“The Lovers” painted by René Magritte in 1928 is in my opinion one of the more interesting and clear examples of modernism in the museum. Modernism as an art form was one that saw all old ways of thinking, including everything from architecture to science, as ill fitting for the new industrialized world and was a rejection of realism. This art movement focused on more on emotion and stylized rather then the down to earth realism or the polarizing extremes of Romanticism. The Lovers best express this by having the focus be of two people kissing, a scene that is very realistic with the background framing the scene with a simplistic yet architecturally sound room. Indeed the painting might have been a great example of realism without the major points of the painting being added. the lovers are wearing masks of cloth around their faces being both striking yet alluring to the watcher for making the scene surreal and have a feeling of deeper meaning. The bacground of walls and a ceiling are also drasticly different colors on right side wall red, on the background wall a cloudy dark grey, and the ceiling white. This too places the viewer in a sense of mystery while the mostly dark colors used in the painting adds a feeling of foreboding.
In my interpretation the cloth around their faces work as kind of masks and, in such an intimate scene of two people kissing, might mean that these people are masking their true selves and that the love that they are showing is not what they truly feel. The fact that the cloth is covering their face also can be seen as taking away their humanity so they playing the role of the lovers and that anyone can fill the space of either person. the walls and ceiling can be scene as a kind of framing of the painting making the feeling that the scene is staged even more apparent and the colors of the walls can be seen as a very vague metaphor for a stage. The back wall colored like its the outside world, the wall on the right like the red curtain in most theaters, and the more plain ceiling bringing home that this is just a room and not a strange world.

Drifting awake is like drifting to sleep, it slightly nudges you at first then, like a stick being freed from the muddy shore, the current grabs and drags you away.
Alan was awake when the alarm went off he was awake when it went off a second time too, unwilling to leave the a meditation of half dazed mental clarity, but that is when he actually got up and began to perform the tasks to get ready. Words “be safe” faintly grazed Alan’s ears as he runs out of the apartment, locks up and rushes to class. As he walk down to one ten passing by like 5 delis in the process, got on the train and sat down; Pasted first to one 3rd the shining new tiling faces Alan while behind the old decay of the other side faced behind him as workers work to fix the problem while handling the graffiti left from the obviously well meaning and civilized individuals that lent a hand last night. Rebuilding while others try to destroy whats left must be a lovely way to start the afternoon. As stations fly pass Alan notice a woman siting directly in front of him she seemed a little stressed dressed in a coat jeans and boots and wondered what she is thinking. Barbara looked at the twitchy man in front of her and couldn’t help but think “why is he looking around so much? is he expecting some agent to pop up and chase him? why do I take the train?”.Alan gets off at 28th street and walks across one block and down two to reach his destination.

Freud is the father of psychology laying many of the foundations of the modern psychology used today. Though many of Sigmund Freud’s concepts and theories are not seen as accurate or not used like it was before, the influence Freud has had on culture can not be disputed. In his work “Family Romances” Freud describes the conflict between the child’s individual development and his place in the family. His idea is that the first real push into individuality begins when the child first realizes that his parents are not the perfect beings of knowledge is quite fascinating. Many children see their parents as the world and seeing flaws with them and realizing they are only human can be a hard and shaking experience. Freud believes that this moment in one of the most important moments in a child’s life because if the moment never completely happens or is too traumatic it can cause major problems in a child’s development. This idea that individuality begins when the leaders one trusts turns out to not be infallible is an interesting theory that may apply to much more then children.

Freud then begins to relate this push to individuality with other pushes in human development which is both incredibly fascinating and more likely to not be used in the psychiatric community. He viewed that children day dream of having different noble parents, being parent-less, or being separated by their parents because they wish to be more independent and leave behind their old flawed parents. He states that this is not due to malice but because the child is trying to explore ideas of independence and want to go back to seeing their parents as perfect. This is incredibly fascinating because it shows the want to be their own person while not having to loose their safety and the family they care about.

The reading of the poem “Discourse on the Logic of Language” provided great context to Frederick Douglass’s autobiography and gains a lot of strength after reading about his life. The beginning of the poem starts with the repetition and breakdown of the word language as the poem describes the separation between father and mother language. The narrator states that the mother’s  language is the native language while the father’s is the foreign language in between repeated rephrasing of language to sound like land, anguish, and other similar words. This brings a lot of emotional weight to the parts in the biography where Douglass states that he was separated from his mother when he was a baby and had very little contact with her. This part of the poem also shows the rejection and rage he feels about his “Father’s language” due to the fact he never knew his father except from rumors that it was a white man, possibly the slave master, which makes his father apart of the group that took advantage of slaves.

The part where the mother blows her words into the child’s mouth and the fact the mother language is the home language could be a emotional reflection of the fact that that children born of slaves were deemed slaves and treated as such. This fact in the autobiography also plays into the poem because later on the poem states “english is my mother tongue, my father tongue” showing that, even though he has his roots in America, he is treated as an other. Another big moment in the poem is the test questions proposed. One asking what was the tongue’s primary use and one answer was “the principle organ of oppression and exploitation” which brings to mind the slave handler that would use many a horrid slur any time he yelled or wiped the slaves. This poem seems to me a stark contrast to the book due to one reason. In the book, Douglass goes about describing his life in the institution of slavery in great detail and relating it to the lives all slaves must face while the poem is just pure emotion and sting of consciousness.

From what I have experienced in life I only know one thing for certain, It is what it is.

The birth of Frankenstein is probably one of the more influential moments in all of cinema and seeing the original one can see why. The lab filled with electronics, a small crowd of people shocked, and a scientist freaking out as he breaks the laws of nature and God all climaxing when the the monster first moves his hand and the doctor Screaming that he knows how God feels. this scene greatly differs from the book to the point to being the exact opposite. Victor Frankenstein never gave details of how he created the monster, in case Walton decides to not learn from his story, and was horrified of what he has done soon as the monster opened his eye. The movie scene seems to me more reflective of when Victor discovered the ability to animate the dead due to the excited details he used of when he found out but his excitement never spilled over to viewing himself like God. I believe this shows a great change in theme between the two works where Mary Shelley conveys that the further per suite of science without moral or ethical bounds will lead to horror and tragedy, the movie seems to go for an emphasis on the hubris of Victor being the cause. The movie puts more of a focus on being God because, due to the modern advances, improvements and social changes, man was much more willing to push the bounds of science without the laws of nature or god and in some cases in spite them. The Moment Victor saw the monster in the book he so clearly realize he screwed up bigger then any time ever showing that the monster was a completely unnatural creation, something that shouldn’t exist, and that because it was not created in the grand design it repulsed Victor and probably anyone that could see it. The second film scene shows a very different scene as well showing more of a focus on props. Victor Frankenstein is seen more of a handsome, strangely positive light and again shows him ecstatic when he finally brings the monster back to life. Add to that that the scene is in day and the lighting is similar to how a church might be lit and the scene seems to glorify Victor Frankenstein almost like the scene was a technological break through probably meaning that people and society will be the downfall of the monster and Victor. The differences in these scenes show how these writers and in some ways how society views science, fears, and our place in the big picture which is truly interesting to observe.

This was a very strange read for me because I have very recently read a large chunk of Descartes famous book “Meditations, Objections and replies” which covered most of what he covered in section 4 of this reading. Seeing concepts that he spent more then, I want to say, fifty pages to explain getting summed up in a 4 page twin pillar text was quite jarring especially with the clarity and efficiency he had describing these fairly difficult concepts. With strong and intriguing statements like “I am thinking, therefore I exist” (section 4), Descartes seeks to find what can truly be known if reality is put under scrutiny. Descartes statement shows that even if anything else is false, our senses, our memories, or even what we know to be true the fact that you exist is beyond question due to the fact you would not be able to question or contemplate if you didn’t exist. Descartes tries to go  even further by stating “I was a substance whose whole essence or nature is simply to think, and which doesn’t need any place, or depend on any material thing, in order to exist. Accordingly this me—this soul that makes me what I am—•is entirely distinct from the body, •is easier to know than the body” (section 4). This is him trying to separate information gained by the body and senses, which is all put into question because they could be deceived or misinformed, to a purer knowledge based on pure reasoning and logic. This is where i find an issue with his thought process. Though psychiatry was not invented yet, the idea that the mind is purely distinct from the body causes a lot of issues namely when the body can completely alter ones thoughts through diseases that make people delirious to depression and other issues that mess with the chemistry of the brain. I wish i had more to say but if this is suppose to be an initial reaction then i am more impressed he detailed his findings in a understandable essay, I mean he spent a page in a half describing how wax changes its properties near fire as a way to keep in mind he should not assume anything is true. Seeing a person that goes so in depth go quickly through these ideas is simply amazing

The ideas an individual holds greatly effects how they interact with the world. A persons religion, creed, political leaning, philosophy, morality, or to put it another way the concepts one values most greatly changes the way they see the world. Do to this Walt Whitman’s poem attempts to have you see the world as he sees it. From the very beginning he wrote “[….] what I assume you shall assume, For every atom belonging to me as good belongs to you” which shows he want the ideas he talks about and how he describes himself to be the way the reader things and views them self. among the numerous, alarmingly frequent, almost like he was the type of person that keeps a signed picture of himself at his desk, self-aggrandizing statements he also stated “I believe a leaf of grass is no less than the journey-work of the stars, And the pismire is equally perfect, and a grain of sand, and the egg of the wren, And the tree-toad is a chef-d’œuvre for the highest, And the running blackberry would adorn the parlors of heaven, And the narrowest hinge in my hand puts to scorn all machinery, And the cow crunching with depress’d head surpasses any statue, And a mouse is miracle enough to stagger sextillions of infidels”. This shows that he sees everything in the world from the grandness of space and time to the small mouse as important awe-inspiring.

I became a college student in 2012 in the welcoming arms of the City College of New York and due unforeseen changes transferred to Dutchess Community College and after graduating with an associates in Liberal Arts I was accepted and am attending this school since last semester. There was many situations and event that shaped my decisions to what college to chose from but what I would say was the biggest influence was a concept I learned in CCNY and had it cemented in DCC. This concept of being in awe with the world around me. Every new subject, person I met, location, ideas, concepts, thought processes i respected and happily tried to learn as much as i could. With varying degrees of success admitting but that excitement of learning something new and understanding a persons point of view kept me going and i would definitely agree with Whitman on that idea.