Digital Galleries » Photography: Spring Break 2007

Howdy are using WordPress for your blog platform? I'm new to the blog world but I'm triyng to get started and set up my own. Do you need any html coding expertise to make your own blog? Any help would be greatly appreciated!

Pictures really do tell a lot of words I was suteesggd this website by my cousin. I am not sure whether this post is written by him as nobody else know such detailed about my trouble. You're wonderful! Thanks! your article about Pictures really do tell a lot of wordsBest Regards Cassetta

J, regarding the cedmoy, that seems right. But I think I emphasize the darkness of the films not in *opposition* to their comic elements, but as the very thing that makes their cedmoy work. Seeing jokes as having utility, for example, allows us to situate the work they do in relation to the problem that makes them necessary, and therefore think of the anxieties, the fears, the existential angst of the characters as being evidenced precisely by their conversion of that pain into laughter. When people laugh, and when a movie is funny, there is pain behind that, I think, at least in these particular moviesAs for the second part of your comment, I'm not sure. And it really is a thorny issue; my answer is usually that we model and make accessible ideas and readings by inhabiting them, that we teach our readers precisely by allowing them to mimic our affective reactions to the text. I'm not fully satisfied by that answer, but it's the one I've got. To be self-reflexive, though, the we in that sentence was meant to be anyone who writes interpretation for a reader, but as I look back at it, I wonder if I'm modelling my own theoretical performance too strictly by reference to my pedogogy. After all, the experience of teaching literature is so often one of finding yourself describing a text in ways that the students only barely recognize and working to overcome that hurdle. And there always seems to be something magical about the ways one's own subjective perspective this poem is about sex! that is not shared by one's students comes suddenly to be shared by them ( maybe it is! ). But I feel something similar about my blog writing; the stuff I write for my dissertation has to be solid in a way I don't hold myself to on the blog, which is more a performance of subjectivity and an invitation (without an expectation) to share. My first reading of Star Trek, for example (Kirk as Bush, Spock as Obama) is somewhat eccentrically subjective; if people read that and think it sounds silly, I wouldn't try to hard to argue them out of it. But then, some people *have* read it and found it provocative, so there must be something there, which is often the case; our subjectivities might be eccentric, but in practice, they do overlap with the eccentricities of others, and it is in that interstice that we find communication. Andrew,That's a useful provocation; I really like the idea that it's the similarities that make them *seem* different. And I'll have to think about whether I can back up my broader claim; my friend scrimshander has been telling me to see some Lubitsch movies (I haven't) so for the moment I'm limited to a handful of Wilder movies. But it strikes me that however similar they may be, the Lemmon vehicles I've seen completely lack the masculinity-as-arrested-development trope that practically defines the Apatovian; crises of masculinity abound, but the torturous fear of inevitable inadequacy is completely absent. They're very post-industrial in that sense, I think, very much of an era when it's no longer natural to conceptualize masculinity through labor in the ways that the Lemmon films do, for example, since flexibility in employment has become the standard in place of lifetime employment. This is why Arrested Development is such a powerful trope for late capitalist comdey, I think (like Arrested Development itself, which funs all over deconstructing the andy Griffith model of development and the new deal era new South trope it, in turn, was dependant on): we have inherited, for worse more than for better, a broad variety of normative expectations about masculinity that are based in the conceptualizing the family through futurity, through development, and through the kind of labor that has historically made that possible, all of which is called into question by post-70 s developments in the world economy, but the American in particular. Apatow movies generally find ways to reconcile themselves to an unsatisfactory labor market, of course, but they are at least interestingly premised on that dissatisfaction: the fact that Steve C opens up an electronics store with the same money he uses to get money is symptomatic of the kind of desire that those movies symptomatically start off with being thwarted: locked in a dead-end job and with no romantic prospects as a result. After all, the ease by which the Lemmon/Wilder films could play with gender always seems enabled, to me, by a basic lack of real threat to the system they take for granted: you can play around with gender roles (and suggest shifts in the workforce) because there was actually so little social basis on which women could actually supplant men and because demand for male labor was still incredibly high. In Irma La Douce, for example, the idea of a man depending on a woman's labor (and losing his monopoly on her sexuality) could become cedmoy not as an expression of fear but as a kind of perverse joke that the movie didn't really have to take all that seriously: we know, for example, that in the end he will become the provider and she will bear his child, etc, whereas the narrative conclusion of Knocked Up (gets a job, becomes a provider) not only is dishonest (as Mike pointed out), but it just rings hollow; the movie seems to *know* that it is unpersuasive, I think. Will have to think about DeNiro. I'd like to see you flesh out that comparison, partly because Observe and Report isn't actually an Apatow production, and partly because I just don't know those Scorcese/DeNiro movies that well. But in a general sense, yes, Sturges! I discovered him a couple months ago and haven't worked my way completely through the canon, but expect more from me on that count.Natalia,cogitating! I like the all-cereal diet as a trope, fyi, and am trying to remember all the moments when people eat breakfast in Apatow movies. It seems like a really nice metaphor for self-fashiooning actually, and I think it might actually be an important idiom in those movies in a broader sense (Jason Segal's hard liquor for breakfast in FSM, for example, signifies his self-destructive desire, and eating a healthier breakfast indicates his desire to properly self-cultivate and become healthy). Winslow,Goes without saying. This is just how we roll. Sepoy,Consider them called.

J, regarding the cedmoy, that seems right. But I think I emphasize the darkness of the films not in *opposition* to their comic elements, but as the very thing that makes their cedmoy work. Seeing jokes as having utility, for example, allows us to situate the work they do in relation to the problem that makes them necessary, and therefore think of the anxieties, the fears, the existential angst of the characters as being evidenced precisely by their conversion of that pain into laughter. When people laugh, and when a movie is funny, there is pain behind that, I think, at least in these particular moviesAs for the second part of your comment, I'm not sure. And it really is a thorny issue; my answer is usually that we model and make accessible ideas and readings by inhabiting them, that we teach our readers precisely by allowing them to mimic our affective reactions to the text. I'm not fully satisfied by that answer, but it's the one I've got. To be self-reflexive, though, the we in that sentence was meant to be anyone who writes interpretation for a reader, but as I look back at it, I wonder if I'm modelling my own theoretical performance too strictly by reference to my pedogogy. After all, the experience of teaching literature is so often one of finding yourself describing a text in ways that the students only barely recognize and working to overcome that hurdle. And there always seems to be something magical about the ways one's own subjective perspective this poem is about sex! that is not shared by one's students comes suddenly to be shared by them ( maybe it is! ). But I feel something similar about my blog writing; the stuff I write for my dissertation has to be solid in a way I don't hold myself to on the blog, which is more a performance of subjectivity and an invitation (without an expectation) to share. My first reading of Star Trek, for example (Kirk as Bush, Spock as Obama) is somewhat eccentrically subjective; if people read that and think it sounds silly, I wouldn't try to hard to argue them out of it. But then, some people *have* read it and found it provocative, so there must be something there, which is often the case; our subjectivities might be eccentric, but in practice, they do overlap with the eccentricities of others, and it is in that interstice that we find communication. Andrew,That's a useful provocation; I really like the idea that it's the similarities that make them *seem* different. And I'll have to think about whether I can back up my broader claim; my friend scrimshander has been telling me to see some Lubitsch movies (I haven't) so for the moment I'm limited to a handful of Wilder movies. But it strikes me that however similar they may be, the Lemmon vehicles I've seen completely lack the masculinity-as-arrested-development trope that practically defines the Apatovian; crises of masculinity abound, but the torturous fear of inevitable inadequacy is completely absent. They're very post-industrial in that sense, I think, very much of an era when it's no longer natural to conceptualize masculinity through labor in the ways that the Lemmon films do, for example, since flexibility in employment has become the standard in place of lifetime employment. This is why Arrested Development is such a powerful trope for late capitalist comdey, I think (like Arrested Development itself, which funs all over deconstructing the andy Griffith model of development and the new deal era new South trope it, in turn, was dependant on): we have inherited, for worse more than for better, a broad variety of normative expectations about masculinity that are based in the conceptualizing the family through futurity, through development, and through the kind of labor that has historically made that possible, all of which is called into question by post-70 s developments in the world economy, but the American in particular. Apatow movies generally find ways to reconcile themselves to an unsatisfactory labor market, of course, but they are at least interestingly premised on that dissatisfaction: the fact that Steve C opens up an electronics store with the same money he uses to get money is symptomatic of the kind of desire that those movies symptomatically start off with being thwarted: locked in a dead-end job and with no romantic prospects as a result. After all, the ease by which the Lemmon/Wilder films could play with gender always seems enabled, to me, by a basic lack of real threat to the system they take for granted: you can play around with gender roles (and suggest shifts in the workforce) because there was actually so little social basis on which women could actually supplant men and because demand for male labor was still incredibly high. In Irma La Douce, for example, the idea of a man depending on a woman's labor (and losing his monopoly on her sexuality) could become cedmoy not as an expression of fear but as a kind of perverse joke that the movie didn't really have to take all that seriously: we know, for example, that in the end he will become the provider and she will bear his child, etc, whereas the narrative conclusion of Knocked Up (gets a job, becomes a provider) not only is dishonest (as Mike pointed out), but it just rings hollow; the movie seems to *know* that it is unpersuasive, I think. Will have to think about DeNiro. I'd like to see you flesh out that comparison, partly because Observe and Report isn't actually an Apatow production, and partly because I just don't know those Scorcese/DeNiro movies that well. But in a general sense, yes, Sturges! I discovered him a couple months ago and haven't worked my way completely through the canon, but expect more from me on that count.Natalia,cogitating! I like the all-cereal diet as a trope, fyi, and am trying to remember all the moments when people eat breakfast in Apatow movies. It seems like a really nice metaphor for self-fashiooning actually, and I think it might actually be an important idiom in those movies in a broader sense (Jason Segal's hard liquor for breakfast in FSM, for example, signifies his self-destructive desire, and eating a healthier breakfast indicates his desire to properly self-cultivate and become healthy). Winslow,Goes without saying. This is just how we roll. Sepoy,Consider them called.

So, this made me think of that oh-so-irritating story in the Times, What is it about twenty-somethings? Maybe the rsaoen the older generations don't understand has a lot to do with this. And maybe they are making generalizations about all of us, male and female, based on that Judd Apatow man-boy syndrome. Maybe? http://wzxvbvmu.com [url=http://bbxkvqf.com]bbxkvqf[/url] [link=http://hclzyaqpz.com]hclzyaqpz[/link]