To Whom It May Concern,
I've been reading letters my Grandpa sent to me about his childhood and thinking about the life that was lead back then. While we are extremely privileged to live in the 21st century I cannot help but to envy him a few, I suppose unimportant, norms. I'm not sure either if envy is the word I'm searching for but perhaps I'll figure that out further on in this post.
My Grandpa was born in 1931, the Great Depression. Times were incalculably tough and reading how his family, well, my family, functioned during those times is incredible. Yet there was something about those times that seems so very genuine. The way people were back then, even as war loomed over them, was truly genuine.
A community really was just that. When food was rationed it was left out on the street to be collected. We wouldn't dream of that now. I don't doubt that at times food was stolen but we are so suspicious of each other now that it would not be a possibility. Families helped other families when times got especially tough. Nine year olds could ride a bicycle five miles to the closest bus stop to get to school. The thought of that these days renders most parents in total panic.
Following that further, '30 minutes of exercise' as a necessity definitely didn't exist. Why? Because people HAD to keep fit to survive. These days a child will complain throughout their entire school career about walking a few streets over to the bus stop with their school bags. If it really comes down to it and we have to walk to school, well, isn't that just the end of the world? The way we abuse what we have been given; transport, running water, the ability to keep physically fit, readily available food...it puts things into perspective.
As I think about it I come to a horrifying realisation.
The only thing that would make people change their lifestyles and not take advantage of what we have been given is war.
Isn't that disgusting.
Saturday, 21 April 2012
Thursday, 19 April 2012
To Whom It May Concern,
I think there is much that we take for granted regarding the imagination of a child. I honestly believe it is a source we should learn from. This world is far too big and there are far too many awful realities without having hope that the good guys will chase the monsters away. Why do we let logic win once we get a little older? I doubt we are any better off for it. In fact we may even be worse off because relinquishing our hold over belief in everything makes our world that little bit greyer. What's wrong with believing anyway?
Have you ever seen a child by themself that was so absorbed in the crux of their imagination that they didn't even register your presence? So enthralled by their own version of a story that they have squatted down as low as humanly possible but are still perfectly mobile as they scoot across the ground vigorously? It's cute right? You almost envy them that innocence.
Well, the only thing that's stopping you is your own pride. It would be a great shock to come upon a 40 year old man, with his arms outstretched, zooming down the pathway. Why? It's not what adults do. To see a grown woman rolling down a grassy hill for funsies would be utterly absurd. But wouldn't it also be freaking fantastic?!
Obviously, there is a time when adults need to be adults and children likewise but that is not all of the time. Give yourself a moment, even once a week, to act like a complete child.
Jump in the puddles.
Play on the swings.
Make up Batman's next adventure.
Sing a song with three lyrics over and over again.
Dance in the living room by flailing your arms and bouncing.
Go and watch a kids movie. Nemo never fails to impress.
I think this world could benefit by throwing off the veil of responsibility every now and then.
I think there is much that we take for granted regarding the imagination of a child. I honestly believe it is a source we should learn from. This world is far too big and there are far too many awful realities without having hope that the good guys will chase the monsters away. Why do we let logic win once we get a little older? I doubt we are any better off for it. In fact we may even be worse off because relinquishing our hold over belief in everything makes our world that little bit greyer. What's wrong with believing anyway?
Have you ever seen a child by themself that was so absorbed in the crux of their imagination that they didn't even register your presence? So enthralled by their own version of a story that they have squatted down as low as humanly possible but are still perfectly mobile as they scoot across the ground vigorously? It's cute right? You almost envy them that innocence.
Well, the only thing that's stopping you is your own pride. It would be a great shock to come upon a 40 year old man, with his arms outstretched, zooming down the pathway. Why? It's not what adults do. To see a grown woman rolling down a grassy hill for funsies would be utterly absurd. But wouldn't it also be freaking fantastic?!
Obviously, there is a time when adults need to be adults and children likewise but that is not all of the time. Give yourself a moment, even once a week, to act like a complete child.
Jump in the puddles.
Play on the swings.
Make up Batman's next adventure.
Sing a song with three lyrics over and over again.
Dance in the living room by flailing your arms and bouncing.
Go and watch a kids movie. Nemo never fails to impress.
I think this world could benefit by throwing off the veil of responsibility every now and then.
Tuesday, 17 April 2012
To Whom It May Concern,
Remember being told never to bite the hand that feeds you? It's not always that simple. Sometimes that hand needs to know not to oppress. History has shown us that countless times. Well, what if that hand was the government? Would you still do it then?
Some of the greatest songs are written about just that.
Cue two perfectly opposite examples: Try not to judge.
Country music singers, the Dixie Chicks, released a song that was banned in the U.S because it challenged the government for sending their boys out to war and not bringing them home. Titled 'Not Ready To Play Nice', the song's lyrics even hint towards death threats the girls received when they tried to release the song.
Have a listen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pojL_35QlSI&ob=av2e
Punk rock band, Rise Against, focus their lyrics on political, social and environmental issues of our time without flinching. The song 'Hero of War' is a clear example of this. A song about the horrors of what it really means to be a soldier of war, the lyrics will resonate with you for a very long time.
I deeply recommend hearing this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DboMAghWcA
So, it happens in music all of the time. The last place I thought it would happen would be in public media. I love public media, if you read my last post you'd have a vague sense of how I feel about commercial media. That said, while I understood that public media was funded by the government I had never really realised how necessary it is for public media to oppose the government for the sake of the people. It was only until I was literally told this in my seventh lecture that it made sense. The people would not watch a government funded program that endorsed the government. What's the point?
In the wise words of my lecturer Dr Bruce Redman, if the government ever start to like shows like the ABC then we're all buggered. Public media is for the public, I just wonder how long this will last. It's stood the test of time so far but how long can we have a media that is designed to challenge the authority? Better yet, what if people like the musicians stated above had a say about what public media should be? Would we allow it? Would other nations follow suit? In my opinion? Not a chance.
Remember being told never to bite the hand that feeds you? It's not always that simple. Sometimes that hand needs to know not to oppress. History has shown us that countless times. Well, what if that hand was the government? Would you still do it then?
Some of the greatest songs are written about just that.
Cue two perfectly opposite examples: Try not to judge.
Country music singers, the Dixie Chicks, released a song that was banned in the U.S because it challenged the government for sending their boys out to war and not bringing them home. Titled 'Not Ready To Play Nice', the song's lyrics even hint towards death threats the girls received when they tried to release the song.
Have a listen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pojL_35QlSI&ob=av2e
Punk rock band, Rise Against, focus their lyrics on political, social and environmental issues of our time without flinching. The song 'Hero of War' is a clear example of this. A song about the horrors of what it really means to be a soldier of war, the lyrics will resonate with you for a very long time.
I deeply recommend hearing this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DboMAghWcA
So, it happens in music all of the time. The last place I thought it would happen would be in public media. I love public media, if you read my last post you'd have a vague sense of how I feel about commercial media. That said, while I understood that public media was funded by the government I had never really realised how necessary it is for public media to oppose the government for the sake of the people. It was only until I was literally told this in my seventh lecture that it made sense. The people would not watch a government funded program that endorsed the government. What's the point?
In the wise words of my lecturer Dr Bruce Redman, if the government ever start to like shows like the ABC then we're all buggered. Public media is for the public, I just wonder how long this will last. It's stood the test of time so far but how long can we have a media that is designed to challenge the authority? Better yet, what if people like the musicians stated above had a say about what public media should be? Would we allow it? Would other nations follow suit? In my opinion? Not a chance.
Thursday, 12 April 2012
To Whom It May Concern,
I'm watching Days Of Our Lives or the Bold and the Beautiful or one of those rubbish television shows. I'm not sure why, I just got sucked in. Everybody seems so be pregnant and crying. I feel stupid just watching this. I can envision my brain cells depleting. I'm getting dumber.
What's wrong with television? I understand they want to reach everyone in the general public but surely if they aimed for a more intelligent audience evolution would kick in A LITTLE BIT! Yet, that trend seems fairly common in media these days. My sixth lecture for Journalism and Communication kind of cleared up any disillusions I had about why I felt dumb watching television. Commercial media does target a 'dumber' audience.
Consider these shows: A Current Affair, Today Tonight, Neighbours, Home and Away, The Project.
If you like watching most of these shows its probably because it doesn't take a whole heap of brain power and you are fed information that makes good gossip. No judgement here.
Cue explanatory photo:
I'm watching Days Of Our Lives or the Bold and the Beautiful or one of those rubbish television shows. I'm not sure why, I just got sucked in. Everybody seems so be pregnant and crying. I feel stupid just watching this. I can envision my brain cells depleting. I'm getting dumber.
What's wrong with television? I understand they want to reach everyone in the general public but surely if they aimed for a more intelligent audience evolution would kick in A LITTLE BIT! Yet, that trend seems fairly common in media these days. My sixth lecture for Journalism and Communication kind of cleared up any disillusions I had about why I felt dumb watching television. Commercial media does target a 'dumber' audience.
Consider these shows: A Current Affair, Today Tonight, Neighbours, Home and Away, The Project.
If you like watching most of these shows its probably because it doesn't take a whole heap of brain power and you are fed information that makes good gossip. No judgement here.
Cue explanatory photo:
It boils down to what we're happy with. Are we content watching television because it uses very little brain power and we just have to sit there? Or would we rather be watching more engaging and intelligent shows? And is it really worth starting an uprising over? In the eyes of a journalist I'd say yes, dammit. In the eyes of an ordinary citizen I'm fence sitting. What do you think about it? Hmm?
Monday, 9 April 2012
To Whom It May Concern,
There is an incredible attraction to the human voice. I have never really considered radio a beautiful medium until Steve Austin spoke in a sound lecture in my fifth week at Uni. Steve spoke about how one of the most important aspects of being a radio presenter was to remain human. Yet, it is such an obvious realisation when you consider the human voice. To find someone who listens to you is a precious thing and that is something that radio presenters truly strive to do. They listen. That is the kind of media that makes me remember why I started this degree. I wanted to be a part of something run by people, about things that affected people, for people. I couldn't care less if that is a lame theory. It's why I started this degree. To make sure that people were informed.
Radio and sound is the perfect medium for that. There aren't any flashy pictures or confusing images to distract you. It's just one voice that you can tune in and out as you please. One of the most beautiful things about radio is that you have the chance to put in your own two cents. Radio is media by the people, for the people, with the people. Doesn't that just warm the cockles of your heart?
It goes without saying that some voices truly 'speak' to you. I have never met a soul on this planet who wasn't swayed by the unmistakable sound of Morgan Freeman speaking. If I could write a script with God as a voice over, Freeman would be my man. Props to War of the Worlds for coining that one. But beyond that, consider your teachers, parents, friends and family. Often you don't care if what they are talking about is rubbish - you just want them to speak. Yet when they do, everyone listens. And remembers. That is an incredible attraction and proof that there is more to radio than meets the ear, excusing that terrible pun.
There is an incredible attraction to the human voice. I have never really considered radio a beautiful medium until Steve Austin spoke in a sound lecture in my fifth week at Uni. Steve spoke about how one of the most important aspects of being a radio presenter was to remain human. Yet, it is such an obvious realisation when you consider the human voice. To find someone who listens to you is a precious thing and that is something that radio presenters truly strive to do. They listen. That is the kind of media that makes me remember why I started this degree. I wanted to be a part of something run by people, about things that affected people, for people. I couldn't care less if that is a lame theory. It's why I started this degree. To make sure that people were informed.
Radio and sound is the perfect medium for that. There aren't any flashy pictures or confusing images to distract you. It's just one voice that you can tune in and out as you please. One of the most beautiful things about radio is that you have the chance to put in your own two cents. Radio is media by the people, for the people, with the people. Doesn't that just warm the cockles of your heart?
It goes without saying that some voices truly 'speak' to you. I have never met a soul on this planet who wasn't swayed by the unmistakable sound of Morgan Freeman speaking. If I could write a script with God as a voice over, Freeman would be my man. Props to War of the Worlds for coining that one. But beyond that, consider your teachers, parents, friends and family. Often you don't care if what they are talking about is rubbish - you just want them to speak. Yet when they do, everyone listens. And remembers. That is an incredible attraction and proof that there is more to radio than meets the ear, excusing that terrible pun.
Sunday, 8 April 2012
To Whom It May Concern,
I remember standing in an art gallery looking at all of the paintings and wondering why this was 'art'. There was an intense variety of art work on the walls and it was obvious that all of the work had been done by different people at different moments yet that did not necessarily make it art. So what did? How could a picture mean so much to someone that they deem it 'art'?
My fourth lecture in Journalism and Communication presented to me the notion of picture stories as being just as powerful as the written word. In my view, the written word will only influence those who can relate to it or who crave to understand it. So can that be said for pictures? Doubtless. Yet, it is the people interpreting those images and their stories that decide whether it is powerful or not.
Consider Jason deCaires Taylor. This is a man who sculpts for hours upon hours and then literally throws his artwork out to sea. I thought it was a perfectly insane thing to do so I looked into his work. It is beautiful. Truly, incredibly breath-taking. To me.
One of his images in particular holds a place in my heart.
(It's definition can be translated to mean a change in circumstance/fortune)
Vicissitudes
If you go to Grenada in the West Indies and dive five metres down you will come across twenty six people. Isn't that just so deliciously absurd?! But more than that is who are these people? Why are they holding hands? Why face out and not in? One of the most astounding realisations is they were put underwater for people to find? Here, in this picture of 26 individuals, joined by the hands, at the bottom of the ocean. There is no explanation given. We know from the title that these people are experiencing a change in circumstance. We probably could have figured that out alone. The remarkable thing is that there are thousands of stories we could tell from this picture.
Thus, I have come to realise that the old saying was wrong. A picture does not tell a thousand words. It tells a thousand stories. People can relate to stories and that is why it must be art.
I remember standing in an art gallery looking at all of the paintings and wondering why this was 'art'. There was an intense variety of art work on the walls and it was obvious that all of the work had been done by different people at different moments yet that did not necessarily make it art. So what did? How could a picture mean so much to someone that they deem it 'art'?
My fourth lecture in Journalism and Communication presented to me the notion of picture stories as being just as powerful as the written word. In my view, the written word will only influence those who can relate to it or who crave to understand it. So can that be said for pictures? Doubtless. Yet, it is the people interpreting those images and their stories that decide whether it is powerful or not.
Consider Jason deCaires Taylor. This is a man who sculpts for hours upon hours and then literally throws his artwork out to sea. I thought it was a perfectly insane thing to do so I looked into his work. It is beautiful. Truly, incredibly breath-taking. To me.
One of his images in particular holds a place in my heart.
(It's definition can be translated to mean a change in circumstance/fortune)
Vicissitudes
If you go to Grenada in the West Indies and dive five metres down you will come across twenty six people. Isn't that just so deliciously absurd?! But more than that is who are these people? Why are they holding hands? Why face out and not in? One of the most astounding realisations is they were put underwater for people to find? Here, in this picture of 26 individuals, joined by the hands, at the bottom of the ocean. There is no explanation given. We know from the title that these people are experiencing a change in circumstance. We probably could have figured that out alone. The remarkable thing is that there are thousands of stories we could tell from this picture.
Thus, I have come to realise that the old saying was wrong. A picture does not tell a thousand words. It tells a thousand stories. People can relate to stories and that is why it must be art.
Sunday, 1 April 2012
To Whom It May Concern,
I will aways cherish more about a book than its story.
There is much more to a magazine than the pictures.
Newspapers always smell old and fantastic.
Except that is all personal opinion. Maybe you loathe the weight of carrying around a book? Perhaps you only care for the pictures of a magazine? It's even possible that the smudges on your fingers from a Newspaper are just too much to bear and you wish to be free of this 'traditional' media. My second lecture in Journalism and Communication made me think about the mentality behind the move from 'traditional' to 'modern' media. I'll be the first to say I'm not a fan. But, that is once again my personal opinion and probably not relevant. I'll promise to try and concentrate.
'Modern' media encompasses much of the technological revolutions of our century. News is delivered to you straight from your laptop, iPad or iPhone. You can even subscribe to online newspapers to be better enlightened by what is happening around you. It seems wonderful, doesn't it?
Magazines are now making a move towards online publishing, for those who prefer the ease of access they get from technology. Suddenly, you have both your newspapers and your magazines delivered straight to your inbox. Sweet, right?
Now for the tri-fecta. Let's publish books electronically and ensure that no one has to go out of their way to access the news, literature or articles. How could there be anything wrong with such simplicity?
It's simple, traditional media will die. That is what's wrong. Books are already on their way out with massive reductions in sales. Magazines are converting to online publishing so fast it's a wonder they bother to publish hard copies at all. Yet, that is not completely relevant either because it is coloured by my opinion.
What is relevant is the fact that with so many people subscribing to various online media sites, the demand for a new kind of news will emerge. There is no denying that there is a mentality popular among us that craves to be entertained. It's human nature. Boredom is well, boring. So, it is only too long before a rise in entertainment-based news is in demand. What does that mean for journalism if the stories that aren't thrilling don't cut it? Following this further, a newspaper costs around $1 - $3. Can the industry-driven businessmen guarantee that it wont change?
'Modern' media is not entirely bad, it times of crisis quick and easy access to information is vital. However, the death of 'tradtional' media may be a bigger sacrifice than it seems.
I will aways cherish more about a book than its story.
There is much more to a magazine than the pictures.
Newspapers always smell old and fantastic.
Except that is all personal opinion. Maybe you loathe the weight of carrying around a book? Perhaps you only care for the pictures of a magazine? It's even possible that the smudges on your fingers from a Newspaper are just too much to bear and you wish to be free of this 'traditional' media. My second lecture in Journalism and Communication made me think about the mentality behind the move from 'traditional' to 'modern' media. I'll be the first to say I'm not a fan. But, that is once again my personal opinion and probably not relevant. I'll promise to try and concentrate.
'Modern' media encompasses much of the technological revolutions of our century. News is delivered to you straight from your laptop, iPad or iPhone. You can even subscribe to online newspapers to be better enlightened by what is happening around you. It seems wonderful, doesn't it?
Magazines are now making a move towards online publishing, for those who prefer the ease of access they get from technology. Suddenly, you have both your newspapers and your magazines delivered straight to your inbox. Sweet, right?
Now for the tri-fecta. Let's publish books electronically and ensure that no one has to go out of their way to access the news, literature or articles. How could there be anything wrong with such simplicity?
It's simple, traditional media will die. That is what's wrong. Books are already on their way out with massive reductions in sales. Magazines are converting to online publishing so fast it's a wonder they bother to publish hard copies at all. Yet, that is not completely relevant either because it is coloured by my opinion.
What is relevant is the fact that with so many people subscribing to various online media sites, the demand for a new kind of news will emerge. There is no denying that there is a mentality popular among us that craves to be entertained. It's human nature. Boredom is well, boring. So, it is only too long before a rise in entertainment-based news is in demand. What does that mean for journalism if the stories that aren't thrilling don't cut it? Following this further, a newspaper costs around $1 - $3. Can the industry-driven businessmen guarantee that it wont change?
'Modern' media is not entirely bad, it times of crisis quick and easy access to information is vital. However, the death of 'tradtional' media may be a bigger sacrifice than it seems.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)