The the play, during the earlier section of the two time frames, a few of the characters discuss the changes that they were planning to implement into the garden. Mr. Noakes the garden architect of the household makes plans on changing the garden from an Arcadia-esque landscape to a gothic styled one (which was popular at the time). Mrs. Croom on the other hand prefers the current style over the ideas of picturesque developing the styles of art began to change to romanticism which favors the image of untamed nature and ruins of humanity over the neatly cut and organized style of before.
The change in the garden symbolizes the change in artistic style during the period.
*I tried to find pictures but none really represented what I thought was an arcadia or gothic style
Regardless, I found it really interesting how the change in gardening can be influenced by art and 2D media. I also feel like our manipulation of gardens regardless of natural or not-natural imagery in the garden really shows human relations with nature. We cut and prune things to serve our needs, desires, and tastes. We even work hard to try and make it look "untamed" which ironically just makes it even more human controlled.
Thursday, April 24, 2014
Sunday, April 13, 2014
Barriers, Bridges, and Being
Upon hearing about this project, I was excited but also concerned about making an adequate Video. I had never used the app before this, so I was unfamiliar with the media. A few seconds of video is a hard restriction to work with, especially when I was trying to make sure my videos had meaning while also being interesting. I found that just going and doing it was the best way to come up with each.
When planning my triptych, I wanted to make sure that my three videos were tied together in some way. As we had explored humans relations with nature for a long time in class, and I wanted to make a more personal reflection on my own relations with nature. However when I tried to come up with one theme in my relation with nature, I realized that there in no black and white distinguishing factor in my relation. I wasn't one or the other, rather, my relations with nature varied from disconnect to desire and enthusiasm relative to my feelings. Each video reflected a different feeling I had about nature at different times (each video idea was developed on different days). When I finally filmed them I saw an interesting relation which was my theme of "Barriers, Bridges and Being".
First Barriers refers to our disconnection from nature. Our priorities lie in our technology and culture rather than the outside world and nature. We become blocked from it regardless if we want to or not.
Bridges refers to our connection to nature. While we may be distant from nature, our resources allow us to view and experience nature in other ways. Even if we couldn't visit a certain site, we can view and learn about it, and hence be more connected to it that before.
Being acknowledges the fact that we are born out of nature. Despite all our separation, we still live in the existence we call nature. Our home, the earth, is nature. The universe, our captors, are nature. Hence, we must also be nature.
While these ideas may be paradoxical, depending on feeling and perspective, all three relations can exist at the same time. I don't completely understand why, but that is my truth and my relation with nature.
U Sometimes we have priorities right? And I guess nature isn't one of them!?
As close to a beach as I'll ever be... But at least I can experience it in some way!
"If the universe is nature, then civilized or not, we are just a small part of that nature."
In the large scope of things, our earth is pretty small in the end.
What is Chris McCandless? Brave? Stupid? Or does it really matter?
After reading Into the Wild I noticed that while I thought that the books story had been compelling and read-worthy, I discovered myself becoming less and less sympathetic to the Supertramp himself as the book went on. In fact, I had to remind myself multiple times throughout the reading that this was a true story and not just some imagined plot to make a book interesting. While perhaps fault can be attributed to the book for not making it more documentary like and for telling to story like a "story", I think my perception of McCandless' journey being like a fantasy lies in the fact that I think Chris was trying to live out a fantasy to begin with. (I actually really loved the book itself and I really enjoyed it).
Overall I had hard time relating to Chris, thoughat the same time I did understand his disposition. As a teenager (given Chris is a bit older than a teenager) I have also spent countless hours contemplating what the world is, what it should be, and my own place in it. I have often dreamed that an answer does exist out there and that my role merely lies in finding it. McCandless was clearly looking a "certain something" in life when he decided to go out into the wild, and while I can understand this, his complete rejection of society baffles me. I too disagree with many aspect of humanity, yet you cannot make the world better if you just run off by yourself into the woods. Chris seems really selfish when you look at it from this perspective. He didn't like his world and life so he merely ran away so he could enjoy himself. While he did donate his money to a good cause, he made no efforts to try and improve the faults he saw in the world. As for his journey, I honestly hold no opinion. He made his choice and while I would not have done the same as him, I believe that people are allowed to make their own choices about what they do (given that they make these decisions with a clear head).
There are many variations of response to the story of Chris McCandless both positive and negative. In a video by abc news they interview his family and Krakauer, review his life, and discuss. The video aired in 1997 only a few years after the whole story. Overall I felt as if the reporters were passing off McCandless' journey as some unfortunate accident done by some foolish young kid. And while I agree that he was being foolish, at the same time they write him off without trying to discuss or understand his journey. While most of this is just a documentary, the briefness of their talk revolving around the story really illustrates how this just exists as an "exciting" news opportunity.
I also came across a vlog of a man talking about his experience reading the book, since he found himself relating to McCandless' journey and desire for travel and the wild. He clearly states that Chris is in no way a hero or someone to look up to, even while he understands the longing for nature. I think that this kind of illustrates just how not-unique Chris' story actually is. Even Krakauer the author of Into the Wild had his own journey into nature. Chris just happened to be the one who received the most "buzz" about such journeys.
The third video I found and watched was a video on Chris' when he was younger. While the book does talk about his childhood, it emphasizes how Chris was a solitary but sociable person who impressed many people he met. This video on the other hand, portrays Chris as a person afraid of socializing with others and immature. His roommate in Emory describes him with much less enthusiasm and overall changed my views of McCandless as a person. While McCandless does often appear as a young and intelligent soul going out into the wild the challenge himself, the new more negative perspective of him really lessens the hype of his adventure.
There is a variety of opinions revolving around the actions that Chris took, yet for me, I continue to find myself neutral. People have the right to do what they wish even if we don't agree with them, but I suppose that my only qualm would be with his negative outlook on society and how he looked down on those who cling to our society. As a "privileged" human he has the opportunity to look at the faults that his lifestyle holds yet there are so many others striving to attain what he rejects. He hurts his family and those around them while still arrogantly believing that he is in the right, and he ultimately fails in his journey. (Assuming he was going to return and rejoin civilization). As I said before, I think he was looking for something. Whether he found that something or not, we won't know, but whats done is done and the world must go on.
Overall I had hard time relating to Chris, thoughat the same time I did understand his disposition. As a teenager (given Chris is a bit older than a teenager) I have also spent countless hours contemplating what the world is, what it should be, and my own place in it. I have often dreamed that an answer does exist out there and that my role merely lies in finding it. McCandless was clearly looking a "certain something" in life when he decided to go out into the wild, and while I can understand this, his complete rejection of society baffles me. I too disagree with many aspect of humanity, yet you cannot make the world better if you just run off by yourself into the woods. Chris seems really selfish when you look at it from this perspective. He didn't like his world and life so he merely ran away so he could enjoy himself. While he did donate his money to a good cause, he made no efforts to try and improve the faults he saw in the world. As for his journey, I honestly hold no opinion. He made his choice and while I would not have done the same as him, I believe that people are allowed to make their own choices about what they do (given that they make these decisions with a clear head).
There are many variations of response to the story of Chris McCandless both positive and negative. In a video by abc news they interview his family and Krakauer, review his life, and discuss. The video aired in 1997 only a few years after the whole story. Overall I felt as if the reporters were passing off McCandless' journey as some unfortunate accident done by some foolish young kid. And while I agree that he was being foolish, at the same time they write him off without trying to discuss or understand his journey. While most of this is just a documentary, the briefness of their talk revolving around the story really illustrates how this just exists as an "exciting" news opportunity.
I also came across a vlog of a man talking about his experience reading the book, since he found himself relating to McCandless' journey and desire for travel and the wild. He clearly states that Chris is in no way a hero or someone to look up to, even while he understands the longing for nature. I think that this kind of illustrates just how not-unique Chris' story actually is. Even Krakauer the author of Into the Wild had his own journey into nature. Chris just happened to be the one who received the most "buzz" about such journeys.
The third video I found and watched was a video on Chris' when he was younger. While the book does talk about his childhood, it emphasizes how Chris was a solitary but sociable person who impressed many people he met. This video on the other hand, portrays Chris as a person afraid of socializing with others and immature. His roommate in Emory describes him with much less enthusiasm and overall changed my views of McCandless as a person. While McCandless does often appear as a young and intelligent soul going out into the wild the challenge himself, the new more negative perspective of him really lessens the hype of his adventure.
There is a variety of opinions revolving around the actions that Chris took, yet for me, I continue to find myself neutral. People have the right to do what they wish even if we don't agree with them, but I suppose that my only qualm would be with his negative outlook on society and how he looked down on those who cling to our society. As a "privileged" human he has the opportunity to look at the faults that his lifestyle holds yet there are so many others striving to attain what he rejects. He hurts his family and those around them while still arrogantly believing that he is in the right, and he ultimately fails in his journey. (Assuming he was going to return and rejoin civilization). As I said before, I think he was looking for something. Whether he found that something or not, we won't know, but whats done is done and the world must go on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)