The Beatles Got the Beats....Sometimes

So I'm sitting here thinking what I should do my last blog on and I decided I'm not sure I want to do it on The House of the Spirits....its kinda weird so not sure what I'd say about it.  Therefore I made a decision to do it on one of the most iconic bands in the history of music...The Beatles.  I dedicate this blog to my high school English teacher who made me listen to their music everyday in homeroom while I was trying to study.

I'll admit I despised The Beatles before having my Beatle-loving English teacher my Junior year of high school.  By the end of the year I actually enjoyed many of their songs but I feel like I either love their songs or I hate them and I'm not sure why.  There is no in between with them for some reason in my opinion.

Regardless of what I think, The Beatles were an "international phenomenon" as the text states and there is no doubting that.  Their music is recognizable all across this planet!  They combine the styles of the likes of Elvis Presley and Little Richard and made the electric guitar a symbol of rock music.

What makes me enjoy some of their songs so much is their originality and uniqueness.  Many of the songs at that time seemed to have one speed throughout the song.  The Beatles used splicing so that they could change speeds of the song without altering their pitch which was revolutionary at the time.  They also used their instrumentation to perfection whether it be the electric guitar, drum sets, tambourine,  or any other unique instruments that they would use for effects in specific songs.  Below is a video of their song "Twist and Shout" which most of you will recognize.  I love it because there are no other songs that are like it.  It sounds like a back and forth hard rocker and harmonious duet with a very lively rhythm which captures the essence of the 60s.  "A Hard Day's Night", "Help", and "Ticket to Ride" are some other works that are upbeat and overall great songs.

Like I already mentioned though, they still have a few that I just can't stand.  The pattern I notice in the songs that I don't enjoy is that they're slow and monotonous.  When I think of The Beatles, I think of fast-moving, lively beats not slow rhythms...they were able to pull off a couple slower songs though but they had enough changes in rhythm to keep it interesting ie, "Hey Jude".  Just an example of a song that is repulsing to me is "All You Need is Love" (shown below in video).  Its just too slow and all I here after I listen to it is "Love, Love, Love" in this annoying voice ringing through my head.  Also, I feel that Lennon is fighting to get all the words into each stanza...its just not smooth.

Overall though, The Beatles have some very solid music that I really do enjoy listening to but I feel that some of their songs were a complete waste of time...just a humble opinion though out of billions.

Is it Louvre or Love?

I've never really been a big fan of art, especially the art that is brought out in most of our text but when it comes to architecture, I'm easy to please.  That's the case again with Figure 37.22 in our text....the courtyard of the Louvre Museum in Paris designed by I.M. Pei (shown below).

I've seen an image similar in resemblance to this one countless times but there were two things that stood out to me when I viewed it in the text: 1) there are four triangles total...not one and 2) there are fountains surrounding the main triangle/entrance.  So I guess you could say I've always loved this piece of architecture by Pei but now I have an even greater appreciation now that I know there's even more to it!

This work is postmodern in description and very futuristic and I like that.  Many people criticize it for contrasting the classical part of the museum surrounding it but that's what I.M. Pei was going for...contrast.  He wanted to do something bold that was out of the ordinary that maybe seemed out of place but ultimately complimented the surroundings.  I believe he found the perfect work of art to do just that.  The Louvre Museum holds many of the great art renderings in the world and Pei captured the essence of that history by building something that pointed back to one of the greatest architectural feats of all time...the pyramids of Egypt.  So in that historical sense, I believe he captured the essence of the museum itself.

The works that helped influence Pei's design aren't too shabby either....Paxton's Crystal Palace followed by Buckminster Fuller's geodesic dome.

Here's just a short little video to give an idea of how Pei's addition to the Louvre Museum contrasts yet compliments the original part of the building.

Pop Sensation

When I first saw figure 37.5 on page 137, I thought to myself: 1)why in the world would you want that in the middle of your city then 2) why wouldn't you want that in the middle of your city and finally 3) how did I not see that monstrosity when I was in Philadelphia?  The image I'm speaking of is shown below as well as the man who created it, Claes Oldenburg.

Claes Oldenburg is a Swedish sculptor with a sweet twist to his work.  He takes ordinary, everyday things and turns them into pieces of art by magnifying them normally ten to twenty times their original size.  Its known as pop art.  Almost all of his works seem out of place but surprisingly enough, most of them look very neat in their unusual settings in my opinion including Clothespin.

I'm not a big modern art fan but whenever its in the city, I really do enjoy it because it actually feels like it belongs there.  That's what draws me to this enormous clothespin in the middle of Philadelphia because its only something that would be valued in modern times and therefore has a modern feel to it.  I feel that's why I think it looks neat in the middle of the city square when a giant clothespin doesn't really belong in the middle of a city square.

Also, I appreciate its size so much.  It is 45 feet tall and over 12 feet wide!  A normal clothespin isn't even a half of a foot.  I mean c'mon! A clothespin is just its everyday, normal size we don't even give it a second glance but when its magnified a little bit, it catches our attention instantaneously.  That's what I love about this piece so much...taking something normal and turning it into something pleasing to the eye.

Other examples of his work are shown below...

Lastly, I love the detail.  Clothespin looks like its actually made out of wood like your average clothespin but instead its made of stainless steel.  Just the time and effort it took to make the steel have the appearance of stained wood with grain lines is something to be admired and appreciated in my opinion.

   

Ceramic Dinner Anyone?

As I've read the last two days' reading assignments, I've been waiting for something to catch my eye so I can blog about it...nothing really jumped out at me so I'll settle for what jumped out at me the most.  I'm talking about The Dinner Party on pg. 121.

I guess what really caught my attention was the size!  Its dimensions are 48 X 48 X 48 ft.  This awesome work was created by Judy Chicago (last name is actually Gerowitz) and it took five years to complete.  The triangular table has thirty-nine place settings.  Each setting represents a famous woman...both nonfictional and fictional...that helped shape in some way or another the feminist movement with their ideals or the way they led their lives.  Examples being, Nefertiti, Queen Elizabeth I, and Virginia Woolf who happened to be mentioned earlier in this reading assignment.  It is referred to by the text as "the counterpart to the Last Supper" which in my opinion pales in comparison to such like but take it for what it is.

Not only did the size, catch my attention but the fact that every ceramic plate was made specifically to capture the essence of whom the place-setting was made for.  The plates were not just purchased at a store like I initially perceived but were made by hand as well as each individual textile embroidery that bears the name of the woman as well as her symbol.   

Overall, I feel like this piece of art should be admired for its aesthetic qualities and size.  Also, for its uniqueness because I feel as if there aren't very many other artworks out there similar to this in any way. Lastly for what it represents...equal rights for women and bringing attention to cultural contributions that have been made by woman throughout history.

Buckminsterfullerene!

As I was reading the assigned pages, I flipped over to page 94 where I saw a picture of a building that I knew I had seen recently.  Then I realized I hadn't seen it before but rather something very similar in resemblance to it....buckminsterfullerene or buckyball as it is commonly called.  It is an organic compound with a molecular formula of C60 (60 carbon atoms in the shape of Richard Buckminster Fuller's geodesic domes...hence the name) that we recently talked about in my organic chemistry class.  Some of its potential uses include being used in superconductor materials and drug-delivery systems. 

Despite my initial reaction, I also thought about what in the world is the point of this geodesic dome?! All I could think of was its modern-look and that it must be purely for aesthetic value and just being "eye-catching".  So I continued to read about these domes and Richard Buckminster Fuller and did a little digging as well.  Turns out, he did have a point in his designs as should have been expected.  As the text states, he used a "minimum of structure to create maximum strength"...sort of a "more is less" mentality.  In this way, he was able to use a low amount of materials and produce a great yield.  And we all know conserving resources is very important in today's world.

While looking at some of his other ideas and designs I couldn't help but share this one below.  Its a self-sustaining city that could be built in the middle of an ocean in the midst of a population density crisis.  Very neat!

Lastly, I got to thinking...why hasn't this geodesic dome design caught on if it truly saves resources and has such a unique, modern look to it.  Well in fact a very famous building takes after this sort of design and uses lightweight triangular elements as the book suggests...it is the one and only Louvre Pyramid in Paris.  Instead of forming the triangular elements into a sphere, it formed into one, huge triangle.  Both the sphere and the triangle just give that "world within a world" feel that is so unique and different yet so simple.

I found this short little video that helps put into perspective what Richard Buckminster Fuller was trying to achieve.  Enjoy!

Capturing the Unthinkable

The quote "A picture is worth a thousand words" never became more clear to me than after looking at the photo on page 68 in the text.  Its what photojournalism is all about...telling the news through photos.  

Photojournalism became an important part of telling the news in the 1930s and remained popular through the 1950s.  A prime example of a great photojournalist was Lee Miller.  She actually, according to the text, was the first female wartime photojournalist.

She was one of the first witnesses at the Buchenwald concentration camp in Germany after the end of World War II.  Pictures of the Holocaust never get old.  Not in the sense that I enjoy looking at them but it opens your eyes to the unthinkable.  Every time I see one of these pictures I'm absolutely blown away that something this horrendous ever happened.  If it happened once, its possible that it could happen again which is another reason why these photos are so important...they bring awareness as to what actually happened.  These photos don't lie.  There's no glazing over what took place in these concentration camps.  This hopefully will help ensure that this evil never takes place again.

As far as examining this photo in detail, I feel as if it speaks for itself.  It tells of the brutality and horror of the Holocaust, the sickness of one man to perform such things, what political propaganda can truly do (remember Hitler couldn't have accomplished this on his own...he had a ton of help), and it just spells d-e-a-t-h.

Just a couple more of Miller's photographs that I thought I'd share...most were way too graphic to even put up here.

 

I never knew people could look so disfigured and skinny.  Its absolutely once again "Unthinkable".  Makes you thankful doesn't it?  All the freedoms we have here in the United States! Ahhh we are so blessed!

Enough with This Freudian Nonsense

I'm not sure there is an ounce of what Sigmund Freud says that I actually believe.  Some of his ideas seriously leave me scratching my head wondering where in the world this man came up with ideas like that. For example, his phenomenon that he called the Oedipus complex absolutely about made my head spin...not with a transcendence of knowledge but rather a lack thereof.  I couldn't understand how he could ever believe that.  I wanted to blog on his beliefs concerning the aforementioned Oedipus complex but decided against based upon the fact that it would make for awkward class discussion.  Instead I want to defend my faith since Freud seems to take shots at it in all of his ideas. 

Therefore, I would like to bring to light a little excerpt from the text describing one of Freud's beliefs: "Freud questioned the very nature of human morality.  He described benevolent action and altruistic conduct as mere masks for self-gratification, and religion as a form of mass delusion".  I checked the blog criteria and it said that I don't have to be objective and that I can lay out my personal opinions so here it goes....

Im sorry if I step on any toes beforehand because that is not my intention.  I want to go more specific than just religion and see how his ideas hold up to a specific religion...Christianity.  This may be tougher than I think considering that there are so many different divisions of Christianity all with different beliefs.  I believe that Christianity is more than a "mass delusion" but rather it is where we get our morality, or ideas of right and wrong, from.  Most atheists would agree that what the Nazis did was wrong.  Well, where did they get this concept of "wrong" from?  Please don't say society or that everyone knows that killing someone was wrong.  Go back to the very first human...if you're a Christian that would be Adam and if not a Christian then just think of the first person.  How did they ever come up with what was right and wrong.  They would have had no preconceived ideas of even what is moral.  This means that it must have been like a law of nature in that it was not created by humans but rather by a higher being or God.  It was always in us...its intuitive (an idea often identified with C.S. Lewis) but we have a disease called sin. 


http://atheology.com/2007/03/29/cs-lewis-moral-argument/

Freud lays out all the things we desire and to be frank basically all of them are sin (ie, Oedipus complex).  As a result its hard to believe that "benevolent actions" and "altruistic conduct" are nothing more than "masks for self-gratification" but they are.  It's the moral law (I believe people would say this is our conscience or Christians would possibly say the Holy Spirit) coming out in us because we know what we ought to do but we do it very little because we are born sinners.  To be honest, this sin looks more pleasurable than the joy we get from helping others so that's why it comes out in us more and we have a "sin nature" but yet we still know what is right.  This is the reason that a Saviour (Jesus Christ) is needed because we utterly fail at keeping this moral law.  The only way we could be redeemed in the eyes of God (the source of this law) is to have someone pay the price or atone for our sins. 

Once again, I didn't mean to step on any toes.  It was the only way I knew how to refute Freud's ideas on morality and religion...that religion (specifically Christianity) is more than a "mass delusion" and morality stems from Christianity.  And most importantly to show that Jesus Christ was needed because He is the only way to be just in God's eyes because as Freud even said we just desire all these sinful things because they bring pleasure.   I hope that these thoughts aren't too scattered because I didn't want to go overly long in to explaining the concepts...

The "Wright" House for Me

Thank you Frank Lloyd Wright for saving my life!

Pfeww! For a second there, I thought I was going to be stuck critiquing a painting for my blog.  Which to be honest, I'm not sure I could do it considering that art is not my expertise.  I was able to let out a sigh of relief once I saw the picture of Fallingwater on page 21 though.  I may not be an expert on architecture either, but at least I have some appreciation for it.

 Look at this house! Its absolutely stunning! From the first time I laid eyes on it I fell in love with it.  I'm normally not a big fan of houses that are so defined in their edges and have that modern look, but there is something about this house that I absolutely adore...the setting.  Wright built a house that looks like it belongs in the city and incorporated it in such a way so that it meshes with nature.  It fits perfectly with the wooded area that it resides in.  Its in perfect harmony with the natural stone all around it...especially the rock cliff that it seems to be built into in the back of the house.  Lastly, the waterfall-house relationship is what makes this place a National Historic Landmark.

Wright said, "To use any material wrongly is to abuse the integrity of the whole design".  When designing Waterfall, he truly used everything in the surrounding natural landscape to add to the overall design of something so pristine and rustic, yet so elegant.

This video gives a little background on Fallingwater, and it is very informative.  The one thing that absolutely blew me away is that you can't see the falls from anywhere in the house!  As the video suggests, Wright did this because he didn't want the view of the falls to become "commonplace".  So to be able to view them you must hike a little ways to clearing.  Also, he said elsewhere that he wanted the sound of the falls and the woods to intrigue one to paint their own scenery...to use their imagination a little bit and appreciate not only the sights of the landscape but the sounds. 

Do you think that this adds or detracts to the appeal of the house?