this special day. Lord Ganesha represents good luck whereas Goddess Lakshmi is believed to be the Mother of Wealth. Other common symbols include Earthenware, lamp fireworks, candles, Diwali diyas, fireworks and oil Diwali lamps just to mention a few. During this ramrkable day, people share

Single-Sex School and Co-Ed School Essay Example for Free

Single-Sex School and Co-Ed School Essay The education systems nowadays are made up of organizations ranging from kindergartens, general education schools, single-sex schools and co-ed schools to universities. This structure is designed to formulate people’s knowledge one step at a time according to their levels. School is one of the most important stages of educational system in our lives where we are trained to absorb basic knowledge and prepare for our future. Often times, schools are divided into single-sex schools, where only boys or girls study, and co-ed schools, where boys and girls study together. This choice demands that parents choose between co-ed school and single-sex school and decide what would be better for their children. This essay will compare and contrast these two forms of educational approaches to determine that co-educational school is better than single-sex school and is the most practical form of schooling. Co-education schools have a diversity of students from different economic and gender backgrounds. It is an efficient way of schooling for poorer countries that do not have the capital to build single-sex schools. Therefore, the biggest advantage of co-ed school is that there will be no need to open separate schools exclusively for boys or girls, because both boys and girls can study in same schools and they can be taught by the same staff. From childhood we know that kids like to play with each other and it is not depend on gender that is why friendships develop in natural way. From sociological point of view same thing happens in co-ed school. Pupils meet each other and have to be together in the society and if they will be studying together from the very beginning, they can understand well each other. As girls and boys become teenagers they participate in many activities, develop new societies and clubs in school where they are taking part in pleasant and friendly environment. This friendly atmosphere continues in the classroom, which allows them to share and express their point of view easily. In co-ed school boys and girls will be trained to take place in the community and how to behave with not just people of the same gender by also the other gender. For instance, if they will start working for international company where both genders are working together it would be easier for them to communicate with others, because they will know how to behave themselves. This experience will break their insufficient perceptions of each gender and will provide great social and personal development of relationships in later life. Another important point of co-education is that this type of school is very successful in challenging of sexist attitudes. In order to prove this we should answer on question â€Å"what do we know about sexism and how the single-sex or co-educational gender grouping of schools affects the occurrence, form, and severity of sexism in the classroom? † Sexism is an analogue to racism means a fundamental and pervasive institutionalized bias on the basis of sex, with discrimination usually directed against women. The rationale for sexism is the biological difference between males and females that dictates differential social roles, status, and norms (Lee, Marks, Byrd, 1994, pp. 2). In the past it meant that female had weak role in the society and males were powerful gender, which is always on the top. And this was the main purpose of development of single-sex schools. But nowadays women achieved equality in the society. As men they can work, build, manage, lead, guide or in other words do all things that men can do in the society. Sexism almost eradicated from our society and it is important point, and that is why co-ed school is very successful in challenging of sexist attitudes. For instance, there are many subjects that provide many discussions and debates in class and it is very important and useful for boys and girls. Because they learn that equality does not require similarity, and they know that they have equal rights and freedom of speech. It means that collaboration between boys and girls in the classroom helps them to develop confidence; they feel comfortable to share their ideas and opinions in any situation in the presence of opposite sex. Co-education improves pupils’ confidence to interact with opposite gender. Moreover, co-education creates a sense of healthy competition between both genders, because they need to work hard and pay serious attention to their studies. Also, co-educated pupils have strong friendship and respect to each other. For example, boys are trying to behave themselves very polite in company of girls. Moreover, they are trying not use rough and abusive language in presence of girls. Similarly, the girls are trying to dress properly and talk in a good manner, because they need good relationship with the boys if they are studying together. On the other hand if boys and girls are studying in separate schools, boys misbehave with the girls, because they are always having a curiosity to know about them. But when they study together, their curiosity is satisfied more easily and they do not consider girls as strange creatures or taboo. Despite the fact that co-ed schools are more modern and are similar with the current environment of the workplace, where boys and girls study together, some conservative people criticize co-education system. According to them, this system is against their tradition, because from ancient times they fear that co-education will help develop immoral relationships between boys and girls. They believe that in this system both the boys and girls will be spoilt. This was represented as the main possible disadvantage of co-education schools. Moreover, there was an experiment where boys and girls were studying in separate classes. And more of co-educational schools showed interest in segregating lessons. Academics and teachers have found that both genders have better concentration on core subjects and they are less distracted by opposite sex. The main idea is that separating boys and girls is not a cure for disruptive classrooms, but under the right conditions it can help to raise academic standards in schools. Despite of the fact that girls have better achievements than boys, they can also benefit from single-sex classes because they sometimes allowed them to perform without worrying about their image in front of girls. On the other hand there can be some problems in separating classes, because there is a need to avoid an intimidating atmosphere for other boys, who can be generated among all-boys’ classes, and to be alert to the dangers of generating a homophobic environment. In addition, there is also a need to beware of girls becoming aggressive towards each other. So, there are some risks of single-sex classrooms and schools. On the other hand, single-sex education is an old education system where boys and girls study in separate classrooms or schools. Some educational researchers have identified single-sex education as a way of facilitating a special educational experience for all students. Single-sex education refers to the education of students in an environment that consists of a single gender, either all-male or all-female environments (NASSPE, 2008). Not so long ago single-sex classes in co-educational schools were considered to be an appropriate educative aspect of K–12 learning environments (Pollard, 1999). In late 60s and early 70s in United States girls and boys were separated from each other on a single-sex basis. For example, in many schools in country classes were separated by gender where girls attended economics classes while boys attended agriculture classes and it was required for all pupils or students. The main purpose of creating single-sex classes was physical education and sex education of boys and girls. In other words, boys and girls was separated because of assumptions about their physical abilities and characteristics, their social and personal functioning, or beliefs held by adults regarding appropriate interaction among or between the sexes (Pollard, 1999). Moreover, some single-sex classes were created in order to exclude girls from some activities that were based on gender stereotypes that were not appropriate for them. According to Smith and Wilhelm, in general boys achieve lower grades than girls while girls are demonstrating higher performance. In general, girls are in particular benefiting from a single-sex education, but the authors just suggesting this idea. From my point of view, girls just do not shy or worry how will they perform in presence of boys and vise versa. Interestingly, many researches show that they participate in class more than boys, develop much higher confidence, have higher grades, and are more likely to choose ‘male’ disciplines such as science, math, etc. Moreover, they are more successful in their careers. That is why the majority of single-sex schools nowadays are for girls. The gender equality development around the world seems to pose a mixed attitude toward the single-sex schools. On one hand, single-sex schools appear to be against this wave in that they treat the two genders differently and cultivate the sexist view in people’s minds from when they are young. In this respect, single-sex system seems to be something attached to the obsolete past in human history and does not fit the modern world in every way. But on the other hand, compared with single-sex system, the co-ed system is possibly contributing to sexist views, too. Some people argue that in a co-ed system, boys and girls are exposed much more to the differences in their own characteristics and because girls mature earlier than boys, boys might find the learning environment inappropriately challenging and even depressing during this stage. Another advantage of single-sex schools is that teachers know better about their students’ characteristics and thus can modify their teaching methods to meet the needs required by the differences in the two genders, whereas in co-ed schools, girls and boys are forced to learn and be appraised in exactly same ways which might not be proper. This should sound a legitimate argument to people who accept that there are differences between the two genders. Although the two systems have sharp differences, they also share similarities. When we compare single-sex school and co-ed school, we can identify some similarities. In spite of the fact that these two types of schools separate student by gender, they both have the same educational program. Both types of schools use same books, literature and syllabus. Also, the goals of both schools are the same. They prepare students for future life; give them appropriate knowledge that will help to survive and thrive in our world, but in single-sex school it difficult to be prepared for real life because they do not have natural training of behavior with opposite gender. Moreover, both schools do not give them just knowledge, but also pay attention to the physical activities. For example, pupils attend different competitions, like football, basketball, volleyball etc. In addition, students participate in public affairs, like movements against drugs, participation in aid for children’s home or helping to greybeards. There are many differences between single-sex school and co-ed school. For instance, differences in behavior of girls and boys have been observed and commented for generations, but history records that until social expectations of girls were very different of boys, especially regarding education (Zanders, 1993, p. 16). The learning style and interests of girls and boys have been consistently different, because girls acquire a learning method involving personal relationships and imitation, but boys are learning through defining goal, restructuring the field, and applying abstract principles. Alternatively, girls’ learning styles require more open-ended learning tasks, they are both more reflective and empathetic and engage with tasks that are related to real situations, whereas boys show a preference for memorizing rules and abstract facts and express their comprehension factually (Zanders, 1993, p. 17). Single-sex schools are relying on more ancient perspectives on education, which are oriented to separate boys and girls. Co-ed schools are more modern and represent the current environment of the workplace, where boys and girls study together. According to many articles and researches single-sex school students say that they are studying better than in co-ed and this is because they are in the class of their gender. For example, in Kazakhstan, students from Kazakh-Turkish lyceum won a lot of awards in exact sciences like mathematics, chemistry and physics and all foreign language and they gave the highest results in their knowledge. Co-ed education schools trains students for their future lives, how to communicate and behave in real world. This education breaks all the boarders between genders and helps them to build a good, strong relationships. Moreover, students in single-sex school may lose some social skills that students in a co-ed school may gain. It happens because students in single-sex school are limited from communication with opposite sex. Another important thing that influences education is relationships with opposite sex. In co-ed schools, students sometimes cannot realize their abilities in subjects like mathematics, chemistry and physics. In co-ed school, there exist teenagers’ sex and unwanted pregnancy at a very young age. This is because they always focus some or all their attention on opposite sex. However, in single-sex schools it is not a problem, because nothing of this sort exists. Finally, I want to conclude that both of schools have advantages and disadvantages. In co-ed school, it will be easy to gain your social skills, but student can lose some points in education. In single-sex school student can focus attention only on education, but will not properly prepared for social life. There is a trade off between academic knowledge acquisition and social functional ability development. The knowledge student gain does not depend on the type of school. The factors that influence their education are student character, environment and his or her abilities. Parents should decide themselves where their child will learn, but it should guarantee that the choice represents the children’s own feelings. They should like the type of school they are going to. But some parents sex for their children prefer to choose single-sex schools in order to minimize their contact with the opposite, but it is important to understand that choosing for child all-female or all-male school will not stop them from searching for the opposite sex. If parents minimize contact when child is in school, but they cannot stop children meeting others through tuitions, extra classes, the neighborhood, or through friends. If their child meets someone with whom she or he shares home assignment or some exercises, and if she or he makes the decision to get physical with such person, theres little a parent can do. But on the other hand, when parents choose for their child a co-educational school, their child will have contact with opposite sex from the beginning. As a result, child will not only feel more comfortable in the company of the opposite sex, but will also be able to handle advances better. When parents making the decision of sending their child to a single-sex or a co-educational school, their decision should not be based on whether they want to minimize or increase childs contact with the opposite sex. Instead, they must consider the reputation of the school, the activities it offers and the quality of education and educators. For example, some schools offer sending students abroad for further studies. So, parents may consider this point if they want their child to go abroad. Because there is other less traditional schools that focus more on activities and less on academics. If this is something that appeals to them, then give this fact more priority than the student mix. In fact, when deciding what school to choose for child, parent’s choice should fall on the co-educational school because it will give huge experience and will train their child for future life.

Debates on Modernist Art Installations

Debates on Modernist Art Installations Standing within the entranceway, the atrium rises above, skylights permeating the inky and surreal display area, each installation glinting beneath the early morning sunlight. Nearby elevators climb exposed and metallic, offsetting the historical and modern paintings on nearby walls with their mechanistic contrast. This view of the Museum of Modern Art (MOMA) in New York is both breathtaking and inspiring yet constantly criticized as a detraction from the main participants in this voyeuristic journey, the art forms. In today’s expanding global community, there is a continued evolution of cultural definition, one which is no longer the responsibility of the elders or the overseeing governmental body. Instead, cultural emulsion has been allocated to the increasingly vocal members of social niches, the propagators of coinciding dissent and support, and within this melting pot, there lingers an uncertain future for the world of modern art, as critic and corporation alike vie for e qual say in placement and value. No longer is the industry controlled by the definitive opinions of the bourgeoisie, nor is it evolved through the work of a single revolutionary artist. Instead, art is an experiential form of community, one which is intimately related to the perception of the viewer and the intention of the artist. Within this collaborative experience, however, there is one more singular and remarkable player, the institutional architecture itself. It is from within these walls (or outside of them in some cases) that the viewer retrieves their spatial perception, and thereby a unique frame of reference to the art as it is viewed. The future of modern art institutions lies within the ability to link creative architecture and spectacular art, a task which has proved difficult for many global facilities. Ultimately, the nature of architecture is one which can be easily integrated into the creative maxims of a desirous society; and as culture evades popular dispersion a mid mass media clutter it is the responsibility of the institution to revive identity and meaning. Artistic representation evolved from a question, the internal struggle of a humanity determined to indentify an elusive meaning, a broad spectrum of thought which necessitated expression and discussion.[1] Historically, this impetus was founded on the religious iconography which was so pervasive in the centuries preceding the postmodernist era. Critics such as Ruskin challenged that the artist himself was a conduit of morality from which innate goodness and meritorious intent were required instruments of his art form.[2] Yet this theory could not hold in a society which continued to evade such limiting thought processes and introduce new and more radical ideas, variables of necessity more than revolution. The rise of modernism can be attributed to an institutionalization of radical doubt, a necessitated gathering of hypotheses from which collectivist tenacity can operate among multiple sources of authority.[3] It is from within this new structure that the architectural merits of the institution became divergent from their historical representation. Out of the cube with white walls and steady flow of viewers evolved a framework of participation, one which challenged architects to redefine their structures, creating true destinations to encompass a more discerning postmodern voyeur. The roots of modernism, according to Williams (1992) became a terminus, a limiter among artists who acted outside of the sphere of the large institution, thereby relegating subjectively assumed true artistic talent to the halls of mega-institutions where their modernity would flourish appropriately.[4] It was this realignment of art to institutional display which enabled a much broader public viewership, undermining the nature of elitism and discrimination. Lind (2007) notes that collaboration was an essential factor in the evolution of postmodernism, forming the expectations of community among artists and viewers, an active depiction which endeavored to draw the participants into the unique aesthetic of the art itself and away from the group-think expectations evoked by society.[5] Collaborative art would become more of a lifestyle than a form, enabling the structure to become much more significant, actively introducing the public to the merits of participation. As artists collabora te, so do the viewers, actively interpreting their vision and subjecting it to internal modes of expectation and perception. This cultural dissolution through creative depiction is one of the most essential evolutions within the modern art institution and it will continue to define the structure of future establishments as viewers and artists actively participate in their experience. In looking for examples of this revolution of design, the Museum of Modern Art (MOMA) in New York recognized the modernist movement and integrated Bauhaus-style architecture to become a global symbol for a new and utopian representation of exhibitionism.[6] The ideologies which underlie utopianism in art are a culturally divergent need for connectivism, a variability which can operate both functionally and introspectively, thereby challenging the propensity of acceptance and replacing it with a question of ‘what.’ The revised institution now enjoyed a supple foundation for developing this question into a lifestyle, one in which viewers would embark on an ethereal journey, whether they were immediately aware of it or not, partaking in exhibitions by the very basis of their viewership. The ability to modify both spatial and visual stimuli while integrating an artists unique vision and meaning enabled a cultural dialogue which became much more substantial than that of a sim ple meander through a while cubicle with painted blemishes hung at eye level. Werner (2005) offers a nostalgic perspective of traditional institutions as structures designed to preserve the cultural capital of a rapidly evolving population; and from these conservation tactics, inspire scholarship and educated debate.[7] Yet it was the lack of debate, the limitations which inebriated the artistic community in the modernist era that evolved to awaken these participants during the revolution of postmodernism. Yet there is no evasion of historical context, and the stereotypical cube lingers as prominently as modern structures themselves occupy social import. Yet, whereas the cubist nature of historical institutions continues to pervade popular critical opinion, recognizing the merits of art over the environmental variables, evolutionary thinkers such as Zaha Hadid note that it is the activation of participation within an exhibit which determines the emotional response evoked from the viewer.[8] Should the four walled container be replicated room after room as it is in many scenarios, there is limited participation and a lack of interactivity, therefore, minimizing the relationship between visitor and artist. Similarly, variable angles and limitless perspective can also detract from the art itself, thereby making the institution a structural deviant and overcoming the artistic meaning through gauche architecture. There is a balance between structure and deconstruction in spaces, one which i s not readily intuited and is as important to the merits of the art as the quality of the artist’s medium. Combinative meaning represents the necessary steps taken to ensure that viewers are culturally and visually stimulated in their institutional journey; and as global expansion broadens the scope of participation, the architectural framework plays an intimate role in experiential influence. There is an underlying debate which unfortunately shrouds the merits of institutional participation, relegating their role to that of a corporate philanderer, a by-day street troller seeking monetary reward for singular experiences. By Werner’s (2005) perception, the value basis of the institution itself is founded on the relationship between social net worth and capital economy.[9] Therefore, should the public perceive artworks to be valuable, their readiness with capital backing to support this belief should coordinate with their imputed interests. The museum interprets popular culture, establishes demarcations of perceived representation, and then displays artifacts to support a desirous and discerning visitor base who feels an innate draw towards their now appropriately seeded cultural offering. Yet within this altruistic idealism, there is a limiter inflamed by the nature of the architectural value itself. In order to appropriately valuate a particular artist’s wor k, the externally implied value of the institution should be added to the socially defined valuation. In this way, consideration for structure and aestheticism are coupled with societal and capitalist value structures intimately uniting artist and establishment. The question which is then raised is whether the value of the art or the value of the institution is preponderant, and in which way can anxious critics ascribe a numerical quality to cultural aphorisms? The nature of commodification within the post-modernist society is one in which self-identification through means of lifestyle adaptation becomes greatly enhanced, almost to the point of religious zeal.[10] As museum clientele moved evolved from the elitist bourgeoisie to a much broader base of attendee, defining installations in terms of expectation became a much more difficult task. In continuing the legacy of dominating cultural theory, the curator and his team continue to retain responsibility for influencing exactly what this self-identification entails, parading their perceived values by way of artistic installation. Ruskin and his modernist ideals reminded that society must regulate itself through attention to intrinsic values and prevention of this capability should be undone and disintegrated from the constructs of an appropriately inclined social body.[11] Therefore, in spite of the proclivity towards radicalism, there has always been an assumed need for collectivist theory , from which architectural deviance retains a unique capability for defining the nature of the artistic experience. If the curator is to define identity, then the structure itself defies this definition, instead realigning its mission with that of the viewer, an evolving, variable, and discerning participant in a cultural exchange which continues to linger outside of stringent definition. It is from this understanding that Foster (2002) explores the idea that the institution is as important to art as the art is to the institution.[12] This dissolution of parity into spatially distinctive relationships sustains the nature of consumerism, thereby redirecting interests towards branded influence. The institution is no longer simply a four-walled bleach spot, it is now a faà §ade essential to the perception of art and inclusive of interactivity as well as interpretive guidance. The commodification of society is directly responsible for perception within the artistic institution, and in spite of the merits of traditionalist theory, the idea of construed reality is no longer a marketable brand. Instead, reality becomes a participant just as experience determines cognitive perception. The architectural evolution of the integrated structure thereby initiates each unique introspection and enables a passing collectivism that inspires and challenges while at the same time, repre sents cultural reactivation. Rem Koolhaas (2006) in a recent interview challenged that architecture serves as a balancing point between the past and future, exacting a form of control in a social structure where control was essentially indefinable.[13] His perception of institutional architecture idolizes the modularity of architectural structures, enabling the display and innate motion of artistic endeavors through the translatable nature of the buildings. It is this translation which then questions whether the art can simply be considered a work of the artist or should be reattributed to a collaborative process with the architect. Architectural influence becomes an intimate relationship between space and localization, returning responsibility to the installation specialists, as their placement becomes an essential part of the perceived meaning and cultural dispersion. The ability to manipulate meaning by simply moving a work of art to a different location or juxtaposing it with a contrasting work is a remarkab le power, one which shapes the nature of cultural manipulation in the modern era much more than was allowed under modernist structure. Douglas (1986) sustains this idea that the institution is responsible for generating the blueprint for a collectivist memory, one which is framed in political and social maxims yet comported by means of display and interactivity.[14] There is a framework of mediation which is highlighted by the architectural infrastructure of the art museum; within this collaborative dialogue, visitors are equally challenged and consoled through the principles of display, messaging, and revelation. Remarkably, voyeurism assumes a unique role within the new architecture, evolving to placate the needs of visual stimulation while at the same time establishing an intimacy of experience in which the visitor is unwittingly linked with the architecture and art simultaneously. There is a new collectivism, one which links experience, theory, discussion, and does so within the constructs of what can be considered a corporately moderated exhibition. The installation team in their determination of goals and obje ctives must placate both perceived social values as and evolve their placement to meet strict standards of visual responsibility. Yet the subjective nature of such placement simply evades any available scientific evaluation of its intricacies, as the person who is interpreting a specific piece in the matter of situating is simply intoning their own perception of cultural meaning, thereby imparting this upon all viewers who enter that space. Within this expectation of compliance, there is a unique debate surrounding subjectivism and the responsibility of artistic veneration, yet limited conclusions from which to situate any truly definitive argument. Vidokle (2007) challenged that art in general is an establishment of conditions which are necessary for creative production, therefore undermining any expectation that art could be truly ‘taught’ to a group of desirous students.[15] Spawning from this conclusion, the belief that artistic placement could have a singular dimension is equally as flawed, and thereby challenges the curator to explore both the merits of architectural influence and artistic variables to ensure that a work is portrayed representative of the artist’s expected meaning. Interestingly, this statement alone raises yet another challenge to the merits of meaning in that as placement is subjective, the artist’s vision is subjective, and the visitor’s perception is also subj ective, there is limited objectification which can translate across the broad scope of artistic representation and define the true meaning of any work of art. Integrating the architecture of an institution into the visually provocative nature of art offers a socially collaborative incidence of inspiration, one which enables curator, artist, and viewer to coalesce, bringing singular, and remarkable insight to light upon a unique cultural connection within the museum’s walls. In considering the merits of other forms of artistic representation, such as those which are take out of the four walled structure and placed in public view, there are similar variables which determine the architecture of the natural environment and assist in determining the unique meaning of the piece in relationship to its placement. â€Å"The value of material representation was not self-evident at the outset and that like all inventions; material representation was contingent upon, coherent with, and dialectically related to the contemporaneous neurological, social, technological, and ideational context.†[16] When a particular subject is placed within public view, there are an infinite number of variables which can influence perception, inclusive but not limited to, weather, natural environment, crowd flow, and political climate. If one were to view Rachael Whitread’s water tower on a clouded day with internal angst reminiscent of Joan of Arc on her deathbed, the pe rception of clarity and purpose might be obscured by these subjective sentiments. Therefore, there is a recognition that art must be interpreted through the constructs of internally generated, experientially driven, conditions in order to ensure that its palpability resonates with each unique viewer. As art is extracted from the institution, the institution adjusts to become the environment. This evolution proffers a unique vision of globalized community, as placing out of context representations within unique settings, such as Antony Gormley’s ‘another place’ at various stages of drown on any foreign shoreline, enables a broad range of viewers to explore their personal understanding of such figures without the storyline or scripted meaning which might be readily available in a museum. From these arguments spawns the constructs of a new dimension in art appreciation, one which undermines any perceived notion of institution, and instead places the idea of institution in the hands of the viewer. The relationship between art and the institutional architecture is one of symbiosis, a collusion of cultural inoculation from which there is one surviving beneficiary, the museum, as capital rewards are disguised as essential culture-needy pittances. Bourdieu and Darbel (1992) corroborate that the true function of the museum is to reinforce cultural brotherhood in the form of sacristy.[17] Yet there is another responsibility which has evolved over the past decade, one which evokes a sense of internal turmoil from the institutional oversight committee, but retains public appreciation when implemented within an appropriate scope. In spite of the need for capitalistic sustenance, the museum’s responsibility has yet to alter from its original path of cultural enlightenment and in turn, collectivist assimilation. No longer must the comodification of society undermine the need for self-identity, as identity lingers within the institutional halls, defined by subjectivism and interpreted internally, in spite of architecture or obscure efforts at creative placement. To activate internal modes of observation within a viewer corrupted by a society that bombards with constant stimuli requires a pairing of both architectural extravagance and artistic uniqueness. Whereas artists may endeavor to impart meaning to their viewer through images or representations, the architect engenders a sense of being and belonging through their hallways and trusses and archways which is entirely collaborative and evidentiary of the current social clime. There is a discussion which evolves from this argument as to the relationship between space and structure. In consideration for the nature of art, a connectivity which can be easily broken by distraction or unforeseen variables, could it be that architecture has exceeded its boundaries by exploding in modern institutions on such a grandiose scale? Adorno (1992) addressed this issue from the standpoint of artistic autonomy and the realignment of the new sociopolitical debate with that of historical responsibility. By his definition, Adorno recognizes that the committed works of the political debater will often assume a role of expectation, a maxim of necessity which requires that the viewer also appreciate a similar political viewpoint.[18] Yet if representation is subjective, then could viewership also take on subjective qualities? The reality is that autonomy in art is the recognition that interpretation is variable, divergent, and oftentimes completely distant from original meaning . Therefore, given the nature of architecture, could the institutional structure itself be considered an autonomous representation of current cultural and social ideologies? The reality is that the institution is no longer the combatant in the artistic community, it is the internalization of prescribed commodification which undermines the capabilities of need voyeurs. Their assumptions and wrongfully inspired intuition becomes nothing more than a derivative of the blueprint which has been established by a desensitized society corrupted by mass media and broad scale image distribution. Appreciation for the merits of a particular work of art becomes intimately related to internally generated necessity, and participants should therefore embrace the inclusion of architectural drama and aesthetic into this equation. As the curators of MOMA can attest, the affected state of voyeurism in conjunction with eccentric architecture or visually stimulating structures can lead critics to challenge the capacity for viewers to truly appreciate their attendance objective, the art.[19] As the grand atrium is a vast and spacious area, ripe with distractions ranging from marbled flooring to elevators, visual stimulation is easily reduced to a combinative effort, the capable observer environmentally and artistically influenced simultaneously. Yet, there is a differentiation which must be addressed regarding what is gauche over-stimulation or simply installed experience. In the case of MOMA, the exterior distractions are minimal when considering the inspiring nature of the artistic stimuli. Wallach characterizes it as a ‘spectacularized’ space, one which is designed with ‘free-floating intensity’ which will both overwhelm but stimulate reverential appreciation.[20] The redefinition of s pace over the past decades is a function of necessity as well as a creative interpretation on the part of the architect and his team. Introducing variable structures into the social structure by means of architectural ingenuity furthers the propagation of art, enticing attendees and allowing corporate overseers to compete for urban space with a new breed of remarkable architecture. Artist Martin Kemp, in a recent interview, noted that there has been an adjustment to the artistic display process over the past decades, one in which the viewer is now often integrated into the artists meaning by way of publication or installation aids.[21] His view is that juxtaposition of conflicting or complementary art forms within a particular installation offer the viewer visual stimulation otherwise unappreciable given the distance between particular works. It is within this new age ideology that the foundations of the future of the modern art museum are formed, as contrast and collaboration are two fundamental visual aspects within the scope of institutions that can be manipulated and imparted to an unsuspecting viewer. Placing a renaissance painting next to one from the 1980’s offers the remarkable ability to explore socio-cultural ideals across generations and historical legacies. Similarly, the evolving architecture of the institution allows the placement of modern zeal next to that of historic propriety. Therefore, as Kemp challenges that contrast is the wave of the future, the structural qualities of museums across the globe are already forming similar opinions for an unwitting viewer. Corporate influence over this perceived disconnect will continue to establish and evoke remarkable nuance with limited understanding of their participation in the creative definition of modern society. While many critics may challenge that they are absolutely sure of their manipulation of cultural distribution, there is an inability to predict the nature of the art/viewer relationship which challenges any preconception of response. In truth, the viewer response should be an intricate part of the artistic process, and through study and further understanding, recognition of qualifying contrast can assist in defining the future of artistic creation. Zaha Hadid in her recent interview with Hans Ulrich Obrist recognizes the extremely pivotal role which the museum architecture plays in terms of exhibitionism and the structural variables which can directly influence the viewer and their journey through a particular installation.[22] Most importantly, her perception of relationship is an essential development within the modern architectural environment, as experiential voyeurism becomes a foundation for artistic appreciation. Her vision likens institutional architecture to designing a laboratory within which both critic and artist can dialogue, actively partaking in a conversation of perception through which ideas can be developed, disintegrated, and resurrected, drastically shaping the future of artistic endeavor. If each installation is considered just that, an experiment, there is substantial opportunity for an extremely collaborative process, one in which viewer insights shape the future of institutions. Benjamin (2006) challenge d that authenticity in art is a form of transmission which is defined by physical duration and historical testimony.[23] Yet when testimony is directly linked to the nature of subjective relevance, in that a foreign viewer will not experience the political fire of a native who witnessed the collapse of the Berlin Wall, and physical duration is limited by the social and institutional variables, there can be no perceived authenticity in art. Benjamin’s interpretation is not errant, but simply too narrow in scope to identify with a modern era of intensified visual acumen. There is a dramatic shift towards remarkableness, one which is engendered with the cultural and social traits of a melting pot, not simply those of unique social or ethnic classes. Exhibitionism, as recognized by Hadid, is becoming a tool of unification, and in this way, will serve as a mode of global collaboration within the laboratory of the institution. In order to fully explore the nature of the institution in the modern era, it becomes important to note the evolution of the critic, and more importantly, those who are responsible for determining the future of artistic endeavors. Montmann (2006) challenges the evolution of the art institutions a direct result of a power shift from the traditional bourgeoisie and their monopolization of socially legitimized ideologies to a function of populist mandate, controlled by a homogenized corporate vision.[24] This evolution is a direct result of the fragmented nature of popular society as the stratification which once divided aristocrat and peasant is no longer relevant as globalized consumerism now radically changes the fleeting voyeurism which so defined the historical role of the museum and its definitive influence. Sennett (2006) reminds that the habitual nature of the past has been abandoned for selective and subjective interpretation of interactions within a limited time frame.[25] The reby, the institution itself is charged with meeting the needs of a niche based audience, one with conflicting perceptions, needs, and demands, and one which strategically navigates within a broadening geographical sphere to imbue their own theories within the minds of other nomadic voyeurs. Therefore, as institutional criticism evolves to encompass the architectural merits of a particular museum, the fleeting visitors who frequent its doorways are challenged to appropriate meaning from a similarly fleeting interpretation by an overly critical eye. The nature of architecture within the institution is one which should entice and embrace its visitors, not incite critical contempt and irascible scripting. Yet, given the nature of a society no longer defined by the bourgeoisie minority, the much more vocal public base will continue to evoke a sense of dread each time a change enters the artistic community. Across the globe, modern museums are taking note of architectural merits. Oil wealthy countries such as the United Arab Emirates are paving the way for spectacular structures in exotic locations who offer collections of the world’s greatest artists throughout the annals of history. This encapsulation beneath the expectation of destination travel presents a unique focal point for the museums of the future as community is no longer defined in terms of geographic localization. As art evolves to encompass the nature of global humanity, the subjective nature of viewers equalizes with this radical adjustment, appreciating the socio-political evolution of artistic heroes and the institutions which house their work. The expansion of these destination facilities continues to evolve towards corporate ownership and patronage yet the relationship between viewer and art form cannot be dissolved. Tactically, as these conglomerates actively purchase diverse installations for their exhibits, the ability to contrast a broad range of subjects within a singular house of creativity is expanded, thereby verifying the merits of architectural evolution. While the future of participants in the modern museum may remain uncertain given the nature of electronic distribution, the necessity for such structures will remain a natural part of social evolution. The connectivity inspired by architectural and artistic creativity incites a sense of community which, when explored from a global perspective, is all the more necessitated in this modern era. Bibliography Adorno, Theodor. â€Å"Art, Autonomy and Mass Culture.† In Art in Modern Culture: An Anthology of Critical Texts, eds. Francis Frascina and Jonathan Harris, 74-79. New York: HarperCollins Publishers Inc., 1992. Benjamin, Walter. Walter Benjamin: Selected Writings, Vol. 3. London: Belknap, 2006. Bourdieu, Pierre; Darbel, Alain. â€Å"The Love of Art.† In Art in Modern Culture: An Anthology of Critical Texts, eds. Francis Frascina and Jonathan Harris, 174-180. New York: HarperCollins Publishers Inc., 1992. Douglas, Mary. How Institutions Think. Syracuse, New York: Syracuse University Press, 1986. Foster, Hal. Design and Crime and other Diatribes. London: Verso, 2002. Giddens, Anthony. â€Å"Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age.† In Art in Modern Culture: An Anthology of Critical Texts, eds. Francis Frascina and Jonathan Harris, 17-22. New York: HarperCollins Publishers Inc., 1992. Obrist, Hans Ulrich. Rem Koolhaas. Ehrenstr: Verlad der Buchhandlung Walther Konig, Koln, 2006. Obrist, Hans Ulrich. Zaha Hadid. Ehrenstr: Verlad der Buchhandlung Walther Konig, Koln, 2007. Raney, Karen. Art in Question. London: Continuum, 2003. Montmann, Nina. â€Å"Art and its Institutions.† In Montmann, Nina, ed. Art and its Institutions: Current Conflicts, Critique and Collaborations, ed. Nina Montmann, 8-17. London: Black Dog Publishing, 2006. Sennett, Richard. The Culture of the New Capitalism. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2006. Vidokle, Anton. â€Å"Exhibition as School in a Divided City,† In Taking the Matter Into Common Hands, eds. J

Bluetooth :: sCommerce Technology Essays

A new technology of the 21st century is reshaping human life. The concept of silent commerce, commonly known as â€Å"sCommerce† is the silent transfer of knowledge and information through mobile phones and electronic devices. Sadly, this technology is initiating the transition from a humanistic society to a more electronically controlled world. This new, perhaps, frightful world introduces electronic devices capable of thinking for themselves without human control. Imagine the average teenager purchasing a CD player with enough intelligence to exchange and communicate with his/her laptop without the child’s consent. Or your Kenmore â€Å"frig† secretly letting your grocer know when you’re out of milk. Scary isn’t it? Well, sCommerce, particularly the Bluetooth chip, gives these electrically run â€Å"gadgets† these abilities. It allows inhuman things to have human capabilities and perhaps exceed our own â€Å"brain power.† T ruly, the Bluetooth chip may be an eye opening technological breakthrough, but has harmful humanistic, economic affects with its integration into the electronic and mobile/telecommunication world . Realistically, the average technologically involved person has heard the term â€Å"Bluetooth.† The apparent name of this chip is derived from the 10th century Scandinavian king, Harald Bluetooth, who was historically known for uniting various unorganized kingdoms. Similarly, Bluetooth is specialized to unite many competing electronic standards under one main specification. By definition, â€Å"Bluetooth is a global de facto standard for wireless connectivity. Based on a low-cost, short-range radio link, Bluetooth cuts the cords that used to tie up digital devices. When two Bluetooth equipped devices come within 10 meters range of each other, they can establish a connection together.

Red Sky At Morning: Stepping Into Adulthood Essay -- essays research

Red Sky At Morning by Richard Bradford, is a coming of age novel that illustrates the maturing of a young man. In the summer of 1944, Frank Arnold, a wealthy shipbuilder in Mobile, Alabama, receives his volunteer commission in the U.S. Navy. He moves his wife, Ann, and seventeen-year-old son, Josh, to the family's summer home in the village of Corazon Sagrado, high in the New Mexico mountains. Mrs. Arnold finds it impossible to cope with the quality of life in the largely Hispanic village. Josh, more the son of his father than his mother, becomes an integral member of the Sagrado community, forging friendships with classmates at Helen De Crispin school, with the town's resident artist, with Chango Lopez--macho bully turned model student--and with Amadeo and Excilda Montoya, the couple hired by his father to care for their house. Josh narrates the story of his fateful year in Sagrado and reveals the events and people who influence his progress to maturity. Josh matures throughout the book into a young man who learns the understanding of change, responsibility, and duty. Josh stays strong through the changes he goes through and it helps him mature into the man he becomes. When his family moves to Sagrado he makes new friends and adapts well to the new environment he is put into. Josh stays open-minded when making friends at school. He gets to know many different kings of people. Unlike his mother he doesn’t judge people by where they live or their racial background. His mothe...

Authorship debate Essay -- essays research papers

William Shakespeare’s works being just that is a notion most accept; however, there has been a lot of evidence and arguments by historians, who opt to challenge this notion, arguing that Shakespeare was the pen name of Edward de Vere, the Earl of Oxford had to conceal his authorship for social and political reasons. After careful examination of historian’s evidence this theory doesn’t measure up and it was indeed Shakespeare, who was the genuine author. The world has come to accept that William Shakespeare was born in Stratford-upon-Avon, England, during the year of 1564. The register of Holy trinity, the parish church in Stratford, records his baptism on April 26. According to the custom at the time, infants were baptized about three days after their birth. William’s father was a glover, trader, and landowner who married Mary Arden, the daughter of an affluent landowner of Wilmcote. Therefore, the generally accepted date for Shakespeare’s birth is April 23 (World Book 344). John Shakespeare, William’s father rose [by election] to the position of Alderman in 1565; and in 1568 he was elected Bailiff, the equivalent to mayor (Reedy & Kathman). It’s believed that because William’s father was a town official, the young William was entitled to a free education at the Kings school. It has been accepted [for the most part] that William Shakespeare attended the Stratford grammar school. The Stratford gramm ar school prepared students for the university; however there is no evidence that William ever attended a university. The reason being is when William Shakespeare was thirteen his father suffered business losses. William was pulled from school and apprenticed to a trade, not an uncommon occurrence during the Elizabethan Age.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  William Shakespeare married Ann Hathaway in November 1582 at the age of eighteen. Anne was twenty-six. It would only be six months later that their daughter, Susanna was born. William also had a set of twins in February 1585. Between the years of 1585-1590, Shakespeare disappeared. We considered these years as his lost years mainly because there has yet to be found any documentation or know whereabouts of him.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚     Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  It’s accepted that Shakespeare was in London by 1590 working as an actor and playwright. Approximately for twenty-three years he was a workin... ... died too early to have been the real Shakespeare (Michell 171). Oxford did not leave a will. If he were to have left a will, Oxfordians and Anti-Strafordians would have no doubt have more weight to their theory, that’s if his will contained Shakespeare plays and sonnets. The 17th Earl of Oxford was a recognized poet in his day, and the Oxfordians make the most of this in their attempts to prove that he wrote the works of Shakespeare. There is evidence presented about his reputation in actual context of the times and shows that while Oxford work had some admirers, but don’t all authors have some admirers, nobody seems to have considered him a great poet or playwright. Belief in the Oxfordian story that Shakespeare's works were written not by Shakespeare but by the seventeenth Earl of Oxford requires not merely suspending the rules of evidence that would normally be used to establish the authorship of a body of work, but also accepting a set of Oxfordian myths -- tales that are presented as fact but that research shows are simply not true. Some of these myths have been repeated and handed down from Oxfordian to Oxfordian for decades, without any attempt being made to verify them

Puritan vs. Native American Literature

Puritan and Native American Literature There are many similarities and differences between Native American and Puritan literature. These include emotion, style, figurative language, and description. In Native American literature, as well as Puritan literature, they show significant events in their cultures. Both Native American and Puritan literature are similar because both use figurative and descriptive language in their writing, however they are also different. In contrast to, Puritan literature differs from Native American literature. These differences include figurative and descriptive language. Similarly, they write about what is important to them. In Puritan literature, they focus on human condition. For example an excerpt from â€Å"To my Dear and Loving Husband â€Å"I prize thy love more than whole mines of gold† This excerpt shows the importance of her husband to her. On the other hand, Native American literature, is written about nature, animals, and life. For example in excerpt from â€Å"The Earth on Turtle's Back† â€Å" From those seeds the trees and the grass sprang up. Life on Earth had begun. This symbolizes life on Earth and shows that it all started out with a turtle, the â€Å"Great Turtle†. , which for us is just an animal. They care a lot about animals as a part of their belief system. As for description, Native American literature is more descriptive than Puritan literature. A Native American story called â€Å" When Grizzlies Walked Upright† shows many examples o f description. For example, â€Å" The bears were covered with hair and had sharp claws just as they do today, but they walked on two feet and could talk like people. While in Puritan literature, an excerpt from â€Å"To my Dear and Loving Husband† Anne Bradstreet says â€Å"My love is such that rivers cannot quench. † This uses less description than Native American literature. In conclusion, Native American and Puritan literature has many similarities as well as differences. The similarities as shown above where that they both had use of figurative and descriptive language. However, they do use it different ways, describing different things. In their writing it shows the differences in their cultures and belief system.