The Man Carrying the Cross

source

 This photography piece is by Wing Young Huie. It is a visual representation of the phrase 'Everyone has a cross to bare'. The photo does not have a location specified. Huie did not tell the audience where he took the photo. But he did take the photo in 2018 and published it to his website.
       
         When you first look at the photograph you see a man holding a cross and walking. He seems to be in a rural setting based on the lack of houses and buildings. The photo is also blurry which was done intentionally by Huie. The photo is not focusing on any one person or setting.

         When looking at the photo more in depth there is a religious meaning behind the man. The Bible calls for everyone to pick up his/her cross and carry it. That is the one way into Heaven. The cross for Christians symbolizes the sins in peoples' lives, and carrying it shows we acknowledge and remember how people in the past literally carried the crosses they would die on. This photo shows how all people will have a cross to bare no matter what type of person you are such as gender, social status, etc.

        In both the photograph and 'The Handmaids Tale' there is a concept of "othering." Having the man carry a large cross shows he has many sins which singles him out of the group. The photo also has only one person in the frame and that is to further separate him from the group. In 'The Handmaids Tale' Offred is made an other by her outfit.What she wears creates a barrier between her and the other women in Gilead. In Huie's photo it shows a barrier that is typically unseen. Carrying a cross is usually an inward journey. In 'The Handmaids Tale' all the barriers between the women can be physically seen. Unlike the photo the barriers in Gilead will always be out in the open and cannot be hidden. Though similarly both barriers are religious. 

     For more information about Huie's artwork go here.


     

Comparisons of the Two Covers

 The book 1984 is a book that talks about the growing issue of communism in Europe. The book is set in London with a government who strives to ensure uniformity among the people and will go to any measure to ensure that uniformity. The two covers pictured on each side represent two different meanings of the book.

           The one key difference is the font of 1984 and George Orwell. The cover on the left is more sloppily written than the cover on the right. The one on the right is much more standard. The one on the left is significant because it may signify crimethink and other people Big Brother wants to keep quiet and who have spoken up against the government like Emmanuel Goldstein. The one on the right is more in the style of Big Brother. The 1984 and the George Orwell are all standard font as if the cover was created by one person in one place then mass produced. The cover is sticking with the government’s ideal of uniformity and no individualism.

        Another key difference is what is on each of the covers. The left cover is an eye made up of people and in the center a person by himself. The right cover has everyone dressed in the party uniform. By having everyone dressed in the party uniform it shows that no one is going against Big Brother or are in any way different. The uniformity gives two impressions. Either the people are being brainwashed and forced to be the same or it is a place where everything and everyone is happy and good. But when compared to the one on the left which has everyone in blue form a circle around a person dressed red, the blue people end up making the shape of an eye like they are watching the man who is sticking out. 

           The government does not approve of people sticking out or being individuals in any way, so that eye of people represents how everyone is spying on each other to possibly turn them into the Thought Police. Everyone in Oceania is watched and is watching everyone, so the eye symbolizes the norm people go through on a daily basis. Colors are extremely important because each color is automatically associated with a different emotion or feeling.  The color of the eye is also important. Blue is often associated with negative emotions, mostly sadness. By having everyone who is looking at the man colored as blue this could symbolize that they dislike watching. They do not want to  continually watch people and have people watch them. Having the one man in the center colored  red could signify that even though he is cast out of the party he has more freedom and is much more happy. This is because red is associated with positive emotions and in this case that emotion would be happiness.

            The last key difference between the two covers are the meanings. The meaning of the one on the right is individualism and is promoting the possibility of a rebellion against Big Brother. The nonstandard font is used to show that there is hope and people can be different. The other cover wants to get across that everyone has to be the same. That is what Big Brother wants to accomplish and what was happening in the world with the spread of communist countries. That cover gave the more realistic approach while the other one gives hope for the people and hope for democracy. 

If you would like to learn more about the book go to this link

   

Childhood poverty

source

\             We pass them everyday. Holding the signs asking for help whether that be in monetary form or giving them supplies. Children are the most helpless out of all of us. Yet we leave them to face poverty.  Don't worry there is a simple solution to fix this problem.
   
The solution is simply to place all the children with families. In the United States the are 15 million children and 21% improvised with their family's incomes below the below the federal poverty threshold. The children without stable families will just be dropped off with stable families at random. There are plenty of couples and families who have no children and have money, so children living in poverty will have to join new families. This would solve the solution of orphans who are usually impoverished so there would be no need for organizations like the charity Kristin Chenoweth started. 
     
   That is the solution if the children have no family. If the children have a family we can just give them free meals for the rest of their lives. I mean if they can'y pay for the food why should they. The families need not have to pay if they have no money. Just image the skeleton of the children of begging for the food on the side of the street. If we give this meal deal to the children they won't be just skin and bones. 

     According to experts who have been consulted that best way to solve this issue is to do either of these solutions. The solutions I have presented are widely accepted and used. If you don't enact them you are part of the minority and are hurting the children. 

Dear Evan Hansen

Source

Theatre in the past was used to spread messages, start conversations, and bring up topics that people may have been uncomfortable with. Broadway has turned away from that and turned to light-hearted and fun stories. The theatre is a place to escape reality. Now Broadway is turning back to telling stories that may be uncomfortable to hear but need to be heard. The show Dear Evan Hansen takes extremely delicate and serious topics and forces the audience to think and talk about them.

The show is about teen suicide and alienation in high school. The show is not shy about tiptoeing around topics that may upset the audience. It tells the story of a family of boy who committed suicide and how they all react and cope differently. Then it shows how his classmates, who had never seen as anything other than a freak, suddenly remember him and talk about how they knew him. Evan meet Connor Murphy, the boy who died, at school where they were both outcasts. Connor, during their short interaction, signed Evan’s arm cast and said “that way they can both pretend to have a friend."

Dear Evan Hansen uses social media and the internet to show how information can spread like wildfire and there is little people can do to know of it is true or not. Evan Hansen has extremely low self esteem, and major social anxiety. He has no friends, and people always seem to look through him and never at him. His mother is also never home due to working many nursing shifts and then going to classes to get a type of law degree.

The second time Connor and Evan meet at the school computer lab. Connor takes a letter that Evan wrote to himself signed “sincerely me” to help with his self esteem as prescribed by his therapist. In the letter there were some things about Connor’s sister, Zoe. Connor’s family  finds the letter in his pocket after he is found dead. This leads Evan to lying to Caleb’s family and the world about being his best friend just so he and Connor’s memory will not go back to being ignored. He knows what it is like to be ignored and works to make sure that no one feels that way again. Evan enlists the whole school to spreads that message via social media, and the internet

  Most people know how serious teen suicide and alienation is but do not talk about these topics. Dear Evan Hansen makes these topics public knowledge, which I believe is an important step. This opens the door for conversations about teen suicide, anxiety and alienation as well as enforcing the precedent that Broadway can make shows that are not just lighthearted, but about serious topics.  

Using theatre to open the conversation about real-life, difficult topics is one way art impacts our lives in positive ways. Whether you agree or not with the situations, shows like Dear Evan Hansen shines a light on societal issues.

For more information about how this book, turned Broadway show, now turning movie go here

Groupon Commercial 2019

Actress Tiffany Haddish

            Superbowl Ads are as much an American past time as football itself. The newest, funniest and most effective ads are talked about for weeks before and after their Superbowl debut. This year's group of Superbowl Ads included a series of ads with a fresh take on the usual formula.

The Groupon Commercial is one of the shorter commercials that was on during the Super Bowl. The commercial length, though short, had many aspects that made you remember it. One of those is using a memorable spokesperson --actress/comedian Tiffany Haddish, who appears in every one of the commercials.

The producers and directors were trying to make people remember the commercial by using comedy. Like the part when the football player kicked the football at the rich man in the mansion or the way Tiffany talks about what is going on in the commercial.

By using a well known actress the audience who knows her will be more likely to watch more ads. But the celebrity endorsement is different than how you normally see it. Usually it's a celebrity just saying I love this, or this is amazing because..., but in the Groupon commercial Haddish is just walking down the street, and she is retelling to the audience what has happened. Then she says tells us why she uses the product.

There is also the incorporation of her being a plain or just a normal person. Even though she has some fame from acting on television shows and being a comedian, Haddish is walking down an ordinary street just talking. It seems like something anyone would do. The Groupon commercial exaggerates the other situations. The rich, white man, who lives in a mansion, was a clear stereotype. He wants the best of the best and so he would never use Groupon. But the commercial shows that it is for everyone and that everyone needs Groupon.

Tiffany Haddish is a famous comedian, and the commercial uses that strength to get the audience to remember her and her remarks. Her asking, “Who doesn’t like supporting local businesses,” is a rhetorical question. She is hoping and expecting after her talk that people will care about local businesses. Again the older white man is a stereotype and makes fun of how corporate business owners think or how any CEO of a company thinks.  The commercial is trying to change the mind of people of all ages but is more geared towards the older generation because their way of thinking tends to be more old fashioned.


If you want to watch some of what Tiffany Haddish has done in her career go this wbsite

Reasons America should have not Declared War on Britain in 1812

source

The War of 1812 did not end with America taking Canada. It also did not end with the British retaking America. America took a great risk by declaring war on the British. The British were stronger than the Americans, had more war experience, and had more victories than losses under their belt. That is why America should have not gotten involved in international affairs at this point. The Americans were lacking severely in their army and naval forces. The Americans had 6,000 men in the standing army and 16 ships total to make up their navy. Then there was the British who had 250,000 men and 500 ships.
This was also a time when the British were extremely weak due to fighting Napoleon in France. If that was the British weak -- with numbers that far outnumbered the Americans -- why would we attack them and risk them gaining strength in the event of victory. Thus proving if America wished to go to war, it should have continued the Embargo it has on Britain to “buff up” or strengthen its army.

The economy in 1812 was not at its best. It fell in the west and south when the Embargo backfired on them.The Revolution was still being paid off, and America still faced debts. To fight a war which would cost us more, force taxes to raise, and stop trading because the fighting would be done along the coast would only cause the economy more harm than good. Americans living on the coast were now making money and providing a steady income, but that was only recent. To start fighting where Americans trade and are currently making the most gains would be unreasonable.

The War Hawks of the South and West say America had to fight for its honor, but is honor worth dying over. The British did disrespect our maritime trade, but so did France. The only reason we didn’t declaring war on France and Napoleon is because America promised to embargo the enemy of whoever said they would stop disrespecting us. There was also ways for America to get Britain out of their trading business peacefully. Honor and disrespect do not factor into why America should go war. The Americans also want Canada on their side.The British from Canada supplied the natives out West to help them fight the Americans there. Having Canada would give Americans more land and resources, rid the Americans of the British and cut off the natives from getting supplies from the British.  The natives had been raiding villages and settlements out West out of fear of being pushed farther south. Their leader Tecumseh was aligned with the British to get guns, and other supplies. The raids were often violent. The American settlers out in the West feared for their safety and their families, so they wanted Canada to guarantee that the British would no longer be interfering.  
Just cutting off one supply, though, would not have stopped the natives from raiding. Even with the weapons gone the natives would have most likely still raided the western settlements. It just would have been without guns. And without the British. If natives were the issue and the ones raiding then do not wage war on Britain and cut of the food. Go straight for the head the first time. It would save men, money, and time.

In conclusion the Americans should have waited to go to war in 1812, not let pride and honor cloud their judgement. They should have considered the economy before declaring war on Britain. And kept their focus on the problems with the native people. These same mistakes are still being made when America considers conflicts and wars.

For more information on the War of 1812 go to this website.

How Power wore John Fitzgerald Kennedy to Exhaustion

       The painting shows that power weighs a person down. The power will become too much for the person to bear and it will make the person in power rethink all their decisions.  The painting is painted in a way where the viewer will be able to clearly see how the responsibility that comes with the power weighs a person down.

The power is shown as burden by lack of any vibrant colors. The only colors are dull, brown, and fade into each other. The colors show that power suck the life out of the president. With the lack of color it tells you that power also lead to his exhaustion.
With the colors all being shades of the same color it says that power leads to the same life. The life after stepping down is bleak. Also the way that the painter has JFK stands speaks to power.

JFK is not looking at the viewer, sideways, or up at all. He instead is looking down at the ground. Looking at the ground instead of up or at something tells that power is something that taxes heavily on the person. When people cross their arms it is often taken as a defensive stance. By having JFK stand this way, the painter shows that without this power JFK feels unprotected and the power of the presidency gives a sense of protection.

JFK is painted older than he was at the time.  The painter wanted to show how power ages a person. The decisions he had to make were not always the easiest and therefore made him age in ways that were not ways people wanted to age. He become wiser and more experienced through his terms, but the job did literally age him as well.  

The lack of a background shows power as something that will take away your future. The future is bleak just like the background, and the background of the painting shows how little hope for the future there is once you no longer have power.  The painting is saying that the power is your future and your key for the future in most cases. It is saying without power the opportunities in the future are small and there are a lot of them. In conclusion through all these different parts of a painting there is a clear argument that power is harsh on the person physically, mentally, and emotionally.
For more art by Aaron Shikler visit this link. He did the painting of JFK.