Main | February 2007 »

January 31, 2007

Shitty First Drafts

This essay wasn't very long and was rather difficult to write about.
I think that this essay on first drafts was mostly all common sense. It makes complete sense that the first draft is going to be terrible, but leads to better and better drafts. It might be that papers are so time-consuming that writers are turned off to wanting to write more and more about the same topic. I agree that the first draft is basically when the author just pours out ideas without much logic and organization, and that the writer would rather get through the paper than to take the time and think it out. The same thing happens to me because I catch myself writing aimlessly and not making much sense. First drafts are a lot more time consuming than I thought, and when ideas finally come, I tend to just write them down without much thought or order.
Also, I believe that the writer needs to clear his or her mind in order to create a good paper or draft and cannot be distracted by outside problems. Instead of being distracted, it’s important that no matter what draft it is that they should do well because people will be able to notice how much time and effort was put into a paper. I find it particularly hard to focus on a topic to write about when I don’t have much of an opinion to write about in the first place and therefore I have less motivation and am more likely to get distracted by other events. And one last idea that I agree with is that the more you write, the more you understand and trust your writing skills instead of worrying so much about what the critics are going to say. Writing doesn’t come automatically and we all need practice in order to become better writers.

January 23, 2007

reading and writing about art / ways of seeing

The first article did not appeal to me as much as the second article. I did not find it to be very exciting or interesting, and the only part that I found intriguing was the difference between high and low art. I do not like the classifications of the two types of art, since low art is also considered unsophisticated and pedestrian. I think they should find different names for high and low art. It reminds me more of high and low classes.
I found “Ways of Seeing? much more interesting. The article believes that we’re all affected by art from personal experiences. Everyone is looking at art from different worlds because different objects mean different things to people. One of the paintings that I found interesting was “Regentesses of the Old Men’s Alms House? because of the argument between the first and the second critic. The first critic assumed that the governor and the governess were dressed as a lower class than they really were because the artist was poor and bitter towards richer classes. On the other side, the second critic corrected the first opinion and explained that there wasn’t bitterness towards the governor and governess. This is a good example of how past art cannot be examined in the present because the meaning will always be different. We will never know how the artist felt in the past because we can never go through the same experiences as them or live the lives they lived. I also liked the “Wheatfield with Crows? because of the two different meanings it gives the audience before and after knowing why it was painted. There’s more meaning once we understood the background of the artist, which I believe is very important when looking at and examining certain works of art. When talking about the reproduction of paintings, I do not agree with it because of the dispersal of meanings behind the work in the first place. It is alright for people to have their own opinions of what the art means, but I believe that the original truth is more important and gives more meaning and people can appreciate art more.