I've been up since 5AM and I'm really tired.

Participation Grade: 100%
today i deserve a 100 because although you (ms. aladren) may have thought that my attempts at moderating that debate were futile, i would like to think that towards the i didn't do too poorly. it's really interesting what the freshman think and it's nice to see them opening up and some of them not afraid to share their opinions. they seem so malleable that i'm almost afraid to say somethings because i don't want them getting the wrong idea. i hope that my points made some sense today and that they took something away from that discussion. i feel like i'm mentoring.

SHOULD ART ALWAYS SHOW THE GOOD TRIUMPHING OVER THE EVIL?
no. i think that art should show whatever the outcome is as is, whether it be good or evil. yes, stories do have happy endings, but they have dismal ones as well, that shouldn't be ignored because they are "good" or "evil". no doubt more stories leave you with a thread of hope at the end of a dark situation, but should we only limit endings to just that? i don't think so. i think today in class this debate turned into "do bad endings have hope in them" or "even though the ending is seemingly bad, there is still hope".. which is why i posed the "what is good and what is bad" question. but, never-the-less, the questions still asks: should only good be aloud to win in the end? and i think not, because, plainly, in real life situations, good does not always win. does this mean that you have no hope left? no. it just means the the outcomes of that situation were not good for you (aka, bad) but you still have hope left. the presence of hope had nothing to do with the question, but the debate was good anways.

SHOULD ART BE PRESENTED IF IT WILL OFFEND CERTAIN MORALS OR BELIEFS HELD BY SOCIETY?
yes. education is key. dan and i had very close opinions in this: everything should have a reason. like, language. like, take "out lady of 121st street", a play set in a very urban environment. the language is pretty disgusting if you just skim through it, but when you actually read it read it, something more is revealed. the people in this play are uneducated ghetto people (and not to say that ghetto people are uneducated, but these people are). they were never taught the right way to communicate or how to express themselves, so they resort to petty name calling or throwing curse words around as fillers for words that they don't know. sure, the language probably offend lots of people, but it shouldn't be aloud to be performed or published because it has relevance. it sheds light on the uneducated people in the world. i know after reading that play i started to clean up my vocabulary. it just wasn't throwing around the word "fuck" for fun, it had a purpose, and i think that the goal was reached.

A DOLL'S HOUSE:
so i just finished it, and that door slam is so satisfying. i kind of suspected that this was going to happen. you told us that this was one of the first feminist plays, so i figured she either killed him or left him.. but i didn't think nora could murder someone so i opted for the second one. but damn, the entire time i was just like.. wow. look at everything that she's been keeping insider of her. she acknowledges that she has no idea what the world is, but she's willing to find out. she admits that she has no education, but she wants one. ugh! i was so happy for her. i felt for her. i was so proud of nora. i need to see this play. i can see why this would start riots, but i'm so happy it was written. this needed to be written because it started such a powerful movement. girl power. go me. go nora!


as a side note: while doing college applications today, i came across a problem. alot of them don't have the fall of 2010 application on line yet. CalArts comes out at the end of september, but we'll talk tomorrow.