Landscape Character Assessment for Heritage Management

Landscape Character Assessment for Heritage Management In 200 words or less describe why landscape characterisation has over the past decade provided a significant new dimension to heritage management practice Landscape Characterisation has been described by English Heritage as ‘a powerful tool that provides a framework for broadening our understanding of the whole landscape and contributes to decisions affecting tomorrows landscape.’[1] Landscape characterisation enables archaeologists, landscape specialists, and conservationists to work together to manage change within landscapes, using a common source that compiles often disparate research into the character of landscapes into a unified and accessible ‘map’ of the area. For heritage management this development is particularly useful because it allows for a more comprehensive study of the area under management – such as the identifying, mapping and assessing of habitats. This allows for more careful consideration of development planning especially in semi-rural areas where land is sought for residential use. To better understand the character of a landscape is to learn how to best protect it and this of fers the potential for a better ‘case’ for preserving important and/ or historic features of landscapes. The process is unique as it helps to facilitate the compilation of data from a great variety of specific historical, archaeological, and paleontological sites onto internationally accessible databases – this information is then used to help professionals manage change within landscapes on a national scale. This information can be put to good use in heritage management, particularly in terms of resources for education and visitor information. Landscape characterisation also helps the cohesion and implementation of management action plans and facilitates the strategic conservation of heritage. It does this by providing a historical context for already existing descriptions and research on landscapes, thus developing the understanding of how to manage landscapes especially on a local and regional level. Issues that interact through the process of landscape chara cterisation include local development and its control, environmental issues, and government proposals. Its use has also widened the scope for heritage management practice as it provides valuable data for existing heritage programmes and assists in future proposals involving historic field systems. Using at least three examples describe the benefits and uses of characterisation for managing landscape change. Your examples can be either urban (eg. from the EUS and UAD programmes), rural (eg. HLC) or thematic, or a combination. Historic Landscape Characterization was first developed in Cornwall in 1994 and now runs as a well-established and major programme that has redefined work with spatial historic analyses (Clark et al, 2004). It has altered perceptions of how the historic environment should be managed and encourages professionals to take into consideration the greater historical timeframe of the landscape where development has been slow, rather than more recent changes which have tended to be more rapid and unsustainable. The approach does not attempt to set precedents – rather it aims to open up discussion of land-use and make accessible information that could influence contemporary decisions. The rural impact of landscape characterization work has much to do with methods of maintaining, conserving, and managing heritage – both geological, archaeological, and architectural heritage. As expressed by Clark et al in their publication for English Heritage: â€Å"The drawing of ‘red lines’ around parts of the historic landscape was seen to risk devaluing the areas outside of the line; most importantly, it was not clear what would  be achieved other than a flagging up of interest, an objective that can be reached more directly and clearly by other methods.†[2] In both Hampshire and Lancashire the programme is reshaping the approach towards heritage management by producing interactive GIS-based descriptions of the ‘historic dimension the time-depth that characterises [the] rural landscape.’[3] It benefits from being approved by and working in accordance with the European Landscape Convention; this shows that the approach is not only applicable to projects outside the UK but has been welcomed by foreign professionals and its value recognised. As much as the UK, Europe is experiencing the squeeze of development, especially in its rural areas, and HLC is useful as it specifically focuses on how to protect and manage these changing rural landscapes. It distinguishes itself from other methods as it has been identified as being more direct and clear than other methods.[4] Perhaps one of the greatest potential selling points of the programme is that it addresses a loophole in the system, whereby common rural land can become overlook ed – falling in a ‘gap’ between the safety of having visible buildings of obvious archaeological importance and being of special scientific importance or exceptional natural beauty. In many cases the historical importance gets overlooked. English Heritage prides itself on the useful amalgamation of ‘Historic Landscape Characterisation (HLC), run in partnership with County Council Sites and Monuments Records.’[5] Landscape characterisation is developing into one of the most useful and valuable resources in a society that promotes development and change, and which does so in response to the increasing demands being placed upon Britain’s landscape by the country’s economy and burgeoning population. As noted by Ucko and Layton[6] landscape character research is primarily driven by research objectives that require more in depth and comprehensive information about the landscape. For example, English Heritage need conservation-oriented information, while the planning system needs guidance, and land management decisions can rely upon the mapping of information to create landscapes of the future. A good example of how HLC is being used in the rural landscape can be seen in Suffolk, where a local Heritage Initiative has been overseeing a survey of the landscape that incorporates landscape mapping and photography. The objective of the initiative is to follow up a similar survey that was c onducted in 1999, and involves a partnership between the Womens Institute federations of East and West Suffolk, the local planning authorities in Suffolk and the Suffolk Coasts and Heaths Project Partnership.[7] This is a good example of what the process of landscape characterisation can bring to a community; it can promote the integration of otherwise separate governing bodies and social groups, and thus facilitates a more comprehensive understanding of the area. Different local Women’s Institute groups throughout Suffolk (about 75% of the total) surveyed the landscape and received training through events, a handbook, a leaflet and a video. The results of the study have been used to identify, rate, and type sources changes in the landscape between 1999 and 2004. The results were said to be assessed and analysed to ‘test the effectiveness of planning policies in protecting and enhancing landscape character.’[8] To aid community cohesion and promote the findings a n exhibition of the WI groups’ findings was created, as well as local exhibitions within each community that took part. At Creswell Crags near the Peak District a Management Action Plan has made use of landscape characterisation work within an ecological potentiality study that: Identifies, maps and assesses the management of existing areas of high quality habitat characteristic of the Heritage Area Identifies, maps and assesses the potential for linking and extending these areas of high quality habitat Identifies landscape characterisation work and its relationship to identification of potential for wildlife corridor links or extensions to major biodiversity nodes.[9] Again, this example shows the potential for working on an interdisciplinary basis where landscape character can help professionals from different academic backgrounds to work together in better understanding of the forces which shape and change our historic landscapes. English Heritage has also been researching extensively into historic fields and settlements in their project titled ‘Turning the Plough’ that culminated in a publication documenting the dramatic loss of mediaeval fields systems in the east Midlands. Using landscape character research the project results established that ‘the loss of these ridge and furrow landscapes is extreme’[10] and that English Heritage, DEFRA and other agencies have the ’urgent’ task of sustaining a future for what remains. These examples qualify the study of landscape character as a crucial development in the archaeology profession but also one that links archaeology to a number of other important areas, s uch as planning, community work, heritage management, and geology. It is important to recognise that landscape change occurs as a result of many different influences that the activities of mankind within the landscape reflect, embody, and destroy formations which owe their existence to much older geological processes. It is our choice whether we choose to preserve the record of human endeavour as shown by the mediaeval field system project ‘Turning the Plough’ and the extent to which we maintain and preserve the heritage of rural landscapes depends on the availability of funds, resources, and the efforts of professionals. Perhaps of more apparent concern is whether we do actually have a choice, or whether landscape change is accelerating beyond our control. These are some of the issues that projects involving landscape characterisation seek to address. Bibliography Clark, J, Darlington, J, and Fairclough, G, ‘Using Historic Land Characterization.’ (2002), English Heritage [online]. Available from:  http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/upload/pdf/a4report.pdf Countryside Agency, 2006 [online]. Available from:  http://www.lhi.org.uk/projects_directory/projects_by_region/east_of_england/suffolk/suffolk_changing_landscape/index.html  [Accessed 24/08/08] English Heritage, ‘Landscape Character.’ [online]. Available from:  http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/server/show/nav.1293  [Accessed 23/08/08] English Heritage. ‘Cresswell Crags Limestone Heritage Area’ [online]. Available from:  http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/server/show/conWebDoc.4112  [Accessed 24/08/08] Hall, D. (2001), Turning the Plough. Northamptonshire County Council [online]. Available from:  http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/upload/pdf/turning_plough.pdf. Full version available from:  http://www.northamptonshire.gov.uk/goto/openfields  [Accessed 24/08/08] Ucko, P.J, and Layton, R. (1999) The Archaeology and Anthropology of Landscape: Shaping Your Landscape. London: Routledge  1 [1] English Heritage, ‘Landscape Character.’ [online]. Available from:http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/server/show/nav.1293[Accessed 23/08/08] [2] Clark, J, Darlington, J, and Fairclough, G, ‘Using Historic Land Characterization.’ (2002), English Heritage, p.4. [3] English Heritage [online]: http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/server/show/nav.1293 [4] Clark et al, 2002: 2. [5] English Heritage [online]: http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/server/show/nav.1293 [6] Ucko, P.J, and Layton, R. (1999) The Archaeology and Anthropology of Landscape: Shaping Your Landscape. London: Routledge. [7] Countryside Agency, 2006 [online]. Available from:http://www.lhi.org.uk/projects_directory/projects_by_region/east_of_england/suffolk/suffolk_changing_landscape/index.html[Accessed 24/08/08] [8] Ibid. [9] ‘Cresswell Crags Limestone Heritage Area’ [online]. Available from:http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/server/show/conWebDoc.4112[Accessed 24/08/08] [10] Hall, D. (2001), Turning the Plough. Northamptonshire County Council [online]. Available from:http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/upload/pdf/turning_plough.pdf. Full version available from:http://www.northamptonshire.gov.uk/goto/openfields [Accessed 24/08/08]

Claude Monet

Art History 9 November 2012 Claude Monet: The Impressionist Claude Monet was a French Impressionist painter born on November 14th, 1840. Monet was born in Paris and was the second son to Claude Adolphe Monet and Louise Justine Aubree. On May 20th 1841, Claude Monet was baptized in the local parish church under the name of Oscar-Claude. Shortly after his birth and baptism, Claude Monet and his family moved to Le Havre in Normandy. The mid-forties brought with it a serious economic crisis and apparently a fall in trade for Monet’s father.Monet’s father was in the grocery business and he expected Monet to follow in his footsteps and carry out the family business. Monet grew up in a commercially-oriented household. Only his mother showed an interest in the arts. Her early death in 1857 was a severe blow to the seventeen year old Monet. He found sympathy for his artistic leanings with his aunt, Marie-Jeanne Lecadre. Madame Lecadre was not only in contact with the Parisian pa inter Armand Gautier, but had her own studio where she painted for pleasure and in which Monet was a welcome visitor.Monet’s relationship with his father deteriorated with time and was not improved when he decided to leave school in 1857; not to mention Monet left school shortly before his final exams. Not helping his case much. At school he received his first drawing lesson from Francois-Charles Ochard. These lessons appear to have had no profound influence on Monet, however. His memories of the period refer exclusively to the witty drawings and caricatures of his teachers and other things. Monet’s caricatures of the citizens of Le Havre, which rapidly earned him 2000 Francs, brought him a degree of local celebrity.In fig. 2, is an example of one of Monet’s caricature drawing, (Caricature of a Man with a Large Nose graphite on paper 25 x 15 cm. ) Monet was introduced to Boudin who praised Monet for his drawings. It was a turning point. Boudin took the young man with him on painting excursions into the surrounding countryside. He convinced Monet that objects painted directly in front of the motif possessed a greater vitality that those created in the studio. Monet later ascribed his decision to become a painter to his encounter with Boudin, with whom he remained in close contact with for the rest of his life. The fact that I’ve become a painter I owe to Boudin. In his infinite kindness, Boudin undertook my instruction. My eyes were slowly opened and I finally understood nature. I learned at the same time to love it. I analyzed its forms, I studied its colours. Six months later†¦I announced to my father that I wanted to become a painter and went off to Paris to study art. † So Monet wanted to become a painter. It was an idea his father eventually accepted but not without difficulty and after much persuasion from Monet’s aunt. Monet’s first oil painting was, â€Å"View of Rouelles† (seen in fig. 3. This painting was also known as, â€Å"Vue des bords de la Lezarde† because it showed a valley and streams either the Rouelles or the Lezarde, which the Rouelles flowed into. Presumed lost, the painting was discovered after hundred years and positively identified. He joined the studio of the Swiss-born painter Charles Gleyre in Paris, in 1862, where he had been for approximately two years. There he met Pierre-Auguste Renoir, Frederic Bazille and Alfred Sisley. All four of them had new approaches to art and they all painted the effects of light â€Å"en plain air† with broken color and rapid brushstrokes.That's exactly what became known as Impressionism. This period was very important; it was the culmination point of the movement Impressionism and some of Monet's best works had been painted in Argenteuil. One of the most famous Monet's paintings is â€Å"Impression: The Sunrise† (seen in fig. 4) painted in 1872 or 1873, from whose title the entire movement had got na me. It was art critic Louis Leroy, who coined the term Impressionism, and it had been derogatory, but, Impressionists had liked it and had found it very appropriate for them.The painting â€Å"Impression: The Sunrise† was exhibited 1874 at the first Impressionist exhibition in the studio of Nadar. Today, it is displayed in the Musee Marmottan-Monet in Paris. Monet continued to revise his craft until his death in 1926. With his eyesight deteriorating, one of his final and greatest feats included his creation of â€Å"The Water Lilies† paintings. (Seen in fig. 5) He worked on twelve large canvases and donated them to France. Monet is a household name that lives on in the hearts and minds of the artistic individuals and the lovers of art and its creators everywhere.When looking at Claude Monet’s life, I came to a realization, that he blazed a trail in the art world and he never looked back. Never took no for an answer. Inspired others to find their voice, and creat ed a movement that challenged the status quo in the painting world. The question shouldn’t be, â€Å"what did Monet contribute to the art world? No. In this case it should be â€Å"what didn’t Monet contribute to the art world? Monet's extraordinarily long life and large artistic output befit the enormity of his contemporary popularity.Impressionism, for which he is a pillar, continues to be one of the most reproduced styles of art for popular consumption in the form of calendars, postcards, and posters. Additionally, his paintings command top prices at auctions. Monet's work is in every major museum worldwide and continues to be sought after. While there have been major internationally touring retrospectives of his work, even the presence of one Monet painting can anchor an entire exhibition for the audience. The impact of his experiments with changing mood and light on static surfaces can be seen in most major artistic movements of the early twentieth century.When reading books about Monet’s life and his life work, I started to make a list of what made up the â€Å"Impressionist† style. Some elements I found talked about were, absence of light and shade and local tone, division of color and systematic use of complimentary colors and finally, plein-airism which is to try and recreate the outdoor light and air while painting in daylight. Monet was able to gather these elements and use them to help express his style in a unique way artistically, and allowed others to follow him. Through Impressionism, Monet was allowed freedom and a zest for life.Not staying in the lines or playing it safe. Monet shed some light on following your true calling and doing what you feel truly called to do. Monet runs the risk of shattering the traditional image of things as he pushes on towards his dream of the Impressionistic movement. For example, Monet isn’t afraid to give his canvases that chalky appearance which is indicated by the subject under contemplation. His craftsmanship is never systematic, whether he is showing fields of grass, or rocks and the sea. He has long strokes as well as fragmented ones.Then sometimes there’s a lot of what is called â€Å"brisk fluttering† which moves about the painting much like a butterfly would fly around. From far away his work can feel like a mash up of colors. But when you get closer you begin to see what he saw. What he was trying to portray through his works. I think what really stands out to me are the â€Å"Water Lilies† ( see figure 6) from a distance all you see is color and you don’t see the distinct shapes. But I guess that’s the thing, the shapes aren’t distinct. They are up for interpretation.That’s sort of the whole point of Impressionism, or that’s what I think anyways. Monet brought spontaneity to the art world. He brought rhythm and harmony but in an unconventional way. Monet brought freedom of expression bac k to art and took it to new heights. Monet breathed hope back into the arts, bringing â€Å"poetry back to science. † Monet taught us a new way to see the world, perceive it, and recreate it in a way we see fit. Growing up we had one of Monet’s infamous â€Å"Water Lilies† paintings hanging on our wall. It was called, â€Å"Bridge over a Pool of Water Lilies. † (See fig. ) I was young, but I remember it hanging around, literally, in our old house and for a while in the house we live in now. Truthfully, I thought it was a painting of turtles in water. The way the water lilies sat next to each other I could clearly make out eyes and the body of turtles. Oh how I laugh when I think of that. It’s funny. But that’s what I got out of Monet’s paintings when I was little. In fact when I glance at it now, that’s still what I see. I wonder what Monet would think if he were alive today and I told him that. Maybe he would laugh. Maybe he w ould say it was okay I got it wrong.But it was my own interpretation, so was it wrong? I appreciate Impressionistic art; a lot. I appreciate Monet and what he stood for and worked for. I appreciate the fact that it is an impression of what the world looks like but if they colors aren’t perfect or the lines are straight, it’s still okay. One picture that I really enjoyed was, â€Å"Woman with a Parasol – Madame Monet and Her Son. † (See fig. 8) When looking at this picture you can feel the wind on her face, in her hair, around her dress. All you have to do is look at this painting and you can really feel it.I can also see the chalky or abrupt strokes he used in the sky. The whites are not mixed in with the blues and its sticks out and I like that. It’s not formal. I love all the colors in the blades of grass. I don’t know about you but when I think of grass one color comes to mind, yep, green. But when Monet thinks of grass he sees greens, br owns, yellows, red, gray†¦I could keep going. But it all works so well together. All those stokes of color. One stroke, that’s all it takes. Monet doesn’t mix his colors together. They stand by themselves, proud and ready to be seen. I enjoy that.The mystery he conveys in the woman’s face is also intriguing. The picture makes you think, your mind doesn’t get bored quickly when you look at this painting. The details in the young boy’s hat are nice. The pop of red on the ribbon that goes around the hat, it stands out the eye and you catch it right away. It also helps bring out the reds in the blades of grass. Some other works that fascinated me while I was reading about Monet was his little series on boats. I enjoyed, â€Å"Boating on the Epte† and â€Å"In the Rowing Boat. † (See fig. 9 and 10). When looking at these paintings I was quickly reminded of the movie The Notebook.Specifically because in the movie the main characters ar e in a boat much like the ones in the pictures, and they have a sort of romance about them. They just look so romantic, the paintings. I don’t know if that was the intention behind these but its how I have interpreted them. It just amazes me, how Monet has such a loose stroke or a loose way of painting and yet it still turns out looking so good with great accuracy. He was a pretty good drawer before he started to paint so I’m sure that helps, but just looking at the details in these paintings I have grown such a respect for the Impressionists of the world.I respect them and their craft. I couldn’t do it, and they do it with what looks like ease. Monet makes me believe that if I put my mind to it, anything is possible. I know that sounds a bit cliche, but it’s true. Monet started a movement, and it opened a whole new way of thinking for artists. I think if I were to seriously pursue painting or something of that sort, Monet would definitely be role model. I’m really into fashion, and in a way, Monet’s style of painting could inspire a clothing line. The colors of his paintings surely would do the trick.His earthy tones would do great in the fall, and the whites and cool blues for winter. So I guess, Monet didn’t only have an impact on the art world, he kind of has an impact on the whole world. His styles could be used for more than painting. I’ve learned nothing is too big to chase. Monet is a classic get knocked down seven times, stand up eight kind of stories. Life changes every day. Nothing stays the same. It is always up for interpretation. I think Monet captured that idea and thought through a brush and paint. Monet is telling us we call all do the same, in our own way.

Party Monster: The Twisted Story of New York’s Club Scene Essay

The mid-1990s was a time of wealth and recreation for the United States, with the combination of economic progress and social liberty producing a new generation of spoiled, unrestrained and often genuinely reckless young ‘celebutantes. ’ As many Americans were making their fortune on the Wall Street or in the Silicon Valley, a counterculture of hedonistic abandon emerged not necessarily in response or even contrast to these patterns, but rather oblivious to them. Centered on the club scene in New York City, the nightlife excesses of this era would closely mirror those of the disco era in the late 1970s. Just as the music, drugs, sex and glamour had come to define such hotspots as Paradise Garage and Studio 54 in the 1970s, so too would such locations as the Limelight and the Tunnel become notorious for the bacchanalian events which transpired inside during the 1990s. The early to mid-90s would in fact play witness to a peak in debauchery and mayhem with some of the scene’s most prominent self-made figures devolving from mere hedonists to perpetrators of serious and grotesque criminal extremity. The real-life narrative of Michael Alig and the Club Kid scene to which he was a self-proclaimed icon is at once a cautionary tale remarking upon the extent to which superficiality can breed outright evil and simultaneously projecting itself as a twisted tale of celebrity intrigue. In the novel by former scenester James St. James, Disco Bloodbath, as well as in the 1999 documentary and the 2003 film, both entitled Party Monster, the events surrounding the rise, peak and fall of the New York club scene are suggested as the hazy underside of a cultural mirror. The figures at the center take on mythic proportions for the hugeness of their appetites, their unwillingness to compromise hedonism even for ethical reflection and their suggested parallel to the most extreme impulses in the broader culture. The film, directed by Fenton Bailey and Randy Barbato reached limited audiences and fairly consistent acclaim upon its 2003 release. However, in research of television footage, documentary material, newspaper articles and interviews, it becomes increasingly clear that the film does a compellingly accurate job at capturing the personas, ethos and destructiveness of its focal characters. In particular, Michael Alig, played by Macauley Culkin, and James St. James, portrayed by Seth Green, channel the impulsive stupidity that lay at the root of the scene. The New York club scene that is depicted in such vivid and aggressive color by the film at the center of this discussion is one which sprang from the decay of the disco scene. The sexual revolution of the seventies—which opened the door for an unprecedented freedom of expression in the urban gay communities that were so prominent to the club scene—gay way to a more cosmetic interest in gay fashion, gay aesthetics and gay lifestyle excesses during the plastic eighties. This transition gave birth to the new club archetype of the late decade, with figures such as Alig, St. James, DJ Keoki, Amanda Lepore, Sophia Lamar and Richie Rich rising to prominence. Most of these individuals shared the same background as wealthy trust fund children who determined to use college moneys provided by affluent parents in far off places to migrate to the heart of New York’s gay community to shop for clothes, drugs and party supplies. Generally, this is how the club scene would come to be, with the figures collectively creating a genuine and notable ‘happening,’ which centered on the core premises of indulgence in sexual immodesty, costuming, drug binging and non-stop, excessive partying. Most of these individuals would become connected by their shared interests, meeting in the same VIP lounges, after-parties, dance-floors and back-rooms. However, they would soon create their own shared agenda, which largely consisted of concocting the most decadent, elaborate and creative party and club events imaginable. Ingredients for the pursuit of this aim were universally related to the intake of heavy intoxicants such as ketamine, cocaine, heroin and ecstasy as well as the donning of making, costume and androgynous fixings. The connection between these individuals established something of a familial scene in which individuals engaged in free love and unabashed expression. Though there was an artistic oeuvre to the scene, particularly notable in the transgender excesses which distinguished the players, there was not necessarily any meaningful ideology or core intention other than to be, as Alig would so often demand, ‘fabulous. Those who were directly participatory in the club escapades, as would be shown in the film, were of minimal ideological grounding and came from errant and flimsy philosophical consideration. Interestingly though, these figures would with no small air of self-parody project various ideas about a mission or purpose in the proportion of their behaviors. In a very interesting broadcast which can be found on You Tube (http://www. youtube. com/watch? v=2h-JvWdPR0o), the Jane Whitney show would play host to a few members of this scene. In addition to demonstrating the notoriety to which these individuals had risen for essentially showing up to or planning elaborate party events, the talk show showed these to be a collective of very young individuals with a limited sense of purpose. In the sequence linked to above, it is clear that the notables featured on the show would come for a shared background generally distinguishable economic resource and few concerns beyond appearance and the pursuit of pleasurable activity. Richie Rich, Michael Alig, Walt Paper and others featured on the show struggle in coming to a common recognition of that which might be considered a central mission for the Club Kids. The Club Kids were a specific group of these scenestes who were noted for their role in defining said scene. Fixtures at the parties and discotheques, and even of the local gossip columns and celebrity reels, the Club Kids would become notorious for the extent to which they were willing to engage in excessive and what mainstream culture would consider downright dangerous behavior. In Party Monster the Club Kids are portrayed with some degree of sympathy, afforded by the source of most material concerning their activities, which tended to arise from the participants. Such is to say that many of those formerly involved in the scene would become successful as fashion designers, club promoters and performance artists. Indeed, referring back to the interview on Jane Whitney, the Club Kids cite Madonna and RuPaul as two individuals who had risen to genuine mainstream fame from the core of the club scene. In the discussion stimulated by Party Monster, we can see that the Club Kids were really a core of individuals who believed themselves to be engaged in some manner of social liberation. This much is hinted at and simultaneously contradicted in the Whitney interview. However, we can see a more palpable evidence that this is occurring in the alleged words of Michael Alig himself. As one who created his own image as the great party-promoter and chief merrymaker for his time and place, he had also come to play this part with a degree of individual excess that set him apart in a setting where this extremity was the norm. He would characterize his own social calling, according the film according to a personal impetus at how life should be pursued which is conspicuously hedonistic in the most genuine definition of the term. So would the Culkin-played character contend that â€Å"one day I realized I didn’t want to be like all the drearies and normals. I wanted to create a world full of color where everyone could play. One big party. . . that never ends. † (Bailey & Barbado, 1) To his perspective, there was a real mission and purpose in defying the gray habitations of mainstream society. As aspects of the lifestyle tendencies in such individuals were largely rejected by mainstream society—in particular their sexual proclivities and dug consumption habits—this would seem an appropriate framing for an existence of sheer indulgence. Perhaps more succinctly phrased is the explanation supplied by St. James himself in a 2003 interview with Ogunnaike, where he reflects with a degree of assume removal from this belief system today, on the idea that there was some kind of meaning or accomplishment to what was being done. As reported, â€Å"‘while Mr. St. James admits that he and his merry band of misfits were †nightmares and brats’,† he argues that there was an ideology, a club-kid agenda, behind the false eyelashes. †We were going to do away with sexual roles,† he explained. †Ã¢â‚¬â„¢Drag was going to be the norm. Drugs were going to be this gateway into this utopian society. ‘’’ (Ogunnaike, 1) Naturally, as this examination and the film clearly must contend with, the horrific events constituting the end of this scene would sharply counter such ambitions. Still, and quite interestingly, as is noted in a New York Times article from the time of the film’s release, there is concocted by the sympathies of the filmmakers and the author a tendency to frame the events of this time as somehow being worthy of note beyond their implications to the pursuit of fun. To this extent, it is noted that, â€Å"as hard as it is to imagine now, nightclubs seemed somehow important then. Jean-Michel Basquiat and Keith Haring were doing installations, the outre 4 a. m. fashion was more interesting than anything on the runways, and people seemed to emerge from the disco as fully formed celebrities. Alig was the last of these self-created downtown freaks. † (Van Meter, 1) The Club Kids, Alig here included, would be remarkable for their aggressive pursuit of the things this implied. The characters that made up the inner circle of the Club Kids were those perhaps most rampantly committed to the extremity of the lifestyle, which consisted of sexual swinging and a consumption of drugs that, by all accounts, is even downplayed in the film in order to prevent audiences from falling into disbelief. Such is to say that reports and self admission as the level of drug abuse in the scene during the late 80s and into the early 90s for such figures as James St. James and Michael Alig demonstrate that it was nothing less than deadline. Ironically, both of these figures have survived to present date to tell this story, but the latter has done so largely from within a prison cell. The story of the Club Kids might seem essentially unremarkable for its representation of New York City during this time. Such is to say that the metropolitan city has already become a lightning rod for drug use, sexual excess, homosexual liberation and nightclubbing. That a subculture had developed around this would be no major revelation either. Just as had occurred in the disco heyday of the seventies, in-crowd celebrities and self-avowed leaders of the scene would become omnipresent in defining the existence of a cultural occurrence. What tends to set this story is its worthy representation of the horrors which can truly be created in such a cauldron of thoughtlessness. There is, without question, a prime directive guiding the actions of the Club Kids which utterly rejects the premise of consequences. The drug abuse, sexual indiscretion and refusal of responsibility will boil over in the events that compose the climax of Party Monster. When Alig and his roommate Freezes conspire in the chaotic murder of their drug-dealer, Angel Melendez, a lucid collapse would end the so-called Golden Age of the New York club scene. With its end would also come a host of philosophical questions relating the nature of the excess pursued and the form taken by this grisly endnote. Such is to say that there is a certain coldness and emotional detachment that is portrayed in the film and identifiable in the real-life Alig which causes us to view the murder as a direct and inevitable outcome to the abuses and the sheer materialist superficiality fostered by the club scene and its attendant lifestyle. In the Van Meter article, the journalist suggests that there was a clear pattern by which this process of decline had begun to occur, even before the events that killed Melendez. The particular spark that would ignite this incident would be merely symptomatic of a shadowy presence that had begun to rear its head. As the fun and airy ambitions of the Club Kids segued into hard drug dependencies and heartless sexual trysts, the pressure of ketamine and heroin had become dominant. As reported, â€Å"by the mid-nineties, the club scene had grown darker. At Alig’s Disco 2000, the Wednesday-night bacchanal at the Limelight, the warm, fuzzy bath of a roomful of people on ecstasy had turned into a torture chamber: people dressed like monsters stumbling around in their K-holes in a deconsecrated Gothic church while the menacing hardcore-techno music drove them literally out of their minds. † (Van Meter, 1) The impending ugliness of the scene could be scene in no one less than Michael Alig himself. He had been an inspirational party promoter and, in some respects one might have to admit, even a tireless worker in pursuit of extracting enjoyment for others. This is to say that there was some degree of his character which seemed to delight in bringing pleasure to others. And yet, there is a more apparent interest according to many of those who knew him, to delight in the pleasure that others recognized to have been extracted by his efforts. By all accounts, the evidence which the movie and the true events suggest that Alig was a consummate performer, both socially and emotionally. In the interview with Van Meter from his prison cell, which we will return to further on in this account, Alig explicitly claims that he works very hard to maintain a facade of uncaring coolness in deflection of the fact that he is extremely self-conscious about what others think of him. This admission, which is given well after the fact of his crime, lends us insight as we enter into a discussion on the murder itself. Indeed, extreme and reprehensible nature of the crime and causes us to question just exactly what lay beneath this facade. In building toward the event of the murder, the film comes to gradually show what type of figure Alig is. Though it does come after the fact of the murder and Alig’s incarceration, the film seems to leave no doubt that Alig is a man capable of deeply wrong acts. He is shown as one who is by his own nature and accord always attempting to engage of acts of great deviance, mischief and even wanton destruction. While many of the other Club Kids made their advances in the scene according to the utopian premises suggested by St. James, Alig took an altogether different tack to withdrawing from mainstream constraints. We can see as much even the relationship between he and St. James which is captured as the centerpiece of the film. As St. James is shown as marginally more thoughtful than his cohort, Alig is shown to be an almost unreal individual, whose shades of extremity could often infiltrate the territory of outright meanness. To this end, â€Å"the relationship between the two vacillates between tenderness and cruelty (as when Alig serves a glass of his urine to St. James, who takes it for Champagne), and it is the focus of this muddled, sometimes touching movie. (Scott, 1) That there is any type of emotion fostered between them we may say is a factor which actually conspires against such figures as St. James and, at another touching moment in the film, the jilted DJ Keoki (played by Wilmer Valderama). Because in truth, Alig is the figure who most accurately and ably captures the emptiness which is at the center of his scene. As a figure who inspires others to find ever more elaborate and incongruous ways to costume themselves, Alig is perpetually one who hides behind masks even as he aims to be a sweetheart of the spotlight.

1984 Quotes Explained

George Orwells novel Nineteen Eighty-Four was written as a response to what he saw as the rise of authoritarian and totalitarian thinking in the world both before and after World War II. Orwell foresaw how the combination of control over information (such as the constant editing of documents and photos under Joseph Stalin in the Soviet Union) and constant efforts at thought control and indoctrination (such as that practiced under Chairman Mao’s ‛cultural revolution’ in China) could result in a surveillance state. He set out to demonstrate his fears with the novel that has permanently changed the way we discuss the subject of freedom, giving us words like ‛Thoughtcrime’ and phrases like ‛Big Brother is watching you.’ Quotes About Control of Information Winston Smith works for the Ministry of Truth, where he alters the historical record to match the Party’s propaganda. Orwell understood that control of information without the objective check on such power provided by a free press would allow governments to essentially change reality. In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it ... And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable†¦what then? Orwell took inspiration from a real event in Russia where the communist party celebrated reaching a production goal in four years instead of five by proclaiming that the workers had made 225. In this quote he notes that we only ‛know’ things that have been taught to us, and thus our reality can be changed. In Newspeak there is no word for Science. Newspeak is the most crucial concept in the novel. It is a language designed to make disagreement with the Party impossible. This goal is achieved by eliminating all vocabulary and grammatical constructions that could be construed as critical or negative. For example, in Newspeak, the word bad does not exist; if you wanted to call something bad, you would have to use the word ungood. Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in ones mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. Doublethink is another important concept Orwell explores in the novel, because it makes the Party members complicit in their own oppression. When one is able to believe two conflicting things to be true, truth ceases to have any meaning outside what the state dictates. Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past. People represent history through their own memories and identities. Orwell is careful to note the vast generation gap opening up in Oceania; the children are enthusiastic members of the Thought Police, but the older people like Winston Smith retain memories of the time before, and thus must be treated like all history—altered by force if possible, eliminated and erased if not. Quotes About Totalitarianism Orwell used Nineteen Eighty-Four to explore the dangers of authoritarianism and totalitarian forms of government. Orwell was deeply suspicious of the tendency of governments to become self-perpetuating oligarchies, and he saw how easily people’s worst tendencies could be subverted to the will of an authoritarian regime. â€Å"A hideous ecstasy of fear and vindictiveness, a desire to kill, to torture, to smash faces in with a sledge hammer, seemed to flow through the whole group of people ... turning one even against ones will like an electric current, turning one even against ones will into a grimacing, screaming lunatic.† One technique Orwell explores is directing the unavoidable fear and anger experienced by the population away from the Party and the state. In the modern world, authoritarian demagogues often direct this anger towards immigrant groups and other ‛outsiders.’ â€Å"Sexual intercourse was to be looked on as a slightly disgusting minor operation, like having an enema. This again was never put into plain words, but in an indirect way it was rubbed into every Party member from childhood onwards.† This quote demonstrates how the state has invaded even the most private aspects of life, dictating sexual mores and controlling the most intimate aspects of daily life through misinformation, peer pressure, and direct thought control. â€Å"All beliefs, habits, tastes, emotions, mental attitudes that characterize our time are really designed to sustain the mystique of the Party and prevent the true nature of present-day society from being perceived.† Orwell cleverly makes Emmanuel Goldstein’s book an accurate explanation of totalitarianism. Goldsteins book, Goldstein himself, and The Brotherhood may well be part of a ruse created by the Party to snare would-be rebels like Winston and Julia; nevertheless, the book lays out how a totalitarian government sustains its hold on power, in part by controlling outward expression, which has a direct effect on inward thought. Quotes About Destruction of the Self In the novel, Orwell is warning us about the ultimate goal of such governments: The absorption of the individual into the state. In democratic societies, or at least one which have a sincere respect for democratic ideals, the individual’s right to their beliefs and opinions is respected—indeed, it’s the foundation of the political process. In Orwell’s nightmare vision, therefore, the key goal of the Party is destruction of the individual. The thought police would get him just the same. He had committed--would have committed, even if he had never set pen to paper--the essential crime that contained all others in itself. Thoughtcrime, they called it. Thoughtcrime was not a thing that could be concealed forever. You might dodge successfully for a while, even for years, but sooner or later they were bound to get you. Thoughtcrime is the essential concept of the novel. The idea that simply thinking something contrary to what the Party has decreed to be true is a crime—and then convincing people that its revelation was inevitable—is a chilling, terrifying idea that requires people to self-edit their thoughts. This, combined with Newspeak, makes any sort of individual thought impossible. For an instant he was insane, a screaming animal. Yet he came out of the blackness clutching an idea. There was one and only one way to save himself. He must interpose another human being, the body of another human being, between himself and the rats. ... Do it to Julia! Do it to Julia! Not me! Julia! I dont care what you do to her. Tear her face off, strip her to the bones. Not me! Julia! Not me! Winston initially endures his torture with desolate resignation, and holds onto his feelings for Julia as a final, private, untouchable part of his inner self. The Party is uninterested in merely getting Winston to recant or confess—it wishes to completely destroy his sense of self. This final torture, based on a primal fear, accomplishes this by making Winston betray the one thing he had left of his private self.