Category Archives: Uncategorized

Figure 1: “Creative Gun”, by Mark Fitz. Image by Saatchi Online via WordPress.

Figure 2: the artist, Mark Fitz’s profile picture on his Saatchi account. Fitz is a Dublin-based designer whose work “explores the relationship between life and love and pop and shit.” Image by Mark Fitz via Saatchi.

The image above, first and foremost, argues that art––and the implements used to create it––are just as deadly as any firearm. The artist likens crayons to bullets, color to punctuation; art can evoke emotions in its audience more effectively than a speech, just as actions speak louder than words. The crayons themselves make a statement as few other drawing implements could: synonymous with childhood and amateur art, crayons are consistently underestimated. It is no mistake that the artist chose crayons over markers or colored pencils; these tools, in particular, serve to amplify the message that even the most unassuming methods of creation can be deadly tools. That is, after all, the central message: creation is warfare. There are tools in the “gun” that are not immediately related to art, such as the staple gun and the boxcutter. What all of the pieces do have in common, however, is that they permit the act of creation, whether it be altering preexisting matter or generating something completely new. There is a reason many religions declare creation to be divine; the ability to invent and alter our environment in intricate ways is perhaps one of the things that makes us human. This image argues, both literally and technically, that art and its tools are what make weapons, in addition to being weapons themselves. Yes, the “gun” in the image is composed of many tools arranged together…but it is an artist that sits at a drafting table and helps engineers and scientists design literal weapons. All creation, for peace and for war, begins with artists.

Embedded below is a TED talk presented by linguist John McWhorter, Associate Professor of English and Comparative Literature at Columbia University. In it, he argues that texting, contrary to popular belief, is not facilitating linguistic regression in today’s youth; rather, it is merely a medium of writing as we speak. McWhorter sets the stage: speech developed far before writing, and it really wasn’t until the introduction of texting that we had a method of writing that was structurally and gramatically congruent with our speech patterns. Furthermore, McWhorter asserts that any “expansion of linguistic repertoire” is cognitively beneficial, such as bilingualism or bidialectalism; such expansion, in the case of texting, is (at least partically) characterized by the development of pragmatic (aka discourse) particles––the textism “lol” is used as an example. As far as complaints of lacking spelling and command of grammar go, McWhorter traces the outcry back to 1841 and beyond, when the concept texting wasn’t even remotely entertained. The concept of our youth lacking linguistic sophistication is not a new concern.

Figure 1: this (rather outdated) comic pokes fun at youths’ “inability” to comprehend gramatically correct sentences due to habitual exposure to the truncations of early texting. Image via PaperRater.

This is actually the second time I watched this speech, and I found McWhorter’s line of argumentation to be far less compelling the second time around. I’m not convinced he’s incorrect in saying that texting doesn’t negatively affect writing, but I’m not sure he comes to that conclusion for the right reasons. While I appreciate the developmental distinctions between writing like we speak and speaking like we write, McWhorter doesn’t really touch on how the repeated use of incorrect grammar and punctuation (among other things) impacts academic writing, or even drafting emails. Many studies reach the same overall conclusion that McWhorter does––that texting has no influence on writing––but their reasoning is that youth and people in general are able to contextualize each form of communication and the conventions that accompany them. That is to say, the brain knows when to use “I regret to inform you” and when to use “yo im rlly sorry but.” This, as a line of logic, makes more sense to me as an audience member.

Regarding presentation style, McWhorter adopts a well-paced, reasonable tone––he speaks slowly and calmly, laying a line of reasoning to lead his audience towards his overall conclusion, occasionally punctuating his dialogue with jokes to keep the mood light. In this way, he effectively conveys information whilst maintaining agreeability and relatability. This, I feel, is the core distinction between a formal speech and a talk: a talk is a conversation in which the speaker reaches into the lives and experiences of the audience and provides insight. A speech is a carefully composed rhetorical agenda, and is not always meant to empathize with its viewers––it speaks at them, rather than with them, as the talk does.

It’s a fair statement to say that everyone loves comedy––granted, individual preferences vary, but it’s hard to beat a good, family-friendly stand-up act. Who doesn’t like laughing? Saturday Night Live is one of America’s go-to sources for humor; it has streamlined and perfected the art of short skit, and keeps itself in the loop regarding popular, relatable material.

Figure 1: in addition to comedy skits, SNL also invites a variety of music artists onto the show; pictured above is popular Korean band BTS, who perfomed live on set earlier this year. Image by SNL via YouTube.

Embedded below is a “best man” speech given by Paul Rudd in honor of SNL’s 44th season finale. The clip is a bit too long for the purposes of this post, so I will be analyzing the 1:12 to 2:01 minute range. As an actor, Rudd has a predisposition for comfort on the stage, and this comfort facilitates the success of his interaction with the audience. To further increase relatability, Rudd employs informal speech patterns such as the unnecessary use of the word “like,” and gracefully allows himself use of the “uh” filler.

The audience is made to feel that they are privy to a private, tender confession (pathos) when Rudd segways into a personal story (which may or may not be fabricated, but that is beside the point) with a conspirational “You know…”. He uses a glass of champagne as as a prop, which helps to set the quietly celebratory “best man at a wedding speech” mood. Although his gestures are altered by this glass, Rudd generally uses effective, appropriate hand motions to echo his words, such as shaking his finger when he begins to tell his “true story,” as if he had sat the audience down in front of a fire to tell them a tale. All in all, the speech is effective in imbuing a nostalgic feeling in its audience, thanks to Rudd’s excellent public speaking techniques.

Figure 1: this diagram illustrates a hierarchy of source credibility, with the more accurate sources on the bottom and the least accurate souces on the top. Image via Illinois State University Library.

In a world where we have the power to share whatever pops into our heads with billions of other individuals instantaneously, it is understandable that so many falsities and innacuracies are perpetuated. The only thing that can contradict and/or obstruct a given opinion or piece of “research” is the skepticism of others. This is both a weakness and a strength in our learning communities, the former in that the situation is often a “your word against mine” spitting match, and the latter in that productive collaboration and corroboration often produce superior results.

Figure 2: format can be misleading! Just because something is cited “officially” doesn’t make it credible. Image by XKCD Comic via the PSU Methodology Center on Twitter.

Kessler’s article describes these issues well. Bias is a shackle on true scientific advancement, and the delivery of information in general. Many researchers try their best to be objective, but others shamelessly publish “findings” that are the result of professional data cherry picking––these individuals could be sponsored by organizations with agendas, or they could be acting on personal confirmation bias. However, whichever camp a given scientist falls into, they are prone to bias whether they like it or not. Kessler’s citation of Gladwell acknowledges this.

Thus, it is of paramount importance to consider what the objectives of any given researcher are, and who funds them. A “study” proclaiming beef to be extremely beneficial to one’s health that was funded by the food industry is likely a questionable source. Research published by nonprofit organizations is more likely to be trustworthy than that published by for-profit ones. Findings that span reports are more likely to be accurate than a single case study. These are the considerations that make or break the background research that bolsters a claim or perspective.

Figure 1: a Tumblr post in which the user has made a play on the lyrics from the “Gaston” song from “Beauty and the Beast”. The slang “yeet” is used, and “this bitch empty” is a reference to a popular video. Image via Reddit.

I’d like to investigate the paradigm shifts involving the influence of the internet and social media on the evolution of colloqiualisms in American youth. From where did “yeet” and “snatching wigs” originate? How and why are they popular? Did they have equivalents ten, twenty, thirty years ago? When did “gag me with a spoon” go out of style, and why? These are the questions I will aim to answer.

Figure 2: this meme is actually a very insightful articulation of the common practice of adding “lol” to the end of typed sentences (no one translates”lol” to “laugh out loud” any more; it has become its own entity that merely, when attached to a sentence, connotates “I am saying this in good humor”). Image via Meme.

Slang has always been an intrinsic component of human language––I will attempt to examine its evolution over a specific chronological range (the last fifty years) limited to a single country (the U.S.) and age demographic (10-20 year olds or so). It is also necessary to examine the platforms where such slang is primarily popularized: social media, and the internet in general; I will look into how the formatting of sites like Twitter, Tumblr, and Reddit facilitate the creation and spreading of these colloquialisms.

I personally believe that the study of language is of paramount importance. Language influences how we interact with each other, how we learn, and how we communicate our needs, desires, opinions. To understand and manipulate the nuances of language and speech is one of the great keys to life––it can determine landing a job, contracting a house, or fostering a relationship. This is why I think that linguistic development over the years and the practice of implementing that knowledge when communicating in the modern day warrants exploration.

Here, you can view a USA Today interview with some “hip” youth who scratch the surface of the complex, immense enigma that is modern linguistic nuance.

Merriam-Webster defines a paradigm shift as “an important change that happens when the usual way of thinking about or doing something is replaced by a new and different way.” Thomas Kuhn, a respected philospher, physicist, and scientific historian, coined the phrase some 57 years ago in his book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. In this work, Kuhn argues that scientific revolutions are a matter of large leaps and bounds; a stepladder-type of progress, if you will. Change in thought and research is not an incremental process, Kuhn says, but is shaped by epiphanies or exemplary instances of derived conclusion. He cites the work of specific mathematicians and scientists––the key formulas and theories they developed are what result in paradigm shifts, and thus revolutionary scientific thought.

Figure 1: social media provides a new front for confrontation and even bullying; Twenge describes how digital depictions of a youth’s peers can cause feelings of exclusion and/or inferiority. Image by Petr Stepanov via Threadless.

Jean M. Twenge’s article on generational interaction with technology (specifically smartphones and social media) could be considered a paradigm shift, albeit a lesser one. The idea that such devices and mediums of communication could be harmful to today’s youth is relatively new––the conclusions she draws aren’t as monumental as the derivation of the formula for gravity or planetary motion, but they are well-researched and address emerging issues in a comparatively new light. The iPhone and smart technology could very well prove to turn out like DDT––so quickly have they been introduced and absorbed into our lives that there really wasn’t any time for scientists to properly research the effects. The scientific community may have to fight an uphill battle to uncover the caveats of the smartphone, wading against a population that is borderline addicted to their devices.

Figure 2: an artist’s depiction of the parasitic nature of the smartphone. Image by San Vecino via WordPress.

In terms of historical thought on the matter of smart technology and social media, yes, Twenge’s article deviates from the norm. The work is just over two years old, which is an eon for technological development, but progress made down the road that Twenge tentatively illustrates has been slow in comparison. This is primarily due to backlash from everyone who has grown fond of their devices, and are loath to hear anything negative about them––and the tech companies themselves, of course. This sort of resistance can be likened to the reaction of the public when they were informed that Earth was not, in fact, at the center of the universe, a scientific discovery that Kuhn would most certainly consider a paradigm shift.

I selected environmentalism and conservation as general discussion topics for my speech and essay. The speech investigates a piece of graffiti (titled Cagacemento or, rather vulgarly, “Concrete Shit”); a narrative on resource consumption (Figure 1), while the essay plans to dissect Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring (Figure 2).

Figure 1: “Cagacemento”, by anonymous graffiti artist Nemo. Milan, Italy. Image by Nemo via Whoisnemos?

Published in 1962, Silent Spring is perhaps the most influential environmental literary work to date––in it, Carson brings attention to the U.S.’s excessive, unregulated use of the dangerous pesticide DDT. While, at the time, most of the American population was singing the praises of a pesticide capable of killing hundreds of different types of insects, Carson pointed out the detrimental ecological effects of wiping out so many species with one blow (not to mention the human health hazards of such a compound). Silent Spring earned Carson the title of bestselling author, though her work was widely controversial; so controversial, in fact, that President Kennedy intervened and had its claims investigated. However, Carson’s meticulous, six-year compilation of corroborated information paid off, and her truth shone through––serious measures were taken to restrict pesticide use, and DDT was eventually banned altogether. Silent Spring raised awareness of the delicate ecological balance upon which we all depend; the work made it clear that nature, though seemingly vast and untouchable, is, in fact, vulnerable.

Figure 2: a quote from “Silent Spring” that nicely summarizes Carson’s point. Image by AZ Quotes.

Silent Spring argues that untested, artificial compounds like DDT are potentially detrimental to an entire ecosystem, and that they should not be naïvely set free into the environment. Americans were so excited to eradicate pesky insects that they didn’t consider the bigger picture, and what the health implications of such a chemical might be––Carson proves there’s no removing man from nature. Everything is codependent on each other for success. Silent Spring is unusual in its hybrid nature: it is equal parts scientific report and literary narrative––this makes it an excellent subject for analysis, and may partially reveal why it was so monumental. Are there other works with a similar nature to this book? If so, what caused them to fail where Silent Spring succeeded in conveying a call to action?

I plan to compare and contrast Carson’s work with Nemo’s (the artist responsible for Cagacemento) in terms of presentation, public reaction, timing, and effectiveness in conveying a rousing narrative. Book versus graffiti, mid-1900s versus twenty-first century––what do they accomplish, and where do they fail? Silent Spring is a thorough scientific analysis of the state of nature, and Cagacemento is an explicit visual narrative on resource consumption. Clearly, Silent Spring has been more quantifiably influential, as is evidenced by the millions of copies sold and the tangible results of pesticide restriction…but is Cagacemento more accessible, and therefore more effective at spreading a message? These are the questions my essay aims to answer.

Figure 1: a logical (though heavily sarcastic) progression of insightful thought, exemplified by increasing brain size. Image by Rezzy Red Proletariat Memes via Facebook.

Logos is an appeal to reason, logic, and/or rationality––it is a common underlying theme in modern media, which so often attempts to convince us to “live smarter” (accomplishable by keeping our lives in tandem with a long list of highly specialized commercial products). The “why WOULDN’T you do it the RIGHT way, the SMART way?” argument is frequently employed (whether overtly or subtly) to make us feel inept and inadequate; some of us meekly alter our conduct with our tails between our legs, thinking, “well…I don’t want to seem dumb…” Peer pressure doesn’t evaporate after high school––it can be a very effective method of persuasion.

Figure 2: a reversal of logic; it is obviously more rational to finish projects than to sit around thinking about them, but the meme derives its comedic value from this irony. Image by Know Your Meme via Intelligencer.

Logos is also a prevalent comedic element in popular culture, as is exhibited in the “Galaxy Brain” meme in Figure 1. The template demonstrates varying levels of intellectual prowess, corresponding with the ascending size of the brain. Figure 1 sarcastically exemplifies such positive correlation between pictured brain size and desirable rational conclusion. The image of a larger, more omniscient brain does not always correspond to a more “intelligent” take on an issue, however; internet users will often reverse the logical order for comedic purposes, as is depicted in Figure 2.

Figure 3: a nonsensical take on the “Galaxy Brain” format, deriving its comedic value from its absurdity. Image by Ryan Creamer via College Humor.

The “Galaxy Brain” meme is frequently convoluted by colloquialisms and generational jokes, dissociating from grammatical/linguistic norms to such an extent that sometimes the viewer finds themselves laughing only because they know they are expected to. Figure 3 features a language devolvement that is really here nor there in terms of correspondence with the brain images, but is humorous all the same because the viewer is aware that it is a meme and has been conditioned to derive amusement from its absurdity. There is a veritable goldmine of information on generational humor to be found in memes; they reveal a lot about the evolution of modern communication, and how, exactly, social sharing technology shapes our senses of humor.

We live in a world where we are bombarded with messages––billboards, TVs, newspapers, our electronics––and there is a frequent, niggling sensation that we could be doing something else, something more, in each moment, especially when we are constantly made aware of individuals that seem more attractive and successful than us at every turn. It’s exhausting. It is very easy––too easy––to curl into ourselves and think, “what was I doing when this twelve-year-old was accepted into Harvard? What was I doing when this athlete trained to become the fastest person on the planet?” It can get depressing, to feel so inconsequential and inadequate in comparison.

Figure 1: book advertisement by Orion Publishing via Twitter

Commercials and ads prey on this gloom: we are assaulted with inspiring takes on illness that encourage us to seize control of our lives NOW, or treat ourselves to a new, affordably priced car and delicious fast food NOW. We are persuaded that there’s no time like the present to stand up and do things; commercials like these encourage the viewer to say, “you know what, you’re right. Why not now?” This no-time-like-the-present mechanism is called kairos, an ancient Greek word referring to an opportune moment to take action.

A more romantic example of kairos can be found in Disney’s Ratatouille, when Remy the rat has just befriended Linguini the human, and embarks on his journey to become a true chef.

An old-timey movie is playing just before Remy falls asleep, its audio sweeping over the tiny apartment. The woman onscreen wants to know: “But why here? Why now?” The man replies, “Why not here? Why not now? What better place to dream than in Paris?” The dialogue is a device used to wrap up the sleepy scene and assure the viewer that Remy has seized the day to make his dream come true. It is a romantic implication of kairos; this tiny rat wants to be the best chef in Paris, and when circumstances arose to jumble his life around and gave him a chance to realize his goal, he took it. Although the movie is ficticious, the message to follow one’s dreams rings clear: Ratatouille says if the rat can do it, so can you…and there’s no better time than the present to get started.