When I asked the Spanish teacher in spring if I could skip the first year course, and dive right into Spanish II, he asked me if I was an honors student or a CP one like him. I was surprised; I'd heard so much about this teacher, how smart he is, how good and fluent at Spanish he is. But he wasn't one of the overachieving students. I always figured that you had to be either an overachiever or a genius to become fluent in another language. But he apparently wasn't. He was just another student who, like me, wanted to learn, but didn't necessarily want to work too hard for it.
I took home a Spanish I book from a pile of books that the school was getting rid of. He didn't tell me to do that, but I wanted to be prepared. And, in a way, I wanted to impress him. My friends who take Spanish told me some basic rules of pronunciation, and I started my studying. I went through the book, writing the vocabulary over and over in a notebook, until I knew it. I only did this for a bout a month before I decided to move on to other things for the summer. I intended to start again before school started, but I never did.
The first day of school came, and my Spanish class was filled with people much more prepared than me. The teacher went over the rules for the class, and two rules especially stuck out to me: class participation and the homework policy. Not the punishments for breaking the rules, but the thing they encouraged: practice. The teacher expected everyone to participate and use the language, and devoted a large portion of our grades to it. He also gave us a written policy on homework, saying that his high school Spanish teacher gave him the same one. If his math teacher had given it to him, he would be teaching math, he said. Homework would be assigned every night. He wanted us to work. I trusted him, because it clearly turned out well for him.
We did some review. Everyone in the class had taken a year of Spanish, and I was trying to keep up. They spoke, and I mostly heard gibberish. Mostly. I could pick out a few words here and there, but I still couldn't understand what they were saying.
But then I realized I could understand what they were saying. I just needed a minute to figure a sentence out. Of course, by the time I knew what it meant, the class had moved on, but I understood that sentence. And if that's all it took then, when I work on it, it will become easier. The translation time will get shorter and shorter, until someday I'll be able to skip the English and simply hear a sentence for what it is. I just need to work at it, do my homework. I can learn a foreign language.
And now I think about my brother. We aren't so different. We're both stuck with people much more fluent in a language that we want to learn. The only difference is that he wants a first language. He's autistic. But the problem is the same: we want to know what people say, and we want to know how to say something back. If my teacher could do it, why not me? And if I can do it, why not my brother?
I am going to be fluent.
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Something to Think About Art
lately, i have been getting frustrated with the prices of equipment that i intend to eventually buy. equipment such as a synthesizer, computer, camera, audio/video editing software... all so i can work on making music and film. but to get good equipment- professional-quality camera, decent syntheziser, macbook- it takes a lot of saving. not to mention saving to get a car.
art is expensive, and that's annoying. you'd think self expression would be much easier.
also, think about this: so many untalented rich kids have easier access to good tools, while all the talented nonrich kids have to deal with less. that's pretty unfair; many geniuses have to make due with very little, while an idiot, as long as they're rich, has access to the best.
then i realized that maybe that is actually a good thing. if a genius had everything easy, would he still reach his potential? maybe the reason people become good at what they do is because they have little, and they're forced to rely on their own skill, rather than rely on tools to make something good for them. a genius often becomes a genius because of those challenges.
maybe that's why the general quality of many arts is going down in recent years; music, movies, and writing lately haven't been as good as they used to be (in general). everybody has so much more access to tools now; people can create virtually anything with very little work. during my parents' childhoods, video cameras were a much bigger deal; they had to put in time and effort just to get a simple home movie. they couldn't just refilm something if it went wrong, because it went on film. they then had to go get it developed. they didn't just fool around with video cameras, making goofy videos with their friends; they couldn't have afforded to. they couldn't even edit video.
nowadays, making things is extremely easy. with digital technology, we can afford to screw up, because we can just delete and start over; we can then edit video clips, and show them to the world virtually instantly. that's another thing that's a big deal. we can publish ourselves. people can view or hear our creations any time they want, instantly. creativity is made so easy, and almost anybody can add to the creative atmosphere of the internet.
this can be a problem, in that because anybody can create, our standards are also lowered. because most people don't have amazing talent, we get used to average, and stop appreciating genius. when things were harder to do, the creations people saw were the ones made by people who continued to pursue their craft despite the challenges; they had more practice at it (it usually takes years for a person to truly master their art), and the very fact that they persevered meant that they had a passion to put into their creations. to add to that, people who sucked didn't succeed because companies wouldn't give them funding to make crap. natural selection of art. now, that selective atmosphere is gone; everybody is screaming their own individual ideas of creativity, regardless of whether they're good or not.
on one hand, we are in a kind of second renaissance. on the other, we are in a loud, chaotic, mediocre period in which everyone is more concerned with their own attention than appreciating good creativity. i'm interested to see what the future holds for the world of creative minds.
Anyway...
rich idiots have more access to good tools than poor geniuses. this would seem unfair. (keep in mind, i'm not saying that rich people are idiots or poor people are geniuses. i'm just pointing out how the way of things is a little fucked up sometimes.)
but then... if you think about it. a genius may be made a genius by not having access to fancy tools. they're forced focus not on their tools, but on their talent. people need that challenge, or they'd get lazy. you can have all the special effects skill in the world, but without good skill at telling a good story, you're movie is going to suck. on the other hand, you can have the shittiest camera, a crappy computer with only basic editing software (no effects), and create a masterpiece. it's all about what you focus on.
an artist should always focus on what they want to portrey, not their medium. the medium will be taken care of if the creator knows what they want to do with it.
~thenicklad~
ps- i think this would be a good spot to put my two cents in about movie sequals... every movie needs a theme, a vision, something that drives the plot, moreso than just a simple chain of events. that's what makes a great movie great. when sequals are made simply to continue the plot, they won't be as good. if there's something more the director or writer wanted to portray, then a sequal has potential to be good. but without a driving force of the plot, it is rather pointless to try to continue what's been finished. my example: the terminator movies. the first one portrayed fear; that fear of an unstopable force threatening you. that's what made it such a great movie, not the fact that it had great action sequences (those were awesome, btw). for the sequals, they simply wanted to continue the plot further, but didn't have a theme to go on. so the sequals weren't very good- but i haven't seen salvation yet, so i can't judge that.
pps- however, i do feel that terminator: salvation is going to be a bad movie because one of the things that amazed me so much about the terminator movies was that they told a story of an entire war without actually showing the war. come on, that's epic! but then they had to make a movie about the wars... meh. i'll have to see it, but i doubt i'll like it.
ppps- i just referenced terminator twice in a blog about art... *giggles*
art is expensive, and that's annoying. you'd think self expression would be much easier.
also, think about this: so many untalented rich kids have easier access to good tools, while all the talented nonrich kids have to deal with less. that's pretty unfair; many geniuses have to make due with very little, while an idiot, as long as they're rich, has access to the best.
then i realized that maybe that is actually a good thing. if a genius had everything easy, would he still reach his potential? maybe the reason people become good at what they do is because they have little, and they're forced to rely on their own skill, rather than rely on tools to make something good for them. a genius often becomes a genius because of those challenges.
maybe that's why the general quality of many arts is going down in recent years; music, movies, and writing lately haven't been as good as they used to be (in general). everybody has so much more access to tools now; people can create virtually anything with very little work. during my parents' childhoods, video cameras were a much bigger deal; they had to put in time and effort just to get a simple home movie. they couldn't just refilm something if it went wrong, because it went on film. they then had to go get it developed. they didn't just fool around with video cameras, making goofy videos with their friends; they couldn't have afforded to. they couldn't even edit video.
nowadays, making things is extremely easy. with digital technology, we can afford to screw up, because we can just delete and start over; we can then edit video clips, and show them to the world virtually instantly. that's another thing that's a big deal. we can publish ourselves. people can view or hear our creations any time they want, instantly. creativity is made so easy, and almost anybody can add to the creative atmosphere of the internet.
this can be a problem, in that because anybody can create, our standards are also lowered. because most people don't have amazing talent, we get used to average, and stop appreciating genius. when things were harder to do, the creations people saw were the ones made by people who continued to pursue their craft despite the challenges; they had more practice at it (it usually takes years for a person to truly master their art), and the very fact that they persevered meant that they had a passion to put into their creations. to add to that, people who sucked didn't succeed because companies wouldn't give them funding to make crap. natural selection of art. now, that selective atmosphere is gone; everybody is screaming their own individual ideas of creativity, regardless of whether they're good or not.
on one hand, we are in a kind of second renaissance. on the other, we are in a loud, chaotic, mediocre period in which everyone is more concerned with their own attention than appreciating good creativity. i'm interested to see what the future holds for the world of creative minds.
Anyway...
rich idiots have more access to good tools than poor geniuses. this would seem unfair. (keep in mind, i'm not saying that rich people are idiots or poor people are geniuses. i'm just pointing out how the way of things is a little fucked up sometimes.)
but then... if you think about it. a genius may be made a genius by not having access to fancy tools. they're forced focus not on their tools, but on their talent. people need that challenge, or they'd get lazy. you can have all the special effects skill in the world, but without good skill at telling a good story, you're movie is going to suck. on the other hand, you can have the shittiest camera, a crappy computer with only basic editing software (no effects), and create a masterpiece. it's all about what you focus on.
an artist should always focus on what they want to portrey, not their medium. the medium will be taken care of if the creator knows what they want to do with it.
~thenicklad~
ps- i think this would be a good spot to put my two cents in about movie sequals... every movie needs a theme, a vision, something that drives the plot, moreso than just a simple chain of events. that's what makes a great movie great. when sequals are made simply to continue the plot, they won't be as good. if there's something more the director or writer wanted to portray, then a sequal has potential to be good. but without a driving force of the plot, it is rather pointless to try to continue what's been finished. my example: the terminator movies. the first one portrayed fear; that fear of an unstopable force threatening you. that's what made it such a great movie, not the fact that it had great action sequences (those were awesome, btw). for the sequals, they simply wanted to continue the plot further, but didn't have a theme to go on. so the sequals weren't very good- but i haven't seen salvation yet, so i can't judge that.
pps- however, i do feel that terminator: salvation is going to be a bad movie because one of the things that amazed me so much about the terminator movies was that they told a story of an entire war without actually showing the war. come on, that's epic! but then they had to make a movie about the wars... meh. i'll have to see it, but i doubt i'll like it.
ppps- i just referenced terminator twice in a blog about art... *giggles*
Thursday, April 23, 2009
creatures of trust
I took an odd fixation recently on the fact that people walk on two legs… not that they do that in itself, but rather what they also do in walking like that. Man is really the first creature to walk about with an open and exposed belly. With no bone to protect our soft innards. This I found very odd, especially considering that man is the dominant species. I would think that any creature foolish enough to open themselves to attack would quickly be wiped out by natural selection. Then I realized what this truly was though. We weren’t revealing ourselves in attempt to gain some advantage, but hoping for trust, to show that we trusted others in hope that others would do the same. And they did. Our exposed bellies are what allowed bonds of trust and compassion to form. Our exposed bellies are what allowed society to form, allowing for teamwork and therefore our triumph over other natures. Now it interests me greatly that now man is such a dishonest, untrusting, manipulative, and exploitive race, considering that what let it rise were the exact opposite. It was our human bonds of love, compassion and trust, that have allowed us to rise and we now revoke them? We should re-embrace these wonderful things, not just for the sake of growth, that would fall back into manipulation, but simply because they make us better people, and because they are more fun.
Also, along the lines of this rantly thing, was my recent realization of why we show affection certain ways. Among these are along people in near our bellies and heads. Lots of affectionate actions revolve around the head and belly. These are all our weak points. A neck is easy to break, and eyes easy to tear out, and necks easy to bite or cut. Same with bellies, they contain a bunch of easily torn apart vitals behind no wall of bone whatsoever. And how do we show affection? Commonly people will kiss, all over, necks included, either this is to show trust or to get that slight exhilaration of danger that comes with being so unprotected, or both. Also, kissing involves the most dangerous natural weapon of both individuals, the mouth. Heads are pretty often nuzzled as a sign of affection too, which leaves us open for attack. Cuddling, hugging, or any of those close contact belly related things leave us wide open, and we do this to show trust. Couples will do the whole staring into each other’s eyes sort of thing which gives the same opportunity to hurt the other as with kissing. Well you get my point. I am not insinuating that these are done consciously, but I suspect they are part of the subconscious reason for all that stuff. Meh. Bored writing stuff now.
But in short summary, these thoughts have renewed my faith in humanity, that people are creature of trust, compassion, and love -That those things are what we are in our basic nature.
-your humble, taster of tea
Also, along the lines of this rantly thing, was my recent realization of why we show affection certain ways. Among these are along people in near our bellies and heads. Lots of affectionate actions revolve around the head and belly. These are all our weak points. A neck is easy to break, and eyes easy to tear out, and necks easy to bite or cut. Same with bellies, they contain a bunch of easily torn apart vitals behind no wall of bone whatsoever. And how do we show affection? Commonly people will kiss, all over, necks included, either this is to show trust or to get that slight exhilaration of danger that comes with being so unprotected, or both. Also, kissing involves the most dangerous natural weapon of both individuals, the mouth. Heads are pretty often nuzzled as a sign of affection too, which leaves us open for attack. Cuddling, hugging, or any of those close contact belly related things leave us wide open, and we do this to show trust. Couples will do the whole staring into each other’s eyes sort of thing which gives the same opportunity to hurt the other as with kissing. Well you get my point. I am not insinuating that these are done consciously, but I suspect they are part of the subconscious reason for all that stuff. Meh. Bored writing stuff now.
But in short summary, these thoughts have renewed my faith in humanity, that people are creature of trust, compassion, and love -That those things are what we are in our basic nature.
-your humble, taster of tea
on progression from oaks to kentucky bluegrass
It seems the most dominant plant life reflects what place we give the heavens. In a world that is very old, but people are young, trees cover everything holding the heavens in high regard and faith is the ultimate authority on everything. But slowly the trees lose their dominance. Then farm crops rise, and faith is an important thing that is not quite the people's entire way of life to those people who live simpler and less dangerous lives than those who wandered the natural world. Then suburbs and cities were had with either no plant life or nothing but grass shaved close to the earth. Then our faith is only a toy to be kept down constantly or just entirely absent. Our feeble grass can not support the mighty heavens we once had and our way of life is the reason for this.
-your humble, taster of tea
-your humble, taster of tea
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Runner
What the fuck is up with this shit
It's not fucking worth all this
Even when we don't have a break
It's not ever our mistake
Take us where the leaders end
Bring us to those called friends
Don't think I don't talk to much
Speaking words is just a crutch
Fuck the time when we were sad
I don't want to be that bad
Time to bring us out of here
Tear the walls and be sincere
Have the time to make a life
Empty out the safety knife
Can't decide what I will do
Punishment to be with you
Maybe if I waited here
I'll get a chance and I won't fear
Save me from my love-proof box
Tear the sides and break the locks
Can't you see I have to be
Only hearing, never see
Please don't think I do not feel
Just know that my love is real
Mes amis sont tres content
They are there while I am not
All you have to do is call
Ask me and I'll catch your fall
Don't think I don't want to show
All the feelings that I know
Only you can understand
Leaving words and play the band
Notes of endless feeling try
Lucky notes will catch your eye
Don't leave when there is so much
Hiding inside, never touched
Saving from the spaced-out stare
Anybody, anywhere
Only one that is not blind
Someone that was hard to find
Coming out, saved me from hell
Frightened, ran, and hid so well
Where'd you go when you were sad?
Am I really all that bad?
What a monster I've become
Loving all while loved by none
Peaceful children jumping, prancing
Wishing woods were near for dancing
See the only option's flee
Running fails to avoid me
Run for miles, never stop
Out of breath, I start to walk
Failed at something once again
Fuck the words I'll never send.
~thenicklad~
It's not fucking worth all this
Even when we don't have a break
It's not ever our mistake
Take us where the leaders end
Bring us to those called friends
Don't think I don't talk to much
Speaking words is just a crutch
Fuck the time when we were sad
I don't want to be that bad
Time to bring us out of here
Tear the walls and be sincere
Have the time to make a life
Empty out the safety knife
Can't decide what I will do
Punishment to be with you
Maybe if I waited here
I'll get a chance and I won't fear
Save me from my love-proof box
Tear the sides and break the locks
Can't you see I have to be
Only hearing, never see
Please don't think I do not feel
Just know that my love is real
Mes amis sont tres content
They are there while I am not
All you have to do is call
Ask me and I'll catch your fall
Don't think I don't want to show
All the feelings that I know
Only you can understand
Leaving words and play the band
Notes of endless feeling try
Lucky notes will catch your eye
Don't leave when there is so much
Hiding inside, never touched
Saving from the spaced-out stare
Anybody, anywhere
Only one that is not blind
Someone that was hard to find
Coming out, saved me from hell
Frightened, ran, and hid so well
Where'd you go when you were sad?
Am I really all that bad?
What a monster I've become
Loving all while loved by none
Peaceful children jumping, prancing
Wishing woods were near for dancing
See the only option's flee
Running fails to avoid me
Run for miles, never stop
Out of breath, I start to walk
Failed at something once again
Fuck the words I'll never send.
~thenicklad~
Monday, February 16, 2009
Hippy Speech
The hippies were right. Love pwns. Simply. And it ought to be shared. But for whatever reason everyone seems to arrive at this ridiculous notion that love is an exclusive thing. Which causes ( I just remembered a terrible, but hilarious hippy joke told by Joanna Newsom...How many hippies does it take to screw in a light bulb? Hippies don't screw in light bulbs, they screw in dirty sleeping bags. *laugh track*) a lot of confusion when people begin either feeling love for multiple people, or someone is loved by multiple people.
This is a bunch of bull. There isn't a reason in the world love should be exclusive. Maybe sex and things like that should be fairly exclusive... not just because of disease but because of chemical BS that confuses folks... but that really hasn't anything to do with love. I dunno, maybe I'm just a li'l bit different in my feelings than everyone else... but i think that connection between love and sex is a big part of the problem, and at very least it's origin. The place I have always assumed it came entirely from was the media.
(same idea, except less intentional as how the major diamond companies paid off Hollywood to start acting like diamonds were a symbol of love, so they could make more money. that's the only reason they are so common for engagement rings now.) media put up these attempts to show love...and really how the hell can you show that on video... you can't, it's a bit too deep and complicated to be caught, so they combined it with physical BS. All the sex, and things like that sort of became a convention of modern media to mean love... which eventually evolved from a convention to a misconception in the minds of the people. ( i didn't intend this to be a discussion of mass media (oh marshall macluhan))
Or, there is the idea that we are stuck in the habits of dark ages in which love couldn't be shared because you had to survive, and it is a bit wearing on your economic situation to love multiple folks. So people kept their love exclusive so they wouldn't die. Since we aren't in such harsh, economic everyone is dying times, that needn't live on, that exclusive love is just a force of habit, still existing because people don't like change.
but back affirming my philosophy on love. it can be shared and recieved by any number of people. that a network of love just brings more people closer together so that we can realize that we are basically all, the same, thinking, feeling creatures that need from life, the same basic things. and after realizing that, try and help everyone attain those same basic needs, so we can all be happy. I really, really think that i cannot get away with saying "peace out" after this extraordinarily hippyish speech, can i? damn
-your humblest, taster of teas
This is a bunch of bull. There isn't a reason in the world love should be exclusive. Maybe sex and things like that should be fairly exclusive... not just because of disease but because of chemical BS that confuses folks... but that really hasn't anything to do with love. I dunno, maybe I'm just a li'l bit different in my feelings than everyone else... but i think that connection between love and sex is a big part of the problem, and at very least it's origin. The place I have always assumed it came entirely from was the media.
(same idea, except less intentional as how the major diamond companies paid off Hollywood to start acting like diamonds were a symbol of love, so they could make more money. that's the only reason they are so common for engagement rings now.) media put up these attempts to show love...and really how the hell can you show that on video... you can't, it's a bit too deep and complicated to be caught, so they combined it with physical BS. All the sex, and things like that sort of became a convention of modern media to mean love... which eventually evolved from a convention to a misconception in the minds of the people. ( i didn't intend this to be a discussion of mass media (oh marshall macluhan))
Or, there is the idea that we are stuck in the habits of dark ages in which love couldn't be shared because you had to survive, and it is a bit wearing on your economic situation to love multiple folks. So people kept their love exclusive so they wouldn't die. Since we aren't in such harsh, economic everyone is dying times, that needn't live on, that exclusive love is just a force of habit, still existing because people don't like change.
but back affirming my philosophy on love. it can be shared and recieved by any number of people. that a network of love just brings more people closer together so that we can realize that we are basically all, the same, thinking, feeling creatures that need from life, the same basic things. and after realizing that, try and help everyone attain those same basic needs, so we can all be happy. I really, really think that i cannot get away with saying "peace out" after this extraordinarily hippyish speech, can i? damn
-your humblest, taster of teas
Dueling
May I simply say, that I love the wisdom wikipedia bestows, such as this article on dueling http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dueling#Unusual_duels may I emphasize one passage on unusual duels
"In 1808, two Frenchmen are said to have fought in balloons over Paris, each attempting to shoot and puncture the other's balloon; one duelist is said to have been shot down and killed with his second.[2]
Thirty-five years later (1843), two men are said to have fought a duel by means of throwing billiard balls at each other.[2]
Some participants in a duel, given the choice of weapons, are said to have deliberately chosen ridiculous weapons such as howitzers, sledgehammers, or forkfuls of pig dung, in order to show their disdain for duelling.[2] After being challenged to a duel, Abraham Lincoln was said to have picked cow dung at ten paces, which prompted his challenger to cancel it.[citation needed]
It is said (though not confirmed) that Otto von Bismarck challenged Rudolf Virchow to a duel. Virchow, as the challenged party had the choice of weapons; he chose two sausages, one of which had been inoculated with cholera. Bismarck is said to have called off the duel at once"
were i challenged to a duel i have decided that i would choose either a 2x4 at 1 pace, or poison ivy, at zero paces. it would be funny swinging the boards around at eachother from such a distance, with little control. with poison ivy i would just put a cloth over my mouth and burn under the other persons nose...the smoke there from would then cause their lungs to die. yay
ok...done.
-taster of tea
"In 1808, two Frenchmen are said to have fought in balloons over Paris, each attempting to shoot and puncture the other's balloon; one duelist is said to have been shot down and killed with his second.[2]
Thirty-five years later (1843), two men are said to have fought a duel by means of throwing billiard balls at each other.[2]
Some participants in a duel, given the choice of weapons, are said to have deliberately chosen ridiculous weapons such as howitzers, sledgehammers, or forkfuls of pig dung, in order to show their disdain for duelling.[2] After being challenged to a duel, Abraham Lincoln was said to have picked cow dung at ten paces, which prompted his challenger to cancel it.[citation needed]
It is said (though not confirmed) that Otto von Bismarck challenged Rudolf Virchow to a duel. Virchow, as the challenged party had the choice of weapons; he chose two sausages, one of which had been inoculated with cholera. Bismarck is said to have called off the duel at once"
were i challenged to a duel i have decided that i would choose either a 2x4 at 1 pace, or poison ivy, at zero paces. it would be funny swinging the boards around at eachother from such a distance, with little control. with poison ivy i would just put a cloth over my mouth and burn under the other persons nose...the smoke there from would then cause their lungs to die. yay
ok...done.
-taster of tea
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)