Group items tagged

Enjoy this engaging exploration into how art redefines culture. I think you will find this an interesting discussion on race and identity.

Considering the nature of the topic discussed, I feel that it is important to consider the definitions of the terms "African", "ethnicity" and "museum". The first term, to me in this video, seems to indicate people descended from sub-Saharan Africans, regardless of their actually cultural or political affinity to this area of the world. This leads onto defining the term "ethnicity", one which I feel has next to no scientific foundation, and rather is a relic of the era of colonization. For the sake of the reflection however, I will temporarily accept Thelma Golden's usage of the term for those who are descended from sub-Saharan Africans. Finally, a museum is a place where people can go to see exhibits of culturally and academically important pieces of human discovery or creation. In consideration of Thelma Golden's lecture, I feel that the issue of identity is a prominent theme throughout it, from the term "Black Masculinity" to the mentioning of the Harlem Renaissance. All of these factors tie in together to show what Golden wants to emphasize, which is that she believes that African-American culture is something that offers much to artists for discussion and for exhibition. This is an issue that matters a lot to me, as many parts of my life revolve around the issue of exploitation of human beings. Perhaps this is why I was drawn to making my extended essay on the Zanzibari revolution, as I felt that I had never investigated the idea of African nationalism and pride in history. In consideration of the issue of ethnic identity, my personal belief is that someone is a person before all other things, and that cultural, "ethnic" and other labels only serve to destroy the individual in society. I am not saying that I am unique, far from it, but I believe that one's art should identify with one's personal passions or with humanity as a whole, rather than with a specific, and often very loose-knit group. Overall, I feel that Thelma's presentation brought up an interesting

The video to me was quite interesting as it explores the art movement in the concerned ethnicity. Perhaps was seemed most curious to me was when Golden brought up the anecdote of the art pieces by Leon Golub and Robert Colescott. The presumptions made from the woman who judged the pieces strikes upon the notions of history and concurrent ethnic-specific views upon them. The fact that the woman assigned the ethnic identities and the attitudes that were supposedly portrayed in the pieces exemplifies the variability in the interpretation of art pieces. Without context, some things can be blatantly misinterpreted which certainly puts into question of other works of art in all forms and origin. If we always apply preconceived notions and ideas into the interpretation of art, is there a boundary to what we may still deem to be a valid interpretation? Certainly, in this case, such misinterpretations hinder the original intentions of the artists.

"Art" made from fly vomit . . . Is it art?

I've always thought doing the painting and the process of making an art work by myself or by himself in this case would make the art work mine or his. That reminds me of another artist, Marcus Harvey, with the painting of Myra. He used children's hand prints. Kind of ironic creating an art piece with the face of a child murderer and painting it by children's hand prints.

Is this art?

I think it is although it doesn't look like one of those "typical" art pieces. Things may be called art when the creator or the founder calls it art.

I cannot access this. Any ideas why? So far, not art!

Mae Jemison, astronaut, doctor, artist, etc., argues for the link between Art and Science.

The whole documentary. Required viewing for our ToK Unit on History as an AoK.

This is probably one of the greatest historical documents ever produced. I do not want to go on about the quality of the film but I think that its value is paramount in understanding the nature of the Cold War and the epic redundance of policies such as MAD and the Madman Theory. Considering this from the AoK of art, I think that the quality of the film is unsurpassed as a documentary, with key images given with extremely important text. As a philosophical piece it is also of extreme importance, as it gives one the ability to realize that perspective is everything. The numerous misunderstandings that McNamara had with his foes gives clear evidence to value of patience and analysis of context in any conflict. Furthermore, the value of this piece is in the fact that it is given from the perspective of a man who lost so much (including his son's love) for a cause which he denounces in this film. Finally, as a historical document, I feel that this film particularly resonated with me. First of all, as a primary document it gave great insight into the Cold war. Secondly, the fact that it has the (huge) benefit of hindsight shows that this man is now as well informed as I think he can be on the events that he participated in. Lastly, I think that the emotion and language conveyed through this film shows that reason is often our last priority in a crisis, and that we often seek "victory" over our enemies at all costs.

Video by Howard Zinn in support of the discussion on the radical school of history.

An interesting short, I think that it highlights some major issues with the ways that we are manipulated. The iconic image of the Vietnam veterans throwing their medals at the White House was probably the most striking one to me. The reason is that it appeals to me emotionally by showing that these men feel that their awards for fighting were not worth holding onto in this war. I think that the fact that this video is so concise limits its potential to inform, but gives it the potential to make people want more knowledge. I think that in the area of knowledge of art this film also has its appealing qualities. The ironic image of the elephant and donkey standing at a podium makes me think of the statement, "the US congress is one party with two right wings." Although this is a rather sweeping statement, I think that it is one that particularly resonates with me, as I agree with it to a certain extent. The real question is: What is to be done? (credits to Lenin). I am no neo-Marxist idealist so I would not propose that this is the way out, but I think that serious revision of the aims of nations worldwide must be brought underway if we are to have the remotest idea of world peace. This film highlights a small portion of what history is, and I think that it is important that we do not forget that the analysis of past events is the key to synthesizing a better future.

This video had quite a few links to a very enlightening book called Democracy Incorporated that I read a few months ago. It discusses the concept of 'inverted totalitarianism', which discusses how America is controlling the world for economic and market supremacy. I found the video to have brought up very interesting issues about how historical events have been portrayed and taught in the past, and what the truer motives behind them were. There has been some sort of empire ever since humans have been able to travel and conquer, but none have ever matched the scale or influence of the American one we have today. It was a short film, and mostly about Zinn's personal experience, but it was revealing about the undercurrents of history. I also found it interesting that in my HL history class, we learn all about the subtleties of history, and the things that Zinn mentioned that were apparently only in the secret archives are facts that we are told from the very beginning, such as the real motives behind US involvement in Korea and Vietnam. It raises important questions about historical knowledge at different times. Was the history that kids were taught in the sixties 'wrong' if they thought about it a certain way then, and didn't have the knowledge we have? There are experts on the 9/11 tragedy, but so they have as much expertise in it as someone in the future that might discover some hidden archive? how much extra knowledge is needed to prove former conceptions about a historical event wrong? History can be told in many different ways, and it is ironic that there are so many different perspectives and views on a single event that happened the way it did.

I found this argument and concept very exciting. I've always been passionate and interested in learning and developing understanding of different cultures, and what different cultures find sacred. In the two main cultures I was raised in (American and Omani), mathematics plays an important role in education and careers. It had never occurred to me that individuals around the world could view mathematics in a religious and holy light. The Bamana priests found their sand divinations so sacred that they wouldn't share their "secrets" with Eglash. Only his initiation into Bamana priesthood allowed him access to the secrets. The fact that the Bamana priests guarded their divinations so much demonstrates the significance they believe mathematics has, and correlates with the spiritual qualities they believe mathematics to have. While this belief of math having divine qualities is new to me, it has been recurrent in mathematical history. Funnily enough, it sounds like Cantor believed himself to be a "mathematical prophet". Whether we believe his claim to be true or not, he also considered math a divine matter, and provided us with mathematical concepts that have come to shape our technology-driven, modern world. I've struggled with math as an academic subject, consistently viewing it as something that "needs to be done" rather than something that is fascinating and representative of culture and identity. What Eglash is doing by connecting individuals with their "mathematical cultural heritage" is inspiring. It is providing a new backdrop for mathematical education and is (I believe) fundamental to developing deeper understandings of mathematics in cultures.

What I thought was interesting was that he brought up that mathematics is in nature and it is there consciously however we are unconscious about it. All the examples from Africa explains mathematics in real life and in their culture however they do not take it as "mathematics", they just do it. They know about the mathematics that goes into the process though Englash went back the process to see the mathematics in it. This was interesting people with more developed technology goes back to understand the mathematics behind what people in Africa do in their daily life. I never thought mathematics can connect to nature or some people's daily life. To me, mathematics seemed very abstract and I just couldn't see it connecting with mathematics because I believed things that happens in nature are more spontaneous and without any particular patterns. Now I think I understand when people say "we need mathematics for everything" and "we cannot live without mathematics", though we need most subjects that we learn in school. We tend to just think about a subject in the particular class room when we should paying more attention outside of class to see how it connects to us and how most things in life is from what we learn in school.

I found this TED Talk very interesting, and after watching this and especially after today's TOK class, I am starting to realize the mathematical concepts in different situations and environments around me. One things that Mr Eglash said that really intrigued me was the function of the fractals in the villages of Cameroon. He explained and showed a diagram illustrating how the houses in a village all circle the leader's home in the middle, who is in the middle of his family within the bigger circle. Even the houses on the outside are surrounded by other houses in a circle, and I found the reason behind this mathematical layout very interesting. Eglash explained how when people went deeper and deeper in the cirles, they had to be more polite and respectful. Also the more important people were in the centre of the circles. These two factors highlight how mathematics is used as a form of representing social hierarchy/discrimination, as social class and importance in the society is reflected through one's position in the multiple fractals. Also, another thing that I found interesting goes back to a central debate we discussed in class: was mathematics invented or discovered? Eglash told us how the people in these various African tribes had told him that they had not known what fractals were, they had just shaped their villages this way because they looked attractive and interesting, and in my opinion fulfilled their social representational needs. But we have made something out of shapes within shapes, we have given thm names, applications and intellectual importance. But these African villages have given them applications and importance as well, without even knowing what they were. But a question arises: do we even know what they are? We have given them meaning through our interpretations and perceptions, but how can we know whether 'our' fractionals are the same as 'their' fractionals? Do we need to mathematically understand what something is in order to find it useful