Mythologies, Roland Barthes
The only thing I could think of while reading this text was an art piece by Joseph Kosuth called One and Three Chairs.
This summer I went to Paris and had the privilege to go to the Centre Pompidou where this art work was exposed. If you look at this art piece your could easily confuse it for an ordinary chair (I almost sat on it until I say the warning telling us it's an art piece.
If I need to apply what Barthes was saying to this art piece I could say that as a form, this is an ordinary chair -if I say chair to someone this person would imagine a similar chair-, but as a concept, this would make us question what is the true representation of not just a chair but also any object. Take for example an apple, when I say apple people tend to imagine a big shiny red apple but in reality an apple could be free, yellow, big, small, rotten or even a flower.
If I need to apply what Barthes was saying to this art piece I could say that as a form, this is an ordinary chair -if I say chair to someone this person would imagine a similar chair-, but as a concept, this would make us question what is the true representation of not just a chair but also any object. Take for example an apple, when I say apple people tend to imagine a big shiny red apple but in reality an apple could be free, yellow, big, small, rotten or even a flower.
Understanding Comics, Scott McCloud: Chapter 02
I have already read this comic strip in the past in my Infographic class. Most of the elements in this "text" -if I may call it that way- are pretty obvious: if it's not realistic it's going to be abstract.
In a previous Design class, we had an initiation to drawing and the teacher would do an iconographic dictation: he would name objects and we had to draw the first thing that popped into our mind so for example when he said "time flies" everyone, with no exception drew a clock with wings. But the way the clocks and the wings were drawn differed from one person to an other because each person has a different image of what a clock and what wings are, but that does not mean that my clock in right and someone else clock is wrong.
All this to say that icons are international: when we see one we know what that icon means but there are many ways for an icon to be represented, the best example is the icons on the bathroom doors: the pictograms differ but they all represent the same thing.
In a previous Design class, we had an initiation to drawing and the teacher would do an iconographic dictation: he would name objects and we had to draw the first thing that popped into our mind so for example when he said "time flies" everyone, with no exception drew a clock with wings. But the way the clocks and the wings were drawn differed from one person to an other because each person has a different image of what a clock and what wings are, but that does not mean that my clock in right and someone else clock is wrong.
All this to say that icons are international: when we see one we know what that icon means but there are many ways for an icon to be represented, the best example is the icons on the bathroom doors: the pictograms differ but they all represent the same thing.
Ways of Seeing, John Berger: Chapter 01
When I first started reading this text I first thought about this enigma. It's an enigma given to the physics students in Harvard called "Green Eyed Dragons."
You visit a remote desert island inhabited by one hundred very friendly dragons, all of whom have green eyes. They haven't seen a human for many centuries and are very excited about your visit. They show you around their island and tell you all about their dragon way of life (dragons can talk, of course).
They seem to be quite normal, as far as dragons go, but then you find out something rather odd. They have a rule on the island which states that if a dragon ever finds out that he/she has green eyes, then at precisely midnight on the day of this discovery, he/she must relinquish all dragon powers and transform into a long-tailed sparrow. However, there are no mirrors on the island, and they never talk about eye color, so the dragons have been living in blissful ignorance throughout the ages.
Upon your departure, all the dragons get together to see you off, and in a tearful farewell you thank them for being such hospitable dragons. Then you decide to tell them something that they all already know (for each can see the colors of the eyes of the other dragons). You tell them all that at least one of them has green eyes. Then you leave, not thinking of the consequences (if any). Assuming that the dragons are (of course) infallibly logical, what happens?
If something interesting does happen, what exactly is the new information that you gave the dragons?
This text also made me think about this Dove campaign about how we perceive ourselfs.
The way we see something is not the way that others see it: a piece of art you may fined a masterpiece could be the most disgusting thing for someone els.
In the text, the author was talking about how our perception of art differs with the passing of time and the best example is the building of the Bauhaus: it was a building mostly built of glass and iron which was unheard of at that time but if we look at all the buildings we have now days they are all built that way.
Even if we talk about about the art movements like cubisme and futurisme they were all rejected when they were first exposed but nowadays we see them as masterpieces.
One could look at an art piece and say it's remarkable even if it's a reproduction of the original but what the person does not understand is the feeling you get when seeing the original right infra of you. If we take for example the Mona Lisa by Leonardo DaVinci: seeing it projected in a big format on a screen in your art history class is not the same as being framed in a small room with 400 people trying to look at this 33x20in painting.
All this to say that no person perceive the world similarly to another person.
And the answer to the enigma is:
All 100 dragons turn into sparrows on the 100th midnight.
In the text, the author was talking about how our perception of art differs with the passing of time and the best example is the building of the Bauhaus: it was a building mostly built of glass and iron which was unheard of at that time but if we look at all the buildings we have now days they are all built that way.
Even if we talk about about the art movements like cubisme and futurisme they were all rejected when they were first exposed but nowadays we see them as masterpieces.
One could look at an art piece and say it's remarkable even if it's a reproduction of the original but what the person does not understand is the feeling you get when seeing the original right infra of you. If we take for example the Mona Lisa by Leonardo DaVinci: seeing it projected in a big format on a screen in your art history class is not the same as being framed in a small room with 400 people trying to look at this 33x20in painting.
All this to say that no person perceive the world similarly to another person.
And the answer to the enigma is:
All 100 dragons turn into sparrows on the 100th midnight.
Discrimination
Let me to define the act of discrimination first. The action of discrimination is “to discriminate”. Discriminate, by definition, has two meanings: “to recognize a distinction; differentiate” or “ to make an unjust or prejudicial distinction in the treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, sex, or age”. It's safe to say that it’s most common use is the second definition.
During the presentation the main subject was discrimination and cultural appropriation. I am personally affected by this subject being included in the minority and all. Although I am not personally affected by this subject -I don't get yelled at that much for being Arab or muslim because it doesn't show unless I tell people- I get hurt when I see other people with the same background as me being egressed by the "majority" and telling them to "go back to where they came from".
Now in Quebec there is this new law -law 62- that targets woman who wear the niquab. This is religious discrimination. Some people are defending this law saying that it's for safety but this is like saying that all woman who wear the niquab are dangerous. I get it some people may impersonate other people and hide beneath the niquab but this measure should only be taken when it comes to national security not for taking the bus. The people who are defending this law don't see what's wrong with it: you don't ask a christian person to take off their cross or a jewish person to cut their braids so why would you ask a muslim woman to take off her vail just so other people could feel safe.
Descant said: "One person's freedom ends where another's begins." When you tell a person to stop practicing their religion because you don't feel safe that is taking all their liberty and putting your confort and needs as a priority. It's good to be thoughtful about the others some times too.
During the presentation the main subject was discrimination and cultural appropriation. I am personally affected by this subject being included in the minority and all. Although I am not personally affected by this subject -I don't get yelled at that much for being Arab or muslim because it doesn't show unless I tell people- I get hurt when I see other people with the same background as me being egressed by the "majority" and telling them to "go back to where they came from".
Now in Quebec there is this new law -law 62- that targets woman who wear the niquab. This is religious discrimination. Some people are defending this law saying that it's for safety but this is like saying that all woman who wear the niquab are dangerous. I get it some people may impersonate other people and hide beneath the niquab but this measure should only be taken when it comes to national security not for taking the bus. The people who are defending this law don't see what's wrong with it: you don't ask a christian person to take off their cross or a jewish person to cut their braids so why would you ask a muslim woman to take off her vail just so other people could feel safe.
Descant said: "One person's freedom ends where another's begins." When you tell a person to stop practicing their religion because you don't feel safe that is taking all their liberty and putting your confort and needs as a priority. It's good to be thoughtful about the others some times too.