Painting: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1A5C_GLMHEgaFlWM0ZqQWFZSXM/view?usp=sharing

“Lady in a Park” by August Macke is an example of modernism and expressionism. This oil painting was created in 1914 by Macke who is a German expressionist. He was a member of Der Blaue Reiter (The Blue Rider), a German expressionist group that also includes Wassily Kandinsky, Albert Bloch, and Marianne von Werefkin. Modernism is a movement in history from later 1800s to early 1900s that rejected the ideologies of Enlightenment and the idea of realism, especially when it came to art and expressionism is an example of this. Usually expressionist artwork are exaggerated to show emotions, ideas, or moods. It focuses more on subjective than objective. “Lady in a Park” is example of expressionism with its colorful background and an indefinite background. It displays a woman on a path with some trees and grass surrounding her. Macke uses some color that you would not normally see in park background like orange and a plum purple. The background is also not that detailed, rather it is constructed by bigger shapes. The woman is on the more unrealistic side. Her features are not as defined, for example her face. Her mouth is a little hard to see, you cannot know for sure if her mouth is smiling, neutral, or frowning. In addition, her arms and hands also seem animalistic to me. The sleeves with the yellow and black dots remind me of an animal pattern and her hands seem more claw-like. All of these elements aid in provoking emotions and feelings in a person. When I look at this painting, I feel a little sad since the background is a little dark in some areas and with her non-specific expression face, I perceive her as a little sullen. Her head is slightly tilted and she seems to be thinking about something as she stroll through the park. However, the random burst of brighter colors like the yellow and green makes me feel like she will be okay and there will be a good outcome for her.

I decided to map/draw out the beginning of Mrs. Dalloway, until the scene where the car backfires. I wanted to concentrate on the parts we talked about in class. We start off with Clarissa Dalloway thinking about past memories of her childhood home, the Bourton. Along the way to the flower shop, Mrs. Dalloway bumps into a few characters including Hugh Whitbread. This led her to rethink about her old love interest Peter Walsh who proposed to her. In addition, she worried about death and Lady Bexborough who she is envious of. When she arrived at the flower shop, a car backfires and then the book scened to a new character Septimus Warren Smith, a war veteran of WWI sitting in Regent’s Park with his wife. He suffers from PTSD or what they called shell shock back then, and this noise brings him back to his memories of war.

Krystal said she would take the MTA bus to class today. She ran down her apartment building stairs, passing by her neighbor’s door who blasted rock music 8 in the morning. He chose rock music today. Off she goes, running to class thought Nick Laurent (who knows her from seeing her entering and leaving the building). Right outside her building is the bus stop she needed to take. Krystal inserted her Metrocard into the machine and then crumpled the receipt into her pocket. She stood with the 15 other commuters around the bus stop waiting for the Select Bus to arrive with their hair flying around. 8 minutes later, the bus pulled up and Krystal hurried to an entrance. She was one of the first people on the bus and she chose to stand in the middle. Why did she choose to stand with a heavy laptop in her bag when there were so many seats opened? She watched the high schoolers chatting to each other on the bus before they got off the next stop. Krystal walked down 25th street until she hit the plaza on 3rd Avenue. As she crossed the plaza, she passed the corner bagel store smelling the familiar scent. When is the last time she ate a bagel? She climbed onto a chair at the age of 5 at her grandmother’s house in Astoria reaching for the many fresh bagels purchased at the local shop. She fought with her cousins over the limited option of spreads until one succeeded and covered their bagel. Krystal entered the Vertical campus while searching her ID and swiped in.

In Sigmund Freud’s “Family Romances,” he discussed a child’s development. In the first sentence he mentions that to gain individuality, a child must gain freedom from his parents, which can be one of the most painful events in his life. To differ yourself from everyone else, to show that you are in individual you must overcome some conflicts in your life. Everyone who is said to be in a “normal state” has gone through conflicts that leads to their individuality.

When you are a child, your only source of belief and authority comes from your parents. Therefore, “the child’s most intense and most momentous wish during these early years is to be like his parents,” stated Freud. Since the only knowledge you have as a child is from your parents, it makes the most sense that you think like them and that is not individuality. However, as you grow up, you meet other parents and you start to compare them to yours whether it be good comparisons or bad. This is where conflict starts to come in, more specifically internal. You start to imagine your life with different parents whether they are wealthier or more powerful. However, Freud said that this does not mean that you are replacing your parents, but rethinking about the days when your parents seems to be the best out of all those other parents, “these new and aristocratic parents are quipped with attributes that are derived entirely from real recollections of the actual and humbles ones…” For me I feel like Freud is saying that even though when you grow up and can think on your own and you no longer want to be exactly like your parents, you still hold them very high in your mind. Everyone who experiences individuality has had these conflicting thoughts that got them there.

In the Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglas, Frederick Douglass discusses growing up as a slave. Most of us learned in history class, that slaves were not allowed to use their mother tongues to speak to each other. If caught by their masters, they would be punish, which is something M. NourbeSe Philips mentions in her poem. There are many reasons for this like the fear of uniting and rebelling against the masters, talking behind their backs, and forcing them to stay quiet. However, this did not stop the slaves from speaking in their mother languages especially when they sang songs, which had hints/clues to helped them to escape slavery. I remember this one song we learned in music class that referred to a constellation that if you follow, it leads you to the North. Frederick Douglass also mentions that slaves around him would sing songs as they work on the fields. The songs mention the evils of slavery and masters in their native language so their masters cannot understand.

Using their mother tongue was a important step to gaining freedom, but in addition so is learning the language of the people who are controlling you. Masters did not educate their slaves for many reasons like the fear of  making slaves smarter and harder to control. Frederick Douglass learned that after one of his mistresses Sophia Auld got caught teaching him how to read and write. Sophia Auld supposedly never had a slave before so she has not yet been corrupted, but once her husband found out about her lessons, he stopped her immediately. However, this taught Douglass that learning their language as well as his own mother language is the key to his freedom.

Tiger (Michael Woyevodsky)

I believe that deciding whether or not the creature is better portrayed as The Lamb by William Blake or The Tiger by William Blake can be swayed by which portrayal of the story you are basing it on. However that being said, I do believe that there are enough hints in the movie and the book that could make choosing the tiger an accurate decision rather than the lamb. I believe this for a couple of reasons: 1) The simple fact that a tiger is a ferocious animal of the wild and the creature, also known as the monster, is also a dangerous and unpredictable being that kills people. 2) The line from the poem “Dare its deadly terrors clasp!” makes me think of multiple things in Frankenstein that are related to the creature. These are when Victor is deathly afraid of his creation and regrets his making and, rather than praise his achievement, he wishes he never did it in the first place as well as the line makes me think of a large overpowering being, which is exactly what the creature is. I think that the poem The Lamb does not resemble the creature in Frankenstein as well as The Tiger does because when I think of a lamb, I picture a quiet, gracious, and gentle being, all that the creature is not at all. The fact that the monster is a murdering being instantly invalidates a claim for The Lamb which is anything but capable of that action.

Lamb (Krystal Au)

Many people have mixed feelings about the creature from Frankenstein by Mary Shelley. The creature created by Victor Frankenstein is known for being murderous, cold hearted, and monstrous, however I believe the creature has a side of innocence. I do not believe you can completely categorized the creature as a tiger or as a lamb, but if i had to choose between the two animals, I would pick the lamb. You cannot read Frankenstein without sympathizing a little with the creature. He came into this world without knowing anything and the first person he meets is his creator who is disgusted and horrified by him. He ran off into a world he knows nothing about and he slowly starts to learn about very trivial things like what a fire is. He discovers that a fire is hot and can burn you if touched, but it is also a resource for warmth and for cooking. This reminds me of a line from William Blake’s poem “The Lamb” where he said, “He became a little child: I a child & thou a lamb.” The creature is like a child on the inside, he is still learning and he is easily influenced by anything or anyone around him. From observing the family in the cottage, he learns how to read and speak the language of the humans. He also realizes that he does not look like any of them. When the creature finally becomes confident enough to reveal himself to the family, they drives him away and that is when he starts to believe that he is a monster so he starts to act like one. If people continuously label you, you are going to believe them.

I remember reading Frankenstein back in senior year of high school and in addition to, watching the Kenneth Branagh’s version of Frankenstein, so this felt a little nostalgic. Frankenstein is a classic horror story, with many adaptations based off of Mary Shelley’s original novel. Depending on the adaptation, some small details might be changed or it can be a loosely interpretation. One of the most important scenes of Frankenstein is the birth of the creature. Before senior year, I have never read or watched Frankenstein, but like most others, I think of a mad scientist in a laboratory pulling a lever that drives electricity into the monster. I was quite shocked to find out that it was not as dramatic in the novel. I realized most people think of that idea due to the movies. In Shelley’s novel there is only one sentence that describes Frankenstein actually creating the monster right in the beginning of chapter 5. However in James Whale’s and Branagh’s films, the process of the creature coming alive is a few minutes long. There is no description of a crazy laboratory with electricity, wires, liquid, etc. in the novel. In addition, another key difference between the novel and the movies is that in Shelley’s book, Frankenstein is terrified and runs out of his laboratory once the creature comes alive, but in the movies, Frankenstein is bouncing off the walls with excitement. In Whale’s version, Frankenstein is shouting to the people around him (another difference) that he is like God. In Branagh’s film, Frankenstein see the creature’s eyes open to signal his birth, which is similar to the novel, but in Whale’s film, Frankenstein see the creature’s hand move. Overall, both films changes how Frankenstein the scientist feels after the birth of his creation completely and I believe that changes the message that Mary Shelley was trying to send to her readers.

Hearing the phrase “cogito ergo sum” or “I am thinking, therefore I exist” brought back memories from world history class in high school when we went over philosophers and scientists. I remember writing down this phrase in my notebook and the fact that he was a great mathematician, but I did not give much thought about it until I read Discourse on Method. I had to read the section a few times to grasp the point Descartes was trying to make. He says on page 15, “I observed that the proposition ‘I am thinking, there I exist’ has nothing about it to assure me that I am speaking the truth, when I assert it, except that I see very clearly that in order to think it is necessary to exist.” I believe he is trying to say that for everything we understand in life in a very clear manner has to be true. Everything we know in life like our existences had to come from somewhere or someone. We could not have created it from nothingness. Someone or something had to influence us or put those thoughts into our mind and this someone or something has to be perfect or why else would we believe them. “So the only possibility left was that the idea had been out into me by something that truly was more perfect than I was, something indeed having every perfection of which I could have any idea,” stated by Descartes (page 16). He believes this perfect someone to be God. This is where I was a little shocked. From the beginning of the reading, I thought he was discussing in a more logical and rational thinking, but then he brings up faith and God. I was not brought up in a religious household, and I do not label myself under any categories but I do have to disagree with Descartes on this idea that God is perfect and all of our ideas and thoughts come from him. He wrote, “It follows that our ideas or notions, being real things that get from God everything that is vivid and clear in them, must be true in every respect in which they are vivid and clear,” (page 17). He then states that if we do have wrong ideas or thoughts, it is because we are imperfect, which in a way I do agree because no one is perfect. I also thought it was truly interesting that he brings in geometry, a mathematic that can be proven and relates it back to a religious figure God.

Right off the bat from reading the first line “I celebrate myself, and sing myself,” the author gave a sense of proudness of himself. I think this is an important thing that people forget. Everyone should be proud of themselves or happy about the decisions they make that molded them to who they are today. Many times people just need to take some time out of their day and remind themselves of all the good things they have done, big or small. I too have moments where I doubt myself if I am making the right decisions. Going to Baruch was not my first choice for college, but I was encouraged to enroll here by my parents since I received an academic scholarship. I still think about hypothetical situations like if I did ended up going to my first choice of college FIT, would my life be better than what it is right now? But there is no point of reminding myself of the past, I should just make the most of my present and future. I made some amazing friends here at Baruch that I could see will be in my life for a long time, I joined Women in Business and have learned so much from the wonderful empowering females there, and when I graduate I will not have to worry about loans so if i wanted to continue my education, I can. Like what Whitman says, “myself moving forward then and now and forever.” Thinking negatively or worrying about your past is a waste of time, it will not change anything. Instead, be satisfied of what you chose and if not, take action now that will make you want to celebrate yourself.