On Campus Event

In theory, it should be relatively easy to pick a major. All one has to do is figure out what they like to do and what they could see themselves doing with their life and study the subject. That said, I still haven’t declared a major. While I’m leaning to Biology, I’ve started to re-evaluate my decision and figure out what I really enjoy. This is mostly due to my current Biology class, “Biodiversity.” After a few weeks of attending the class, I’ve realized that I can’t stand the ecological aspect of Biology. So I’ve started to think about the question of a biology major period. Is it right for me, or am I just trying to follow in my dad’s footsteps and become an MD? It is for this reason that I went to a biology presentation by Nancey Street, the associate dean at UT Southwestern grad school, for my on campus event. I’m very glad I went because I now know that there is no way that I want to do research. Don’t get me wrong, research is great. I would love the big picture ideas involved in research. Being able to find out the reason why a certain type of heart attack occurs (part of the lecture) in 5% of heart attack victims is fascinating. It’s observing a problem, trying to figure out why it occurs both in individuals and on the molecular level, and fixing the problems through the development of drugs. I would love to be involved in such a project when it is considered on the large scale. What I would hate is the day-to-day life. She discussed the grad school program and stated that the first two years is primarily spent in a laboratory with an instructor. She even stated that UT Southwestern was unique in that there were windows in the laboratories (Apparently a revolutionary concept). Even just thinking about being stuck in a laboratory bores me. I just can’t see myself using pipettes and doing titrations for a living. What I think I would love however, is human interaction. I think I would do much better if I could talk to individuals and realize that they’re not just molecules but living and breathing humans with personality. With interaction, it suddenly becomes more than a way to solve a molecular problem. Putting a face to the problem creates so much more meaning for me and lets me see that what I’m doing could be helpful to someone. While I’m still not 100% sure that I want to major in Biology, I am certain that I don’t want to have a career in research. Unfortunately, it might depend on how I do in my Organic Chemistry class that I’m sure to love next year.

Off Campus Event

My artistic ability comes to an abrupt halt at paper airplanes, so what I am about to say might sound somewhat unfounded. It is, but I’m going to say it anyway: modern art is bad. Today David and I dragged our friend Robbie, unknowingly I might add, to witness modern art first hand. I was simultaneously amazed and infuriated. I could not believe some of the things that were hanging on the wall, or even scattered around the floor. Some critics argue that it’s not about you (the viewer), but rather the artist. In this Post-Modern era, art has taken a new approach of minimalism. The general idea seems to be that it’s not about the creation of the art itself, but rather the artist’s feelings behind it. Taking a more abstract level, they argue that, when viewing the work, you should feel what the artist felt and understand his reason for creating the work. What’s awesome about art is that it took talent to create. That’s why people go to the Sistine chapel. Because it’s a work of art. What makes art good is knowing that someone used their talent and time to create something that is visually magnificent. Modern art can’t be considered such because there’s no work involved. Anyone can paint one giant canvas entirely blue or smear different colors of paint around on another. It’s actually a favorite for children. It reminds me of when I was in kindergarten and I brought paintings home to show my parents. They always said, “Oh how pretty,” and then came the inevitable, “What is it?” When I would reply, “It’s our house of course,” they would fake looks of understanding and just say, “Oh yeah!” Then I never knew the difference, but now I do. Therefore, the only appropriate place for these paintings known as modern “art” is, just like my pathetic drawings, on the artist’s fridge. Additionally, saying that it’s “reflective of the time period” scares the crap out of me. What kind of time is it when people can say that a blue canvas is an accurate representation of anything except the sky? How can people look at modern art and say that it’s something we as a society value, put into museums, and some individuals pay millions for. Others say that modern art is more interactive. It makes the viewer work to understand what the piece is trying to convey. They argue that the style and content of the art combine to produce a “more complete” understanding of the sentiment that is attempting to be conveyed. It is not merely what the viewer sees, but how it is presented. The problem with this is that more often than not, this takes precedence over the content. One of the paintings at the museum was of a white canvas with a black splotch on the bottom and a red one on the top. The painting was just titled “red and black.” There is practically no substance to this painting. What supposedly makes it art is the way in which the viewer’s eye moves around the painting. It is entirely about the presentation. My question then is why sacrifice content for presentation? Just because you’re putting crap on a canvas in an interesting way doesn’t mean it’s less crappy. While there was style before modern art, it was extremely restricted. The very idea of art was confined to something realistic, painted on canvas, sculpted in stone, or molded in clay. Now however, the category is much broader. There even exists the notion that anything can fall into the category of art if seen through the appropriate perspective. This is wrong and it is how crap is created. Structure, form, and technique are all necessary components of art. Without it, you can hang a pink bed sheet on the wall (an actual exhibit at the museum) and argue that it demonstrates the flexibility of art. Such a wide definition of the word “art” ambiguity until soon the word loses its meaning. Art can and will change with the time. It seems to me however, that society has fallen off the deep end with what it considers art. What worries me even more however, is the most likely accurate notion that there is still much more to come.

Civic Engagement

During our discussion on civic engagement I couldn’t help but think about the political undertones that were existent in our conversation. We live in a capitalist country and, in theory, everyone has the ability to succeed through hard work. In a perfect world, everyone would have the same socio-economic status and would have the same success rate. However, that’s called socialism and I truly believe that it can’t work on the large scale. (I worked on a “kibbutz” [small agricultural and very socialist communities throughout Israel] for about 2 weeks one summer). It’s not our government’s responsibility, or at least it hasn’t been in the past, to “spread the wealth around,” and provide equal responsibility to the population. This is the primary reason why I think civic engagement is so important. In a sense, I am doing my part to increase someone’s opportunity to succeed when the government could and should not. This may at first sound very self-righteous, but it’s only so if you don’t realize the true value in civic engagement. The fact of the matter is, it is not a one way street. I realize that the most beneficial civic engagement is that in which I get as much in return as I give. As long as I constantly realize this, I think the “coat-drive syndrome” is easily avoidable.
Now to get down to the specifics: I honestly think that picking a project has to be a long and drawn out process. The first step should be for each of us figures out exactly what we want to do. As individuals, we should measure what we think is worthy of civic engagement, what each of us would benefit from, the logistics behind the project, and of course, how much we could stand doing whatever it is. The obvious restricting variable in our case is resources. So instead, we can give our time and company. The project discussed seems appropriate, particularly when thinking about our theme of “understanding human behavior.” The current project of visiting both the elderly and kids provides an obvious contrast and is ideal for our subject matter. I want to talk more about what we can actually compare and examine to actually understand human behavior. This is obviously where Dr. G’s expertise is helpful. I’m concerned about how often to meet with them and whether or not we should switch. I think it must be more than simply once. I was envisioning a long-term project to be honest. Additionally, while I think it would be worthwhile to switch so all of us could get the experience from both groups, it is also worth it to form bonds with them, particularly the kids. If groups switch it would definitely have to be half way through and not every other week or so. I definitely think that, for the most part, the time should be spent one on one. Exceptions of course can be made, particularly with regard to playing sports with the kids. I think that, while individual interactions with the kids could be rewarding, they could easily get bored too. That's why sports or arts and crafts and music are all great ideas. One next step we could take is to figure out if the organizations that we look into have all of these things, or if we will have to improvise. Also, I work best with elementary school children, but any age up to 14 or so is fine with me. With the elderly, I think just having someone to talk to is really rewarding for them and it provides us with a more thorough understanding one individual. I think it would be easiest from a technical standpoint if Suzy were to at least provide us with a few organizations within the Georgetown area. This is simply because she has experience with the subject and already has many useful resources.

Civic Engagement

For me, the term "civic engagement" means acting within a society to benefit both the society or individuals within the society and the individual that is acting. The former is achieved through helping the community in some way, whereas the latter is more often than not an emotional effect felt by the individual. Obviously this is a very broad definition, so to incorporate civic engagement into Paideia it is necessary to specify. Whatever we choose to do, I want it to matter. I have been involved in civic engagement projects in the past in which, at the end, i feel that I accomplished very little. To reference Illich's article, the intentions may have been good, however, the result is rather petty. Therefore, I don't want to have this feeling at the end of the project, but rather one of fulfilment. For a project I would like to do something with kids. I can relate to them and they are fun and rewarding to spend time with. Again, I am worried that the project will occur and it won't have any effect on me. In short, I want to do something that matters.