HW 52

Theories on human relationships.

Thats quite a broad category.

Considering that we see countless amounts of people everyday, some regulars in our lives, some constants, but many, many new and fleeting. Personally, I get on the train every single day and see new people. Remarkably, I see very few familiar faces in my commute, even though I've been making the same commute for 5 years now. There is something odd about that. We are all New Yorkers, and we've seen most of the city, far and wide as it is, and yet we know that there are at least 8 million other people in this city. We all have our regular spots; for me they're union square, my neighborhood, or my friends' neighborhoods.

I know that in human relationships, there is a vast amount of complexities. There are social do's and don'ts, a disturbing variety of ways that things can fuck up.

I think at its most basic level, we all want to be loved. We are selfish creatures at heart, and only seek acceptance and belonging.

Hw 50

Gatto's "against school" paper demonstrates the disconnect between teachers and students; students are interested in what they are interested in, and for the most part, teachers are only interested in what they are teaching so far as it carries them to a paycheck. He goes on to talk about the virtual imprisonment of school, where students are herded together for hours on end, day after day, for over a decade. He asks the important question that so many are afraid to consider; is school necessary? He points out that historically, it hasn't been. There have been a number of successful people in American that gained success without ever graduating from a school. He emphasizes that schooling was put into effect by adults who had essentially gone without schooling themselves as a form of control over youth. What better chance would there be to manipulate children en masse? Schooling as a system is a way for the administration of a country to force-feed the upcoming generation all their own values and concepts, barring any kind of change or true progression (as opposed to the 'progress' the officials declare.)

My own response to this has to start with agreement. Gatto knows precisely, from a first-person account, f how school is a system put in place to bend the student's will to the will of their handlers, the teachers and ultimately, society. However, due to school being seen as a right of passage by now, no one has stopped to question the system and possibly seek to change or abandon it. People make movies out of schooling, make quasi-mockerys of the system, and sometimes totally tear on it. however, for all of this, school remains a solid, virtually unopposed system of control. Why? because with all of the media focused around it, it is fairly common to register any opposition as comical and misguided at best. Of course school is good for you, it prepares you for life. If you try and counter that with historical evidence of people adequately prepared for life without any school, you are battered with ridicule for naming 'special cases' and the supposed fact that not everyone can do as others have done. I would argue that this only true because we've had it beaten into us that we can't. Truth is that people are scared. Society is such a large construct focused on schooling that it could make it unbearably difficult for you to live without schooling at this point. Realistically speaking, money controls most of everything we need. Shelter, food, water. To get a job that can keep you afloat in this day and age requires, for most, a diploma.

Freire's "Pedagogy of the Oppressed" focuses on the teacher-student relationships in schools. He speaks of how teachers are simply narrators preaching to a receptive choir, stating that schooling is a kind of "depository system", where teachers are the depositors and students, the depositories. Studnets are taught to memorize and retain information, accepting what they are told as knowledge. Freire argues that in this form of learning, hwere students are not encouraged to question, to be curious, they cannot be human. The focus of knowledge, true knowledge, is "invention and re-invention, through the restless, impatient, continuing, hopeful inquiry human beings pursue in the world, with the world, and with each other."

Freire's text has a more focused depiction than Gatto's, but follows similar lines. The teacher is the god in the classroom, and the students are made to be worshippers. Teachers are supposedly infallible and all-knowing, making us students mere vessels for their heavenly knowdelge. Schools consciously focus that kind of thinking into classrooms in order to have obedient, orderly students. By allowing now room for questioning, the schools accomplish what Gatto has already stated- breeding new lines of "perfect citizens" who don't defect from societal preaching. If someone is taught to accept and never challenge, they are easy to manipulate and sway, meaning that those in power can stay in power, and those without never question the authority of those with it. A resigned populace is the most dangerous, because they provide manpower for the elite to stand behind. If everyone is bred into submission, then they never pose a threat to anyone above them.

The interview with Lisa Delpitt contains some very good points. This is one of the few people in the world that seem to be taking the fight against schooling to a new front, establishing coalitions to free the minds of students and encourage genuine thinking as opposed to repetition and recital. Her focus on the arts as a way of discovering a child's inherent brilliance is a delightfully refreshing way to approach a child's interests and strengths. If a student finds interest in what they are doing, they are more likely to focus more energy on it and therefore demonstrate their abilities better. Delpitt also speaks about how it is necessary for a teacher to be open with their students, to be emotionally available. I'm not entirely sure how effective that might be; the student would certainly be more interested in their classes when they feel personally connected to their teacher, but at the same time, they wind up leaving that teacher as they move up in grade. They may take with them a newfound appreciation for learning, but they would have to reconnect with every new teacher along their way.

Homework 49

I think that the film produced in class was a little unclear. Without enough time to flesh out the scenes, something gets lost in the translation. Being the writer, I feel like I should clarify what was the intention of the film, what the message was meant to be. We have the super-teacher, Mr. C, who manages to relate to students enough to keep them mostly placid. This comes at a great personal cost, however, as we see that his lessons are largely lost on the class. Something not shown in the film is the teacher's personal life, where he is fairly happy and normal, spending much time with his girlfriend and being generally very social and well-rounded. The death of his girlfriend was meant to push the teacher over the edge, showing the watcher his immanent mortality, and demonstrating the frailty of human spirit when brought to a life-altering reality.

The teacher's in-class breakdown shows the blending of personal and professional elements, where something that is socially rejected publicly but emphasized privately becomes a public affair. Kids who were once rowdy and hard to control become timid, unsure. The change in dynamic between the struggling class powers isn't something that the students are used to, and so they find it difficult to come to terms with. Even the wise-cracking teenage 'rebel' is at a loss for words when the teacher begins his rant, decimating the students one by one.

In comparison to films like Freedom Writers and Dangerous minds, where teachers win over the hearts of even the most unruly students in order to teach them and help them rise above their intellectual ditch, this film takes an entirely different approach, where the teacher is initially a good teacher who relates to the students but eventually is forced to acknowledge what he believes to be a hopeless situation. This film is more like Hamlet 2, though with much less tongue-in-cheek dialogue and without the happy ending. The teacher in Hamlet 2 has his wife leave him and his hopes largely dashed by fate, but instead of Mr. C from "The Teacher" who became deeply depressed and turned to alcoholism, he went on to direct the play to major success.

The film we prepared in class made a point to mock the concept of an all-knowing super teacher by making the teacher human, with all the human problems and things that go with it.

Scene 2

Mr. C has his head down at his desk, the bottle almost done lying next to him.

The class he is supposed to be teaching is completely silent.
Eventually one of his students comes up to him and timidly taps him on the shoulder.

He stirs and looks at the student.

Student: "Sir, are we having class today," she asks somewhat shyly.

Mr. C nods and waves her off, then gets up heavily, grabbing the bottle with him. He stumbles to the middle of class and takes a swig from the bottle, nearing depletion. Through a subtle slur, he begins ranting at the class.

You know what, yeah, yeah, we can have class now. Why not? I figure I can teach you kids a few things about life. Important things! Things they won't teach you in math or history, but stuff you need to know anyway! Who wants to learn!?

The class is silent.

He turns around a few times, then goes to an empty seat next to one of the smarter kids who pays attention in class.

You! You've got your life in front of you, don't you? 4.0 GPA and life's a fucking charm, huh? Well, let me tell you one thing (he takes another drink) about life. It sucks. You can be as good as they come, the best even, and then life will still come around with misery in tow. You think it's hard now, but you're in high school? What do you know?

He notices a couple of students talking across the room and stumbles over to sit next to them.

Yeah, yeah, gossip all you want, talk about your bullshit prom and johnny from down the hallway who was making eyes with you last period. Look at you. Vain and simple, and you know what? No one cares. No one will ever care. The only thing you'll ever be good for in life is filling space. So keep on keepin' on, girlie, it doesn't get much better than this!

He finally stumbles over to the rebellious kid and finishes the bottle.

Mr. Hot shit himself. You want to run this class, well go ahead. You think you can do it, every day, dealing with shit like you? You don't have a goddamn clue. Have fun in prison, lowlife. Say hi to my pops for me, will ya?

With this, he leaves, slamming the door as he goes out.

The class is quiet for a minute, but quickly resume its chatter.

HW 45

Between Hirsch and Sizer, the debate seems to stress what the content of classes should truly be about. "Students should be able to read and know basic number facts by the end of the first grade." Hirsch argues that students should be prepared with common knowledge early, and that they should stress the student's ability to retain and recite necessary information. Hirsch maintains that this kind of number-crunching and basic understanding of literacy will be adequate preparation for the concrete, regimented workforce.

Sizer would argue that this basic information is necessary up until high school, where Sizer says "Students should leave school as well-informed skeptics, able to ask good questions as a matter of habit." Sizer's entire point is that students should not only know things but be able to understand them and question what makes them tick. Sizer's main argument with Hirsch is that his form of education is to focused on simple knowledge, with not enough focus on understanding and questioning.

1. Do these theories contradict each other? Intellectually, emotionally, practically? In what ways do they? Could they be adapted to work together?

I think that in a practical way of thinking, Hirsch's method of schooling benefits the student greater when they are trying to join the workforce and when they work jobs that require less broad thinking and more repetition and recalling fact. I also think that this method is more emotionally draining, as the students are just forced to crunch information and recite and repeat as they are told. There is little room in this method for dreaming and growing intellectually. Sizer's method of thinking of things as developmental and curious benefits the student's natural wonder for things, and urges the students to push deeper and really marinate in their thoughts, always rethinking and re-imagining why they are taught what they are, and how it can ultimately benefit them.

2. Which of the two theories do you find more resonant in your own experience? Has your education at one of Sizer's schools (he not only inspired SOF, he also came and visited) taught you to use your mind well, to be intellectually alert, to be able to think about important aspects of your life and society? Have you had any teachers that seemed inspired, now that you know about it, by Hirsch? For instance, would you say that the chemistry class's focus on molarity and ions and the periodic table of elements create an emphasis on knowledge?

I can clearly see the general Sizer method that we have in place at SOF. We are told to think, to question, to seek insight and meaning in our work. I feel that this is mostly prevalent in our history and english classes. We have a lot of work that involves reflecting on our own work, and even much of that is pushed to be creative in terms of how we present it. Even our exhibitions are Sizeresque. We employ the habits of mind to draw as much meaning from source material as possible. Point of view is one of the biggest concepts we learn to use in papers and presentations, and is useful information to carry with us into real life outside of school.

I used to go to a catholic school, and now that I know these methods, I can see clearly how my old school was a Hirsch dream school. We had everything regimented. The seating order, the material, and the pace at which we moved in our lessons allowed little forgiveness for kids who needed extra help or kids who were ahead of the curve. Hirsch's narrow focus on basic information only really appeals to students in the middle 50 percentile, whereas the top and bottom 25%s get left out.

3. What additional points does reading these theorists make you think of, about your own education and philosophy?

I think that if I had been offered the choice between the two methods of teaching when I was young, I ould certainly have picked Sixer's approach. Sizer seeks genuine learning and understanding of topics, and allows for thought in the classroom. I feel the Hirsch does the opposite. Of course, I am naturally inclined to think so because I go to a Sizer school, and there are many people who would disagree with me, but I feel personally it is more beneficial for me to be allowed to dream and rationalize my own thoughts in my own way.

Flashback scene

Script for teacher film

In class flashback

Teacher: You see, much of early american writing largely focused on man's basic need for his fellow man,

Disruptive student: Yo that's mad gay! (laughter)

Teacher (continuing): Early american poets like Walt Whitman chose to exemplify the basic understanding for one another that people have by simply walking alongside them on a crowded new York city street. Whitman wrote many 'walking poems' in which the concept was that everyone is connected, separate only by our innate awkwardness.

Rebellious Student: That's full of shit- I think that insights from dead poets dont relate in our current context where we have things like cell phones, AIM, and other shit that keeps us totally connected to our friends, the important people in our lives. Whitman had nothing better to do than walk around the city, so of course he wanted to make it sound more interesting.

Teacher: That's a fair point- there isn't much to be said for interpersonal communication when people have all these multimedia devices keeping them synced into one anothers lives all day long. But think about it. When you are texting or calling whoever it is you talk to, you miss out on everything around you. The only way to make any new friends is to spend some time away from the old ones. Go outside and talk to people for once. In fact, the odds are that you're too afraid to do what these dead poets have done, and you feel much safer with your cell phone security blanket.

Class: Ooooooooohhhhh!

Homework 47 - Ideas

I think that to address the idea of the super-teacher without being to dry and too cliche, we need to stir up the original formula so that it's still appealing, but at least a little bit more....colorful.

1.) For shooting, since we are already filming at amateur status, we can accomplish the idea of a somewhat grainy, low-level feel to the setting and tone.

2.) I really like the idea of switch lighting. By that I mean that we should begin in a dark place, dimly lit (by sunlight through windows to send the message of being partially separate from 'the light') and with a low, somber tone. Scene switches can work through flashbacks to better days, where the light will pick up, and thus the tone as well.

3) I think the teacher needs earthly flaws that will ultimately exemplify the good characteristics of his, well, character. Alcoholism, while cliche, shows the mortality of the protagonist and the demons he/she deals with.

4) Nothing draws audiences closer to the character than empathy. I want to play up that concept- there has to be some major tragedy in the life of super teacher. Perhaps his fiance dies, or his wife, or his best friend. I really feel like it has to be a genuine tragedy, which means death, or some kind of finality. It can't be cancer, because while tragic, cancer patients have some small hope of recovery, or remission. Death is the way to go, which in turn can drive him/her to alchoholism.

5) Several key students. We have had the rebel student exemplified in every movie we've watched, and while he typically has a good supporting cast, he obviously leads. I want class rivalries between dynamically opposed characters. Conflict is key/ we can't have a dull script.

6) Teacher social life. If the teacher has friends and people to meet and be with, he's like us. He goes out on friday nights to do as he pleases, and he has things to do that are important to him. If he has a booming social cirlce, we all like him more. He can't be sop devoted to his class that the social conflict comes from lack of attention to the important people in his life.

Hw 48 - Treatment on the teacher film

An empty classroom, the lights turned off, with only the natural light of the bright sun shining through the somewhat dirty windows lighting the room. Once-great teacher is at his desk, packing his possessions into a cardboard file box. His demeanor reflects a great burden almost physically weighing him down. He picks up a picture of his late girlfriend. He decides to sit down for a minute, to collect himself for the rest of the day. From the bottom drawer of his desk, he pulls a bottle of liquor and a small glass. Pouring himself a few fingers of the murky liquid, he leans back in his chair and closes his eyes. Everything is quiet. The only sounds are his breathing.

Flash back to some previous time. The teacher is in the middle of class, demonstrating to his students the significance of interpersonal relationships. Some of the students are jaded in typical teenage fashion, and make it obvious to the class their distaste for the material. Amongst scoffing and snickers from the 'rebellious' crowd, the teacher maintains his calm, cool state. Eventually one student interrupts his presentation to interject a remarkably insightful, if rude, comment. The teacher pauses to think, then responds in kind, with insightful advice layered in a sarcastic coating. The class laughs as a whole, and the teacher resumes his lecture.

Back to present. Teacher has the bottle half finished, and sitting behind his desk, he puts his head down into his hands and sobs.

Homework 42

I think the concept of tracking classes is a healthy one; but it's important to know where to draw the line. Being in a tracked class, I can attest to the power of assembling students who are close in academic range to one another. I would put myself in the 50th percentile amongst my classmates, so being behind some, but ahead of some as well. When grouped with people who can understand the material when I myself may not necessarily grasp it completely, I feel myself encouraged to work harder to get a better grasp on the material. However, I feel that to mix classes too largely would throw off the balance; there would be a certain rift in the formula, with some students so far behind they give up, disheartened by the 'smarter' students, and at the same time, the 'smart' kids are so far ahead they aren't feeling challenged enough. I feel that tracking works best by isolating the highest percentile and grouping them together, with a max of a 10% difference. By this I mean grouping children from between the 99th percentile to the 89th percentile, and so on, and so on. By maintaining classes with students withing reachable intellectual range of one another, growth is not only encouraged by teachers, but truthfully sought after by the students themselves. Tell a smart kid that they aren't quite as smart as their peer, and they will strive until they feel that it is no longer the case. Same goes for any kid who is in the same grouping.

Blog 41

I am attempting research into the eternal questions that all parents invariably face; is it ultimatley better to put my child in a private or a public school? Parents are told to weigh the options, looking for what they feel would be best appropriate for their own kids. Personally, I came into public school at 8th grade, having a solid 8 years in a parochial private school. (Well, actually two parochial private schools) I know the essential gist of ow these two systems can operate, and so I understand the selling points that come with both of them.

My internet research turned up some interesting articles;

http://www.publicschoolreview.com/articles/5 - an article that chooses to focus on the balance of pros and cons in both systems

http://www.greatschools.org/find-a-school/defining-your-ideal/private-vs-public-schools.gs?content=59 - a somehwat shortsighted, yet relevant article focused more on the reasons why the debate is even a debate

I recently read an article in Page 11 magazine in this past Sunday New York Times that, while not relevant to my research question, was still an interesting perspective on schools. I wasn't able to track it down online, but essentially the article spoke of a legislator in one of the western states who proposed getting rid of the whole senior year of high school. The journalist who wrote the article was heavily biased towards the concept of getting rid of the "unnecessary" year and generally heavily opposed to teenagers in general. I somewhat agree with the idea of only three years of high school, but at the same time, I understand the opposition. (The idea was met with overwhelming disdain) To leave high school friends beind is no easy task for a high schooler, and senior year is the buffer that makes it easier. This is the last time we all spend together, so why not make it last?

Blog 40

Interviews With People About School (No Imaginative Title today.)

Interview With P. McCarthy (Dad)

Do you think that students get a better education from a private institution or a public one? Why?

Private. Less children in a classroom, the private school system have more resources, and therefore better equipped to provide. Public schools are to tied by bureaucracy, and while they may be fantastic individually, they fall down together.

How important do you value education for your children? To what lengths would you go to achieve the best possible level of education?

On a scale of 1-10? 10. It's not the lengths that I would go, it's the lengths my children are willing to go. Parents don't educate kids, they just put them in a position where they can be educated.

What do you think of homeschool?

I thinks it's highly impractical. Somebody then has to be at home, and that person has to be better educated in most disciples than ordinary teachers.

I think kids that aren't self motivated, for them it doesn't matter what school they go to. They're either intellectually curious or they aren't.

Can you make a kid intellectually curious?

not that i know of, schools offer a various selection of branches of intellectual curiosity, and its up to the kids to find them interesting. A certain amount of that has to do with what you do with your kids as they are young, ie reading to them or something.

If it would present a better opportunity for students to learn would you move?

provided that they were self motivate,d I would absolutely move. I think that tuition also shouldn't be a barrier from preventing kids from reaching their maximum potential.

What material do you think is the best to teach students?
Should they cater to an individual interest?

schools should have a well rounded curriculum, broad-based. at least for high school level, and college becomes the place where they can choose their own individual paths.

What do you think of the broad based material that we all tend to learn in high school? what kind of relevance does it hold for you, an adult out of college?

you can have a conversation with anyone; you dont have to be like duh. it makes you articulate and able to hold up in conversation. the stuff that is important lasts, the stuff that gets used lasts.

Get schooled

Good song to listen to about school - Signal the Riflemen by Say Anything

Questions
1.) Why do we put so much faith in teachers to show us how to do things 'properly', even though they are truly only students of other students?

2.) Why don't we learn about what's relevant to our lives personally? Why do we sit through hours of muck instead of getting life teachings?

3.) Why don't teachers secede that they are learning at the same time we all are? Why not admit that they haven't actually got it all figured out?

Ideas
1.) School is really just a place to herd youth together in a single place in order to subject to the vicious opinions of the board of education.

2.) School is also a place where we can unite with one another under a common banner, where we can find a common enemy and good friends.

3.) A place where if you lock in and focus on success in the system, you can do wel and later on in life get a good paying job and stable living.

Experiences

Done With cool

Cool, like we from the monkeys, has evolved over time. James Dean was your now-cliché leather jacket style cool. Guns N' Roses were the edgy, hair-band rock lifestyle cool that is still so popular in rock music. Kid CuDi is the new-school class clown and pothead cool kid. While these different examples have certain separating factors, the most important part of their 'cool' pose is that which they all have in common; they perform the role of unique individuals who say screw you to 'the man' in order to do 'what they love'. The trend of being edgy and rebellious has been the universal slogan for cool regardless of what movement it was. From the Greasers to the Hipsters of williamsburg Coolness has, despite generational gaps, remained largely unchanged by the times. The same general ideas of cool that were held 50 years ago are still maintained, and we only see more and more aspects being tacked on to the 'cool' cork board. Examining trends of cool in the past and comparing them alongside views held today, we might be able to get a look at where cool came from, and even where its going.

My closest tie to the generation immediately prior to my own for me is my father. Having conversations with him about what life was like for him growing up gives me some minor insight into what it meant to be cool as a teenager growing up in fairly rural Ireland in the 70s. He was alive at the right time to catch the flame of the punk movement across western Europe. Bands like the Sex Pistols were gaining their fame and causing quite a ruckus for the old Catholic folk in Ireland. dad recalls times that he'd overhear other parents talk furiously about the punks who came through town, playing shows literally on trash can lids and beaten up instruments, almost for the simple sake of making noise. It was an outlet for teen angst like there never had been, and it was an embodiment of cool as we've seen it before; pretending that you don't give a fuck, that you run your own life, that you don't have to take shit from anyone....at least until you get to be 30, settle down in a respectable field, and put your 'rock days' behind you. Cool is a fickle beast, only around as long as you are young enough for it to be considered a 'phase'.

The concept of cool in the past was direct rebellion against the previous generation. Your parents were working-class stiffs, and you wanted to break out of their mold as much as possible, so that means that you had to act as different as you could from them. You had the hippies, son of 'war heroes', then punks, sons of once hippies, then there was a grunge movement, and a hip hop movement. What we are left with is a current generation of people descended from groups who have been through their own variations on what they found cool. Of course, their are always a few catches. I myself am the son of parents who were influenced partially by the punk craze in europe, but who eventually migrated to America. my parents had, whether they know it or not, a sense of exploration and need to be different that was at least partially instilled in them by what they were subject to in Ireland. The full extent of the evolution of cool is in families who have lived in america for generations, families who have had their members in many of the historical cool periods.

Take an example for the sake of argument; family living in suburban california in the 60s; their teenage child is heavily swayed by the hippy culture, something that was heavily congregated is california at the time. That teenager grew up to eventually cast aside his hippy inclinations and 'settle down' with a family. (let's say they moved to New York to settle.) His child, by now the late 70s or early 80s, will be heavily influenced by punk rock and hair metal music, giving him a new mentality that is more aggressively 'fuck the man' than the hippies would have been. At the same time, he could be influenced by rap and hip-hop music, still carrying a very aggressive sense of removal from societal normalcy. He grows up, again likely settling down with family and kids, then his kid grows up in the 90s. The early 90s was the Kurt Cobain period; grunge, the kind of apathetic, subtly rebellious tones of angsty teenagers. Punk was still strong at the time, but it was growing more angsty as well. Everyone had problems they wanted voiced, and found the voice in this music. I would say that this is the first example of a mold that is half-complete; they weren't entirely sure of who they were or even wanted to be, and this might have helped ease the turmoil they all felt.

Those specific people are still growing up, but those who have already have the kids of my generation, and we are exposed now to a lot of pop music, a lot of it centered on drugs and sexuality, with people like Lady Gaga, Kid Cudi, and more. We have perhaps less guidance than nay other group, and more cool memes to choose from. If I had to label our cool group it would be the indie ages, where everyone wants to jump on the indie bandwagon and show how edgy and different they are. We are a time of hipsters and parties in Williamsburg, of wearing cardigans and dress shoes with plastic neon glasses, of trying to be cool in our difference, without realizing that we aren't the first to try it.

To conclude, in some sort of cliché wrap-up sentiment, we're just like we have always been - looking for some recognition where everyone else just sees anonymity. We want to stand out, be bold and daring, but not necessarily isolated. We want to be loved and appreciated by all, while claiming we want none of it. Except we don't realize that James Dean did it first, or at least did it best the earliest, and we can't bring a fresh approach, because at this point, it's all scripted.

Take 3, and action....

Triangle comments

To John
Thesis: Cool is a role, and we are but actors on a stage, performing not only to an audience, but to ourselves as well. (I also thought i got some idea of frustration in your words.)

1.) We think that being 'cool' is being different, approaching life differntly, with new perspectives. However, coolness in itself, the quest for it, kind of limits ourselves to only what we see and percieve as cool. There are no new perceptions in cool, only borrowed ones.

+ I thought you might also want to add that the perspective on cool changes based on what group you perform to.

2.) Corporations see profit in coolness; they hunt down the mask-wearers and take the masks to sell. After some time, they find ne things to hunt after, continuing in an endless cycle

+ an example would be very strong here

I liked it a lot, altogether. I would only say that you might want to approach it a little calmer than you seem to now - you sound vindictive.

Cool, like we from the monkeys, has evolved over time. James Dean was your now-cliché leather jacket style cool. Guns N' Roses were the edgy, hair-band rock lifestyle cool that is still so popular in rock music. Kid CuDi is the new-school class clown and pothead cool kid. While these different examples have certain separating factors, the most important part of their 'cool' pose is that which they all have in common; they perform the role of unique individuals who say screw you to 'the man' in order to do 'what they love'. The trend of being edgy and rebellious has been the universal slogan for cool regardless of what movement it was. From the Greasers to the Hipsters of williamsburg Coolness has, despite generational gaps, remained largely unchanged by the times. The same general ideas of cool that were held 50 years ago are still maintained, and we only see more and more aspects being tacked on to the 'cool' cork board. Examining trends of cool in the past and comparing them alongside views held today, we might be able to get a look at where cool came from, and even where its going.

My closest tie to the generation immediately prior to my own for me is my father. Having conversations with him about what life was like for him growing up gives me some minor insight into what it meant to be cool as a teenager growing up in fairly rural Ireland in the 70s. He was alive at the right time to catch the flame of the punk movement across western Europe. Bands like the Sex Pistols were gaining their fame and causing quite a ruckus for the old Catholic folk in Ireland. dad recalls times that he'd overhear other parents talk furiously about the punks who came through town, playing shows literally on trash can lids and beaten up instruments, almost for the simple sake of making noise. It was an outlet for teen angst like there never had been, and it was an embodiment of cool as we've seen it before; pretending that you don't give a fuck, that you run your own life, that you don't have to take shit from anyone....at least until you get to be 30, settle down in a respectable field, and put your 'rock days' behind you. Cool is a fickle beast, only around as long as you are young enough for it to be considered a 'phase'.

The concept of cool in the past was direct rebellion against the previous generation. Your parents were working-class stiffs, and you wanted to break out of their mold as much as possible, so that means that you had to act as different as you could from them. You had the hippies, son of 'war heroes', then punks, sons of once hippies, then there was a grunge movement, and a hip hop movement. What we are left with is a current generation of people descended from groups who have been through their own variations on what they found cool. Of course, their are always a few catches. I myself am the son of parents who were influenced partially by the punk craze in europe, but who eventually migrated to America. my parents had, whether they know it or not, a sense of exploration and need to be different that was at least partially instilled in them by what they were subject to in Ireland. The full extent of the evolution of cool is in families who have lived in america for generations, families who have had their members in many of the historical cool periods. Take an example for the sake of argument; family living in suburban california in the 60s; their teenage child is heavily swayed by the hippy culture, something that was heavily congregated is california at the time. That teenager grew up to eventually cast aside his hippy inclinations and 'settle down' with a family. (let's say they moved to New York to settle.) His child, by now the late 70s or early 80s, will be heavily influenced by punk rock and hair metal music, giving him a new mentality that is more aggressively 'fuck the man' than the hippies would have been. At the same time, he could be influenced by rap and hip-hop music, still carrying a very aggressive sense of removal from societal normalcy. He grows up, again likely settling down with family and kids, then his kid grows up in the 90s. The early 90s was the Kurt Cobain period; grunge, the kind of apathetic, subtly rebellious tones of angsty teenagers. Punk was still strong at the time, but it was growing more angsty as well. Everyone had problems they wanted voiced, and found the voice in this music. I would say that this is the first example of a mold that is half-complete; thye weren't entirely sure of who they were or even wanted to be, and this might have helped ease the turmoil they all felt. Those specific people are still growing up, but those who have already have the kids of my generation, and we are exposed now to a lot of pop music, a lot of it centered on drugs and sexuality, with people like Lady Gaga, Kid Cudi, and more. We have perhaps less guidance than nay other group, and more cool memes to choose from. If I had to label our cool group it would be the indie ages, where everyone wants to jump on the indie bandwagon and show how edgy and different they are. We are a time of hipsters and parties in Williamsburg, of wearing cardigans and dress shoes with plastic neon glasses, of trying to be cool in our difference, without realizing that we aren't the first to try it.

Argument 3: Cross-examining those older ideas with the current ideas.

Cool Paper Draft

James Dean was your now-cliché leather jacket style cool. Guns N' Roses were the edgy, hair-band rock lifestyle cool that is still so popular in rock music. Kid CuDi is the new-school class clown and pothead cool kid. While these different examples have certain separating factors, the most important part of their 'cool' pose is that which they all have in common; they perform the role of unique individuals who say screw you to 'the man' in order to do 'what they love'. The trend of being edgy and rebellious has been the universal slogan for cool regardless of what movement it was. From the Greasers to the Hipsters of williamsburg Coolness has, despite generational gaps, remained largely unchanged by the times. The same general ideas of cool that were held 50 years ago are still maintained, and we only see more and more aspects being tacked on to the 'cool' cork board. Examining trends of cool in the past and comparing them alongside views held today, we might be able to get a look at where cool came from, and even where its going.

My closest tie to the generation immediately prior to my own for me is my father. Having conversations with him about what life was like for him growing up gives me some minor insight into what it meant to be cool as a teenager growing up in fairly rural Ireland in the 70s. He was alive at the right time to catch the flame of the punk movement across western Europe. Bands like the Sex Pistols were gaining their fame and causing quite a ruckus for the old Catholic folk in Ireland. dad recalls times that he'd overhear other parents talk furiously about the punks who came through town, playing shows literally on trash can lids and beaten up instruments, almost for the simple sake of making noise. It was an outlet for teen angst like there never had been, and it was an embodiment of cool as we've seen it before; pretending that you don't give a fuck, that you run your own life, that you don't have to take shit from anyone....at least until you get to be 30, settle down in a respectable field, and put your 'rock days' behind you. Cool is a fickle beast, only around as long as you are young enough for it to be considered a 'phase'.


Argument 2: Results of independent research conducted into trending topics of times past.

Argument 3: Cross-examining those older ideas with the current ideas.

Cool Paper Outline

Potential thesis: Coolness has, despite generational gaps, remained largely unchanged by the times. The same general ideas of cool that were held 50 years ago are still maintained, and we only see more and more aspects being tacked on to the 'cool' cork board. Examining trends of cool in the past and comparing them alongside views held today, we might be able to get a look at where cool came from, and even where its going.

Argument 1: Back in my day..... Interviews with members of the generation immediately previous to our own, examining their perspective on cool.

Argument 2: Results of independent research conducted into trending topics of times past.

Argument 3: Cross-examining those older ideas with the current ideas.

Ink Me

I guess that I should start by saying that I am a fans of tattoos. I plan to get a few over the course of my life. I can tell you why I want to, even a general idea of what they might be. That being said, I do think that there is still a lot to be said for the kinds of people who wear tattoos. At it's basest point, the practice of tattooing oneself is a kind of attention-grabbing. People will deliberately put a sign on their skin to demonstrate something to people, to show them something, some part of what they consider essential to themselves. So many of the people who have tattoos say that they just like the design, that they found it pretty or interesting, or 'cool'. There's truth in that; of course you find it interesting, moving. But to say that that is the only reason for permanently dying your skin is shallow, not really reaching the whole reason of things. People think it's cool because it ties back to the fundamental ideas of what is and what isn't cool. The literal image transplanted on your person ties to the intangible image of being cool. Tattoos that are represented as visages of toughness or with intricate tribal connections are taken to be cool, while a tattoo of something like, say, a flower, are typically not 'cool'. Particularly for men-the dynamic changes when women are concerned.

There are still things to be said about the positive nature of tattoos. It has been true for several cases that peoples' tattoos are representative of periods of time in peoples' lives that were particularly challenging or difficult, and the tattoo implies your victory over the hurdle. Sometimes people get tattoos to serve as a constant reminder; people put quotes, specific symbols, and other things that carry a dual meaning for themselves as opposed to other people. A personal example with regards to myself is Occam's Razor. I plan to tattoo the phrase onto my body at some point or another over the course of my life. Occam's Razor, for people unfamiliar with the concept, basically means "the simplest answer is usually the right one". A personal reminder to myself to never overcomplicate things, as I usually tend to do so. It also carries significance with regards to memories of my father. While tattoos may literally be skin-deep, the implications often stretch far deeper than that which we first perceive.