Nathan Drake

Nathan Drake is a descendant of Sir Francis Drake and has seemed to adopt the thirst for adventure that his ancestor possessed.  He is a regular guy that often gets himself into trouble while seeking his treasures and adventures.  During his travels, he collects many little artifacts and treasures that are of high value.  His life is very dynamic and interesting so an exhibit showcasing some of his findings and adventures would be a great idea.  Since he is still alive perhaps I will be able to get a better understanding of his life and have the ability to present his crazy adventures in an interesting way.  The exhibit may include his journals, treasure maps, artifacts, and little treasures. 

The main people in his life, such as Victor Sullivan, Elena Fisher, Chloe Frazer, and maybe even his friend and enemy Harry Flynn will also be included in the exhibit in some way since they do have a huge effect on his adventures.

Modern and Postmodern

This reading gave me a headache! There were many times I found myself going back over the paragraph I just read because none of it seemed to stick! Even after reading certain parts out loud, I felt like it was just words put together that made no sense.  Towards the end of the reading, some of the things became more clear.  What I took away from the reading was that Modern is basically "normal" and Post-Modern is the movement that questions the "normal" or takes the "normal" and makes it into something else.  Maybe I didn't make too much sense just now, but since my understanding of the reading was not all too great, I doubt my explanation of it will be of any value.  I see Modern as being more like the popular movement and Post-Modern more like the underground movement that's maybe even happening at the same time, just with alternative means.  Post-Modern can also take Modern and twist the meanings or questions the meanings presented in the Modern. 
Okay, pretty sure that there was A LOT more in the reading, but that's all that seemed to stay in my head...

Creative Commons

• How does the Creative Commons project alter the way we understand ownership and copyright? 
• My understanding of copyright and ownership before looking through the Creative Commons website was that there are strict rules in copyright.  That if there is an owner of a piece of work, their permission must always be given to use their work or to make reproductions of their work.  The Creative Commons has varied levels of copyright and seems to be aimed at people that would like to popularize their work without profit being their main goal.  It seems to be a good way to put your name on something but still allow reproductions and allow other to build on your ideas.

• How does this project affect the subject(s) of a work? 
• It allows the work to be accessible and modifiable by many other people.  This can popularize the work and allow it to expand in ways it couldn't have before if it was just restricted to one person or company.  This could be a good thing, but if an artist does not wish their work to be built on or used, and if they have only one idea for an image or text that they would not like to be altered, then this type of copyright is not the one for them.

• How would a Creative Commons license have altered the works in our textbook reading (Gone with the Wind, the work of Sherrie Levine and Michael Mandiberg)?
• Like I stated above, it could have allowed the characters to continue on in other stories and times.  Spinoffs could have been made as well.  One thing to consider though, is if the Creative Commons type of licensing was applied to Gone with the Wind, if it would have continued to be as popular as it was.  Perhaps the Creative Commons type of licensing would have diluted the characters and story and it wouldn't have remained such a classic.  There are many reasons for and against this type of licensing.  

• Does the Creative Commons project afford any protection to the right of publicity (the Bela Lugosi case)?
• This part gets a bit confusing for me.  I'm not quite sure how this would work under the CC type of licensing.  Since it is basically meant to be for people who wish to spread their work without strict guidelines, what would happen if someone profited from their work? Would they get some kind of a percentage? How would all this work?  It seems like a messy ordeal to me.  If someone felt strongly about their work and wanted to make profit, I would refrain from the CC type of licensing, and go with a lawyer and do this the more traditional way. 

Harmony Movie Poster

In a world where online dating is the norm, three retired and washed up action stars (Steven Segal, Jean Claude Van Damme, Chuck Norris) attempt to find love online… but little do they know that eHarmony has matched them with the same girl, Rosa Caliente (played by Megan Fox)!  Their friendship will be tested when they find themselves in a battle for the love of Rosa Caliente!  Unbeknownst to them, Rosa Caliente is only a digital creation of eHarmony’s Dr. Neil Clark Warren (played by Bob Barker) in an attempt thwart the action heroes.

The synopsis was a genius idea thought up by myself, Joe, and Connor.  The poster below was designed by yours truly.

I Love the 80's

Language of the Nude

This was an interesting exhibit...
It was pretty cool to see real drawings done by some pretty famous artists.
Seeing drawings that old was more amusing than the drawings themselves.  I valued them based on their old age.  Even though there were only a few I actually liked, I still enjoyed them because I had never seen drawings that old up close without looking online or in books.
It's amazing that they managed to survive for this long.
I feel like these weren't the best representations of the art made during those times,
but it is understandable that they were the only ones we were able to get an exhibition of since I'm sure they are all pretty valuable.  The fact that the drawings have been through many wars and traveled so far is pretty fascinating.
It's interesting that the master artists were the ones that set the rules and decided what was acceptable in terms of realism.  The funny thing is that their idea of realism wasn't even based on reality, since they used males as models for female drawings.  The use of male models might be the reason why the women still look so masculine in many of the drawings.  I noticed that the difference between the earlier works and the more recent ones was manly found in the poses.  The older ones seemed more faint and relaxed and the new ones seemed more expressive and action oriented.
These drawings also depicted the ideal human bodies of their time because many of the drawings were not realistic with today's standards.  This might be way off topic, but it reminds me of beauty magazines today and how all the representations of beauty we see are airbrushed.  Even the "beautiful" people today are completely airbrushed, and even though we know this, we still accept them in the photos as representation of the ideal.
The medium of representing beauty has changed over the years, but it seems that altering reality while keeping things "realistic" has continued to be the trend.
:)

Text/Image Hunt

 I want EVERYBODY to think alike.

In this aspect, the everybody is bolded in a sense to make everyone responsible for our environment and do our part in making it better by being Eco-Friendly.  The "I" can be the viewer and "everybody" as the rest of the world, but interestingly, both the "I" and the "everybody" can be the viewer.  The viewer feels responsible and sides with the message and includes themselves as part of "everybody" as well.

I want everybody to think alike.

By thinking differently, we can think alike.  We can be apart from the group and be different thinkers, but we will still be in OUR group and think alike.  This brings up cult style following.  The different thinkers feel as though they are separate and superior, but by doing so, they are thinking all the same way.  This was more of  a play on words and opposing meanings that really actually mean the same thing.

I WANT EVERYBODY TO THINK ALIKE.

This combination creates a more hidden meaning than the others do, but is still effective in a way.  In this sense, the text tells us very strongly that this is what perfection looks like...  Expensive, fit, beautiful, rich, sexual... all of these being put together in a fantasy of sorts.  An unattainable fantasy that beauty magazines portray.  They show ultimate beauty and the viewers then feel badly for not having it, but who also go out and try to "buy" this fantasy.  To add one more thing, this message (text and image together) seems to have some kind of authority over the viewer and audience not allowing them to oppose.  Sort of like a "dumb" and robotic society that is often stereotyped with models.

"I want everybody to think alike."

on p.118 in Pop Art: The Critical Dialogue by Carol Ann Mausun.