Fireside Artist's Statement

I was more nervous for the fireside than I ought to have been. Similarly to the Webspinna Battle, I wasn’t quite sure what to expect, and was feeling particularly vulnerable about the whole thing. While I enjoy the company of my classmates, I’ve never been one to have exceedingly deep conversations with everyone I know. I don’t like to feel exposed in such a way and I didn’t expect that this experience would be exactly comfortable for me.

It didn’t help that I couldn’t think of a respectable way to convey what I wanted to in a more artistic manner than I did. I of course expected super artsy and meaningful performances, and those were definitely abundant. 

When things started up though, it clicked very suddenly. 

I think there were doubts about my place in the program relative to the others, and whether my different views really mattered. But once the performances and demonstrations were given, and conversations were started, I actually began to believe that everyone there could be comfortable accepting everyone else’s views and opinions as valid; I’ll be honest, it’s something I’ve steadily doubted even before getting into the program. Though, I’ve never really been an optimist anyway, so I suppose my paranoia should have been somewhat anticipated, but I digress. 

Coming up with my topic was more challenging that it probably should have been, as well. When I sat myself down and thought up all the things I believed, it all seemed superficial. I began to try to think of things that I not only believed but was passionate about, and then things got harder—more abstract, harder to convey altogether. I chose the subject of intuition because, if I may speak a little too well of myself for a moment, I happen to think my sense of intuition is very good. I trust my own judgments pretty quickly. 

I think, as humans, we all innately have the ability to discern things about people or situations or topics that we can’t explain as scientifically as perhaps people want us to. It’s been a long time since I’ve felt particularly inclined to fully explain myself when my decisions are based more on this than logic or some other comparably concrete information. I wish I could explain is better, then perhaps I’d have been able to take a little more liberty with my presentation. 

As an LDS person, I might be inclined to call “intuition” something like “the still small voice” or one of Its many other names, but I spoke of the thing that came with being human, not what came with being Mormon. I don’t know where that specific line is drawn; maybe there isn’t one, I don’t know. Who am I to dictate that? 

I believe it’s important for people to be involved with themselves as beings, not only responding to the world around them but to the world within them as well. A good balance of both of these things is, I think, exactly the balance between logic and intuition.

Vineyard at BYU

We chose to focus our Concerned Citizen project on a man named Samuel Bradshaw, who is the Project Director of Vineyard at BYU, which is a Y Serve program that is concerned with translation, transcription and documentation of LDS church records. Samuel, who has been in this position for years, is enthusiastic about his work and that of his organization, content in the help that he and his group are providing for the church. His choice to dedicate his time to this cause is no doubt a great help to the cause of furthering the work of the church and extending its outreach.

We were impressed with the work he is doing because it is so prevalent in our general interaction with digital information, specifically in this case to church websites and resources, and yet it isn’t a task people would normally consider. Tagging words to images and providing hymns in other languages, among other things, are of course things that someone has to do, but people generally forget that integral step in the process. With the vast amount of information to be documented and dealt with by Samuel and those who do what he does, cataloging it all online is a heavy undertaking which we believed should have its turn being appreciated.

Samuel’s general attitude, we thought, was wonderful in expressing his understanding of this program’s meaning and importance. While according to Goldbard’s Human Rights and Culture we, as the filmmakers, we should have been the ones to engage with people’s feelings about their work. As it so happened, Samuel was more than willing to engage with us. Going into the office we honestly were unsure of the direction this documentary was going to take. Listening to Samuel tell us very happily what their goal was as an organization helped us gain a better appreciation of his work.

We modeled the documentary style on other typical examples of LDS informational videos, as it seemed appropriate for this content and for Samuel’s willingness, and that of his co-workers, to articulate the processes they worked by. As it is something of a repetitive process done digitally it helped a lot to have things dictated in order to recognize the value of their work. They were very appreciative of our interest as well, and asked that we share our finished video with them; we wanted it to be suitable for their own intentions, and wished to do them justice.

In a culture so focused on expansion and record-keeping, the work done by the volunteers at Vineyard is without a doubt integral in the progress of providing ways for people to access church related documents and texts instantly through websites, apps, and other media; a humble undertaking with tremendous results.

Game for Change

I'm Just Saying - game

The main thing I wanted to focus on with this game was, honestly, how easy it is to become a cyber bully. People are much more aware of it nowadays, as opposed to when I was in middle school--dreadful middle school--and had to deal with this new way of mean people making other people feel sucky.

Only that wasn't the only problem anymore. 

The classic bullies still got physical, but now anyone could sit behind the safety of a computer screen and say what they wanted without fear of physical retribution. 

That was of course middle school and these issues should've been left behind long ago, but the truth that I see is that it hasn't gone away at all, and part of the reason--the part that I wanted to focus on--is that in its adolescence, cyber bullying wasn't treated as wholly as it should have been. It isn't just mean people deciding to get on the internet and put other people down. It isn't always horrible things like "you should just die" or "you're such an idiot, no wonder your dad left" and other horrible things like that. Those are of course a huge problem, but there are secure ways of going about being confronted with that because it's so polarized. But cyber bullying goes beyond that. 

StopCyberbullying.org identifies multiple types of cyber bullies. Along with the "Mean girls" (the type that springs to mind) there are people who have arguably decent intentions, such as validating themselves as proud nerds or delivering what they perceive to be fair come-uppance, and even some who don't do intentionally; those who are impulsive and just don't think first. 

There are plenty of institutions being put in place to address these rounder cases, making sure that no one is denied help because the bully's intentions were "not to harm". Tumblr has a blog that post uplifting messages and hosts forums for people who have been bullied, allowing for interaction between those who have been targets, rather than those who might not empathize as much because their case might be considered "softer" than someone else's. 

Part of my choice in making the game as I did was just to draw attention to the fact that it hasn't stopped, even though it seems like people have stopped talking abut it. Cyber bullies have just gotten craftier, and people have stopped paying attention to what they say. It hasn't stopped. In fact, in the last couple years there have been more victims of cyber bullying than there ever were when I was in middle and high school. 

It's not something to be forgotten about. Just because you and I might technically be adults doesn't mean we can't fall victim anymore. Age doesn't matter behind a screen.

Even worse than ignoring it is becoming part of the problem. When we forget we get sloppy, and when people get sloppy they don't stop to think of the person who actually reads what they're typing.

World Building

Picture this: You’re at your thirteenth birthday party. It’s a bowling party and as you’re about to impress everyone with your “supa sweet” bowling skills, your feet suddenly morph into fins. You faceplant onto the ground while your crush and the rest of your “friends” laugh at you. In a world where puberty is replaced by becoming your spirit animal, experiencing random morphing is just part of being a teen.

There are of course good and bad aspects of such a society. While some find the spirit animal a liberating, necessary part of themselves, others see it as something to be kept personal, almost hidden. Although a fictitious world, there is nothing new about these views. We as humans have debated for centuries about social expectations and etiquette. Agonizing over what to do and what not to do. In our artifacts, we have represented a society in which morphing into a spirit animal is an integral part of society. Even so, there are mixed opinions and implications concerning whether it is accepted or even acceptable. Such questions ignite a new and unknown conflict, one more question of human rights, like race or gender, political opinions or social standing. In each artifact we chose to explore this question and design pieces of such a conflicted world.

As we created our own new world, we opened our minds to this pressing question, but also to what life would look like with spirit animals involved. Creating snapshots of everyday life through newspaper headlines, political posters and photos of city signs, we designed a fictitious world that came to feel real. With each artifact we seemed to uncover a new story about the people, places and things that this world contained. Like Julian Bleecker says in his article, Design Fiction, “ [Design fiction] objects are totems through which a larger story can be told, imagined or expressed…” There was no way we could explain every portion of the newly discovered spirit animal world, but we could craft our own perception and provide a base for new stories. 

We can see this phenomenon of new worlds and stories in our own world today. When the novel, The Hunger Games, was released, the imaginary world of Suzanne Collins began to take form. Following the detailed book, was the professionally designed world of Collin’s imagination in film form. Helping the reader and the viewer to see Katniss’s world as real, the specific choices in design became a trademark of that world. People everywhere began to dress up like people from the Capitol, District 13 or maybe even like Katniss herself, delving deeper into the newly created world.

Although our world may not spark a phenomenon of people dressing up as spirit animals or making movies about awkward transforming teens, it has made us more aware of how design holds the power to open an avenue of creativity. That each photo we created or political poster we staged contributes to the creation a completely different and magical world.

Morgan, Catherine, Hannah, and Grace

Webspina Artist's Statement: With Heather and Nathan

“We should go this way”, “no we should go this way”, “well how about this?”, “I don’t think we can show that very well with sound….”.  This is essentially what took place figuring out what we should actually fight about Thursday night.  We wanted clear discernable characters we three could be without out it being too difficult to find audio representations from the interwebs for them.  That’s when we decided on the mediums of books, movies, and video games.  These three often are in a battle between each other, people saying the book was better than the movie or that people are wasting their time playing video games when they should go read a book. These noble three have been stuck in conflict for some time, each trying to testify of its great worth. At times, two of these characters will gang up on the other and fight to the death. Occasionally, there is a rare moment of hope when there is a commonality among all three, uniting these diverse mediums. We wanted to exploit this by beginning the battle at each other's throats, occasionally  double teaming the third medium, until a chaotic free-for-all leading to a finish of a union between the battling forces.  

  

The three; books, movies and video games; are so easily compared with one another due to their similar narrative setups--even more so when one is based off of another. The nature of humans is to pick one and stick with it, staying loyal to the best. The thing is, when it comes down to the fundamentals, they’re hardly different at all. Harkening back to our conversations about taking ideas and cues from other media and incorporating it into something else, books, films, and video games follow a similar evolutionary track. The written word has been telling stories since it was developed. With the moving picture such stories became visual rather than mental, but retained their basic structure and meaning. Then, with video games, the stories became interactive. This is why we couldn’t choose a winner for our battle; doing so would place one higher than the other two, and that isn’t fair or right. Each medium has great worth and much to offer to us.

In the spirit of Jonathan Lethem’s piece, we had to take preexisting sounds and concepts to create the story of our battle. For the book sounds, we had to use movie adaptation sounds. The Harry Potter sounds used for Books were taken from the film adaptations! It was a poach inside a poach. Poach-ception. In a sense this battle we took part in was is akin to the glitch art by the artists in the pbs video that was shown to us in class.  Though our process had a bit more preparation, it was still improvised in how it would work out.  Often things would happen, a video would play or not play and we had to go with the flow in was occurred.  

Textual Poaching: On Goth Culture and the Other Goth Culture

“Cursed, cursed creator! Why do I live? Why, in that instant, did I not extinguish that spark of existence which you had so wantonly bestowed? I know not; despair had not yet taken possession of me; my feelings were those of rage and revenge. I could with pleasure have destroyed the cottage and its inhabitants and have glutted myself with their shrieks and misery.

“When night came I quitted my retreat and wandered into the coven; and now, no longer retained by the fear of bright colors, I gave vent to my anguish in fearful howlings to the Master Antichrist. I was like a wild beast that had broken the bonds, destroying the leather restraints that obstructed me and raging through the coven with a vampire like swiftness. Oh! What a gloriously miserable night I passed! The cold stars shone in mockery, and the bare trees waved their branches above me; now and then the sweet voice of a ghost burst forth amidst the universal stillness. All other Satanists, save I, were at rest or in disturbing enjoyment; I, like the arch-fiend I was, bore all hell within me, and finding myself unsympathized with, wished to tear up the trees, spread havoc and destruction around me, curse and damn the trees and the cottages and the people, and then to have sat down and enjoyed the ruin.”

Many people, I find, don’t believe me when I bring up my gothic interests. I don’t know why, you’d think after a few good conversations something like that wouldn’t come as a surprise, but that is neither here nor there. 

The point is that I consider myself to be a Goth. Such a harsh but ambiguous term brings to mind a lot of things, I’m sure, and honestly, while many of them are valid for other people elsewhere, what you’re likely thinking of is not the variation of gothicism that I subscribe to. (Today’s version of “goth” is the type that hit its mark in the eighties and onward.)

A Classic Goth, such as myself, has little to no interest in things like leather and studs, platform shoes, unintelligible screaming music or an anarchist’s attitude. Classically, to be gothic means to  find interests in things that are elegant and mysterious; in large part, it is enjoying the beauties in life that people have forgotten. And as a large point, classic goths are most certainly and pointedly not Satan-worshippers.

Above I’ve taken a passage from Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, Volume II Chapter VIII. It was a novel included in the first wave of gothic literature and is a recognizable classic story, regardless of whether one identifies with the culture. I’ve taken liberties with the text, rewriting it in such a way to include incorrect and frankly boring stereotypes surrounding the term “Goth.” Some are more subtle than others, as it is in life, when someone makes a comment or an assumption that is a little off. Then of course there are the bigger issues, dealing with the stereotypes that are more ridiculous and horribly generalizing (those would be the references to Satan; I hope by this point that would be easy to guess). 

I would say, however, that while there are some incorrect assumptions about the classic goth culture, sometimes the underlying ambiguity of it all has people confused in their own correctness. Reading the modified passage I am hopeful that, even if not familiar with the text, one would be able to pick out a number of errors; but where do the errors end? Frankenstein itself is quite a dark book, riddled with angst and horror and revenge—just the sort of thing we like. I actually changed very little, honestly. Some of the changes I made are minuscule. 

Because the fact of it is that we are dark, and we often brood and spend time in our own heads. We don’t fit in with society, and frankly it’s very near the bottom of the list of priorities. But we are not against society. Stand-off-ish, maybe, but not sinister. Dark, but not evil. 

Living as a goth is similar to living as a Mormon, as funny as that sounds. There’s a lot of assumptions, judgements, and oppositions, and one sort of just has to take it all for what it’s worth. People outside looking in will tell you what they think they know about your culture and the purists will get on your case for not doing enough. 

It’s a matter of integrity, just like most things are. You can read my passage if you think it’s more fitting, or, like me, you can appreciate the beauty of the original.

Medium Specificity: Of Layering and the Persistance of Flavor

Above is a series of images, each depicting a stage in the process of creating a digital art piece. They are presented with the finished product first, as that is generally the sort of thing that most people see; and ended with the beginning sketch. Each image represents one added, separate layer to the piece. 

Visual art itself is a wonder, with the ability to portray the world around us in a way that adheres to the laws of nature and reality or abstracting in such a way the meaning, while present, is sometimes unidentifiable. Digital art, though often misused and abused (and written off because of it) is one such medium for presenting the world. Digital art has many unique attributes, but the singular one I’ve decided to present is that of layers. 

When I paint in the physical plane in which I exist, thing are permanent—sure, I can do back and cover up my mistakes as much as I please but they're still there. “Painting” digitally offers the opportunity to add layer upon layer of work onto one piece, allowing for the artist to mess up and experiment without the fear of messing up. I can add a layer, decide later that it’s garbage and click a button that excludes it entirely from the final product. I can color correct, by layer, if I decide that I chose the wrong hue with which to shadow. Perhaps use of the  “undo” button is cheating. Perhaps digital paintings will never belong in an art museum. Perhaps they shouldn’t, even in my own opinion. But it makes experimentation and expression accessible. Painting is scary and expensive and stressful. “Painting” on a tablet of some sort seems much more forgiving, doesn’t it?

Our visiting speaker, Ms. Frahm, spoke a lot about process and finding meaning in what you do as you do it. The process of creating a digital art piece such as I have here is something more architectural, perhaps, than processes possible with some other forms of media. I find beauty in this sort of step-by-step, line-upon-line way of doing things. The meaning, for me, differs from piece to piece, but within the concept of layering I find benefit in productivity and accessibility.

I use digital art for art that I plan on sharing in various virtual forms. I can make things fast and exactly how I want them and there is always merit in traditional artwork, of course, but is it realistic in reading out to people, and starting conversations? I can produce easily one digital piece a day, if I so choose. Can I realistically do that with paint or any comparable medium, my budget and schedule? 

As for the cherries: I was drinking cherry coke, and it was tasty. Some things just are. 

Historical Story: Lizzie Borden had an Axe...er, a Hatchet

Historical stories are tricky things.There is no solid way to avoid touchy subjects, or potentially offending someone. We as humans, share a history and therefore any portrayal of that history automatically speaks of the author’s views and opinions, and often implies many things about their character and situation. When I and my partner, Jase, were working on this script, we were aware that it was a risk to adopt actual people into these characters, especially concerning such a topic. We decided, however, that in this particular case we were willing to do so—it is to be read as something of a speculation on what could have happened. Lizzie Borden was acquitted, but most agree that she was the one to commit the murders. Likewise, both Emma and Bridget have also been considered suspect, even if no trial was held for either of them. If this were to be made into anything larger-scale than a three page script assignment, then yes, perhaps we’d have avoided incriminating legally innocent people. But it is a short assignment, so we took the risk.

The script we came up with was largely imagined; Emma wasn’t even around at the time the murders took place (although there is no solid account of where she actually was) and Bridget left shortly after, with little records we could find saying much about her. The details—the burned dress and the hatchet head—were all we had to go on, and even there we took artistic liberties. 

I read The Veil after writing this, for the most part, and it made me wonder how I’d write something like this in first-person. I could figure it out if I were writing a short story, but a script in first-person seems like an endeavor at which I’d fall short; I’d probably make the character sound like a crazy person. It was an artful way to tell such a story though, very personalized and human. The pictures sure lent a hand to the telling of both The Veil and After the Deluge, although I think that their particular sort of storytelling called for it. In a script, the action lines more or less stand in for the pictures I suppose, so nothing is lost either way. 

Our short script turned out rather like a psychological narrative/typicality and process story we’ve actually just recently discussed in TMA 114. Having most of the focus on the little blood-soaked details, rather than the murder or the murderess, gave more insight into the characters directly presented. I personally also think that it would be easy for one to read between the lines and come out or it with something unique, different than what others glean from it. At least, that’s what it does to the best of our abilities. 

"Famous Trials: The Trial of Lizzie Borden." UMCK, n.d. Web. 6 Feb. 2016.

"Borden Parents Found Dead." History. N.p., n.d. Web. 8 Feb. 2016.

Process Piece

Heather and Grace's Process Piece      

        We focused on a process of elimination, exploring the cognitive happenings of people (us) as the decision was made as to where we should go to eat. Even though things like this are widely known as “processes” it is not often pondered as it happens. This sort of casual, friendly and non-spectacular conversation is the sort that anyone would overlook; nothing big happens, we don’t, by the end of the conversation, come out with anything tangible. It is, however, a definite clear process—and one that is really quite elementary. Interactions with other humans tend to all be processes in their own right, this is simply one form they can take. 

        

        The process itself seemed, at first, a little worrying to us. We thought that the presence of the phone that was recording, the knowledge that we were having a conversation, would somehow impede our subconscious willingness to be normal in this situation. However, it became very clear very quickly that there was nothing special to this. There was no reason to worry about being insincere; it was very natural. The product, while not immediately tangible, was a decision made mutually through the collaboration of two people in civilized, friendly conversation. It highlights how familiar we all are with processes in a general sense. It is likely a natural thing for an artist to hear “find a process” and assume that it’s a hard thing to do, because we’re all artists and since when is anything easy? But in reality, most everything we do is some sort of process, even if the product is just a decision about pizza places.

        

        Though we didn’t necessarily have in mind the videos that were the preparation for this assignment, the product turned out to be much like Dean’s little video.  Each process wasn’t fantastical in nature, nothing overtly special, but very simple and a phenomenon that occurs often in everyday life for people.  Whether it’s the struggle of having to gather a family together to read the scriptures or the struggle of making the decision of where to eat.  There are always factors involved that can halt the process, one person can derail the whole event by disagreeing, but in so doing it adds to the process, making it a part of life. 

         When we had the completed product, we both discovered a mutual appreciation for the web series Good Mythical Morning.  What the hosts do on this daily Youtube show is have a conversation about a plethora of subjects, improvising the entirety of what they say like unto what we did.  These internetainers opening is always “Let’s talk about that”, leading into this process of a conversation that can have many disagreements, or they’ll even be debating over a final decision like what the world’s ugliest animal is.  In this sense, we saw that our process was of the same fruition as the daily episodes of this show.  

Round Robin

It is fascinating that such deep stories can be told in a picture and 20 words. I feel like the round robin gives us an opportunity to have these collective, small bursts of creativity, that can turn out to be quite beautiful. It was interesting to see how the stories progressed as they went through each set of hands. I didn’t imagine where the story would end up, when the idea originated. The first idea seemed the most difficult, and the later rounds became easier to write. It was as if the first Idea was a little spark and once it caught, it was easy to put wood on the fire. The beauty of collaboration is that you have to give up control. Most of the best art is produced when it is created with restrictions because it causes the artist to think outside of the box. When several artists work together that's that much more box to think outside of. 

One interesting result of this project was that upon sending off the latest story to the next person, it was rare that the next story would convey what the original author believed to be the important or interesting aspect of the story. Some stories meant to be taken literally were read by the next person as containing a deeper meaning. Other times, the story was meant to be deep, but the next author took the story at its surface. Regardless of the author’s original intent, the next story was often surprising and enjoyable. Each string of stories goes off in a direction the original author most likely did not imagine. These results exemplify the idea that stories are more creative when working as a team.

In the article about the Exquisite Corpse by DJ Spooky, he talks about how fragmented, varied puzzles reflect more accurately the collective memory of our culture and how we as a whole progress. Perhaps this idea could stand a few more test runs from us, but the point is valid. It is simply a silly thing to assume complete control over anything, let alone a creative process, and indeed when a person freely gives up what control they have they not only have an opportunity to be presented with new, interesting points of view, but also insight into other people. 

Spooky compared the exquisite corpse and other similar methods of creation with Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein—as accurate as any comparison could be in two senses. Firstly, in the literal sense, it really is sort of a mismatched and vague representation of a story-isn thing, which is beautiful in its own right. It is also a figurative compilation of numerous consciousnesses, opinions, experiences, and interpretations. A “living” thing,” according to Spooky, as “‘text’ is never inanimate”—an entity of sorts built up from the minds of five independently thinking people.

While writing these blurbs, I felt that I was building up part of a community.  As a collective we have our own personal beliefs and experiences, but then putting it together is like a realization of how we fit together as people.  In a community, when new people come in contact, lives are changed and a person has a choice to take different paths in their life.  This process is similar to when a character beat is formed within story.  Now within this exercise, it as if we are introducing the characters developed in the stories to a new person, who has their own perspective and experience to change the life of this character forever.  Mimicking this natural process allows the story and characters develop more naturally.  Just as we do, the characters have the opportunity to be influenced by the introduction of new ideas.   Then the community grows the with the development of new characters and the introduction to new ideas to each of us as creators.  

Music Mosaic: Sing! Sing! Sing!

"Sing, Sing, Sing" by Benny Goodman


An easily recognizable song, Benny Goodman's Sing, Sing, Sing is a staple at many dances and featured in media even today. The song is upbeat, lively, and speaks of a classic American age defined by an outspoken and hard-working public and a collective national spirit. The boisterous melody reflects a fighting spirit as well as it reflects the epitome of a grand old time. 

This piece, and many like it, is meant upfront to make people feel good and optimistic. It's a dancing song, without a doubt, meant for enjoyment. The first three images here are a representation of that aspect; the first two with bright colors and the third with a depiction of the informality and inclusive nature of the music. The first, with the dancing couple, is perhaps something of a stylized version of what most people probably think of when listening for the first time (or at least the first time when looking for meaning). The second is a more abstract image, evocative of a fast-moving night life. The excitement of being overwhelmed with instruments and color and people is what inspired this, capturing for me the feeling of being okay with having life move on around you, if for just a moment, happy to just watch--watching anything that this music accompanies is sure to be something to behold by itself. The third image is meant to show the easygoing artfulness of the music, where the body danced just as much as the notes did. If the song is being listened to right, there should be no reason for anyone to be sitting still--least of all the musician.

The next image is a pretty outspoken one, but then America has never been a nation to take anything quietly, has it? The point of the lipstick art was to remind people of this. One must remember what the country was like in this time--this particular song came out around the end of the Great Depression and held its popularity through the 1940s--war time; this music thrived in a time where little else did. Odd as it may seem--what with the differences between the seriousness of the American situation and the joyfulness of the music--swing music such as this was actually a very good fit. If one was to think about it, doesn't it sound just like someone talking back? Proving that, yeah, we got knocked down a few pegs but we're alright. This fourth picture, as well as many of the others, stands for our knack of getting right in the face of our troubles and displaying complete defiance when other people seem to think that we'll just sit and take it. Other images include the fifth, portraying a soft-looking woman in harsh light and definitely not helpless, as the song is inclusive of everyone in dance and play (also applicable to the third image of the man of color being the one to play); the sixth image, the draft letter with the kiss, as a sign that such a thing as fighting for what was right was supported openly; and back to the first image, where half of the dancing couple give service to the military, and still manage to be happy.

Say what you will about America today; I think it's a bit of a mess myself. But regardless of who you are or what you stand for, I truly believe that as Americans, we all still believe in the unity and optimism displayed with this music. It may take a good kick in the pants to get us back on track, but every time we've been knocked down so far, we've gotten right back up as a stronger people. Maybe we don't agree on the how, or the why, but everyone is united in the basic understanding of what we're supposed to be.

The last two images are less fun-loving and joyful than the formers. The two together are something of a memorial, a reminder after a few musings that there was a reason for the "fighting spirit" to exist in the first place. We wouldn't be who we are today without the strength people before us had already built up. The roses are for remembrance, but still carry the bright color and stylistic expression I associate with this piece of music. The last image is one of two that was not created digitally (the lipstick seemed more efficient to do on one's lips, as it so often is). It is ink on paper, where I simply spilled the ink and dragged it out with a brush to create the image. It's supposed to be messy. It's supposed to be subdued. It's supposed to make a person think, because in the end, if we hadn't hit rock-bottom, we'd have never had a reason to get back up stronger and better than before. 

The amount of people I used in my drawing was intentional. This song, and many like it, is a story of the people before anything else, telling of how they respond to the trials thrown at them and what they invest their time and efforts into--in this case, rebuilding America to be stronger and proving that we as a people will not be knocked down for long. The story cannot be told without exhibiting the people who played a part in doing just that.

Thinking and Writing: Mary Watson, the Proper Feminist

An ever-growing trend in media is to portray the strong-willed, independent woman. Feministic ideals surround us from every side and pull us in with promises of equality—and we readily hop on the wagon, because after all, isn’t all this a good thing? Women are in fact equal to men and can do everything that they do, and ideally feminism expresses this opinion. But does the media do it right? 

Personally, I think that there are very few instances that the feminist woman is shown in an appropriate light. Granted it is hard to do, balancing charming stubbornness with general femininity, but every so often, someone manages to get it right. Such is the case with the most recent portrayal of Mary Watson (née Morstan) in BBC’s Sherlock, played by Amanda Abbington.

Mrs. Watson has been something of a strong character in her own right since being introduced in Sir Doyle’s stories, even in a time when women were still very much oppressed. It would have been something of a radical choice to create such a complex and important female character, but Doyle did it all the same, even as she retained something of a demure and soft personality reflective of the day. In today’s media, it would have been so easy for someone to write her into a script while modernizing her in such a way that she matched every other strong female character on television, but this did not happen. She has only been in a few episodes of the series, and she already displays wonderfully how a woman can be intelligent and independent as well as likable and feminine. One episode, The Sign of Three, is a wonderful example of her charms. 

It is evident rather early that Mary is an intelligent individual, and not long after that do we realize that she also has a very large influence over the people around her. John, Sherlock, and various other characters are keen to do as she asks not because she is a woman, like someone might assume at first, but because she quietly, effectively proved herself to be dependable and smart enough to make important decisions. In The Sign of Three, she is shown to have a firm grasp of her relationships and those of the people close to her when she convinces, separately, john and Sherlock to take the other out for a case. This was done in a way that was subtle and that no one else would ever see—no one would ever know that she managed it. Another female character might’ve made something of a stand and loudly told the boys exactly what they should do, and that they were being childish, and they would’ve listened because she was Woman and she had final say. 

This is unnecessary. And unrealistic. 

One may also notice that, aside from special circumstances, Mary does not fight with her husband. They disagree, sure, what couple doesn’t? But she never raises her voice, she never attacks him, she simply explains herself firmly and clearly. She gets her husband on board with her plan, she does not kick him down and drag him along. 

This is what the essence of feminism is. The characters I see portrayed regularly in various media are, at best, caricatures of what a feminist is, and to be honest I strongly dislike most of them. There is nothing strong about a woman who has to belittle everyone around her, fighting to be on top. Nowhere in the rules does it say that an independent woman must also be cold and unfeeling, and often rather “butch”. And there is hardly anything more insulting than a woman overly sexualizing herself because she kicks butt, like proving yourself once gives someone the right to dangle themselves in front of the masses and completely erase all the work they think they’ve done. 

Feminism is not supposed to be women demanding or begging for special treatment, which indeed is what the above examples are. The goal here is to overcome the patriarchy in favor of equality, not of a matriarchy. If women are equal to men, and we want men to listen, then the best way to do that is by being equal, not self-righteous. 

Mary Watson did something right in a way that I believe is extremely beneficial to both sexes, proving that a strong, smart, independent woman can also be collected, warm, loving, and likable. There is no need for women to dehumanize themselves to be their own person.