Clairity's blog

The prison was a site of mental torture, inconceivably harsh to anyone who had not seen it with his own eyes.

Eastern State was an eerie place, not necessarily having the effects on its prisoners it hoped to.

Eastern State was a prison unlike any other, where the methods were so damaging to the human spirit, and was so radical that the fascination that came with the prison was far greater than the suffering.

It is a place where prisoners try to fight against isolation, which is meant by the builders in order to make the inmates contemplate and reflect towards reformation.

The prison would seem useless-does it really do anything for reform and penitence? Who rules the prison, the guard or the prisoners, comes into question.

ESP was a place you wouldn’t want to end up in lest you enjoyed the company of your own criminal soul and the judging eye of god.

Eastern State is truly unlike the other prisons today, prisoners must face perhaps the strongest punishment of our time, solitude.

This doesn’t work well-most of prisoners have no ability to read and spend their time (which is what they got) in trying to communicate with their neighbors.

Eastern State is not successful. Treating prisoners so cruelly with isolation will only drive them madder.

    "I just don’t understand why I have this life"(Smith 399). Leah says.

    "Because we worked harder...We were smarter...We wanted to get out...they didn't want it enough...people generally get what they deserve"(400). Natalie replies.

    I paused at this paragraph towards the end of Zadie Smith's NW, thinking.

    "People generally get what they deserve" is a common assumption, or a faith, that almost everybody, including me, accepts. It is such an American dream that if people work very hard towards their goals, they will get what they are striving for, even rising to a higher class. However, is this a practical depiction of how things work in the real world? Looking through the stories of the characters in NW, I am in search for the reasons and meanings of their social mobility.

  In my last essay, I tried to expand my structure from a quote from NW "people generally get what they deserve", which associates with "social mobility". I questioned whether people can really get what they deserve, and whether social mobility is feasible. But then my essay started to go into different directions. I talked about how Natalie/Keisha looks at herself differently than others and London's history, which is a little weak.

  For this week's re-writing, I'll sharpen my lens. I want to focus on whether people get what they deserve, and its connections with social mobility. I'll re-write my essay by limiting the topics I want to discuss and expand it through this specific lens.

  "I just don’t understand why I have this life." Leah said.
  "Because we worked harder...We were smarter...We wanted to get out...they didn't want it enough...people generally get what they deserve." Natalie replies.

  I paused at this paragraph towards the end of Zadie Smith's NW, thinking.

  This is a book that presents vivid reality. This is a book that leads me to ask questions. This is a book that makes me doubt whether social mobility is really feasible. And one of the questions that I keep wondering is why Zadie Smith didn't seem to agree that it is very much possible.

  "Visitation-Guest-Host-Crossing-Visitation". Through a circle of chapters, the four main characters, Leah, Natalie/Keisha, Felix and Nathan, live towards different paths after they leave their childhood's council estate, a place where all of them start from together.

The fragmented stories of the four main characters in NW perplexed me. The book is composed of fragmented words and scenes. And none of the characters have a happy ending, which is what we typically see in novels or movies. The book is not like a mosaic that put broken things together as a whole, but let broken things staying broken. Why does Zadie Smith set the book this way and what does she trying to say or show? Another thing I noticed is fate associated with roots. Natalie, or Keisha, tries to leave her root behind but somewhat still can't shake it off. She leads a perfect life by pretending to be someone else but . In the opposite, Felix accepts his roots and turns into a better person, but he dies. Is this because their fate will follow them no matter what they do or who they become? Is it pointless to try to get out of the poverty they were born into since their roots will follow them along the way? 

  In the city of our course, I am having a journey that is leading me and helping me to start my brand new college life. I feel my growth throughout these six weeks. I joined this city when I was a genuine "freshman" who had not got used to this whole different life in a new country. But now I'm thrilled to become a part of it. In this unique course, we learn to play and think. We learn to view things critically.

  In the first day of class, we were told by our professor to walk around our classroom and observe the surroundings. My first reaction was that there would be nothing much to see. I thought it was just a regular classroom that lacked of creation. However, in my exploration around the classroom, I found nameplates that dated back to hundreds of years ago on the windowsill. I was bewildered by the use of the long metal bar below the blackboard. I was amazed by the old ancient window shades that were opened by my classmates... Sitting down, I was surprised at the variety of details in this simple room during our exchange of observations. By using lenses and magnifying tiny things, we tried to make sense of them. And we are still trying in every single class and in every trip to the city of Philadelphia.

  We were asked to define ourselves and create an avatar on our website after class. I realized this is necessary for building a city of our own. Every city player needs to have a personality. Although this process was hard at first, but it at least set a starting point for us to continue in the future.

    Before this trip, I thought it was the spectator that made the picture. But yesterday's experience helped me realize that it was not that simple. It is not only the audience makes the picture, but also the performer, the creator and the artwork. These elements together make the "participants", who are actively engaged in the art or playful activities and jointly infuse dynamics and diversity into the work. The art is not complete without either the artist or spectators. A work engenders its true meanings with its participants.

    This point was perfectly illustrated in my trip this weekend. On our way back, we ran into a piece of mosaic by Isaiah Zagar in an area that was not fairly close to the Magic Garden. Even if we were rushing for the train, we still stopped there for a while to take a clearer look. Located at the entrance inside an art school, the mosaic was still a shining piece for all of us. Because we had participated in Isaiah's artwork, had tried to find the beauty in every corner of his Magic Garden, and had quietly had a wonderful "conversation" with him through the shimmering art pieces. We were amazed at coming across his mosaic, but the women who sit outside the entrance looked at us strangely and wondered why seeing a colored wall made us so happy. Those women were merely spectators, unlike us. We engaged in Isaiah's work, therefore we were able to fully appreciate this amazing serendipity and understand the importance of this piece.

I found two places that I'm interested in going. Here is my "breadcrumbs".

1. Philadelphia Inquirer B1: "Today in Philly-Suspension of Time"

2. Google "Jessica Demcsak Suspension of Time"

https://www.google.com.hk/search?newwindow=1&safe=strict&es_sm=122&q=Jessica+Demcsak+Suspension+of+Time&oq=Jessica+Demcsak+Suspension+of+Time&gs_l=serp.3...30661.30661.0.31302.1.1.0.0.0.0.86.86.1.1.0....0...1c.1.27.serp..1.0.0.z5VnZdBvmAQ

3. Go to "philly.com"

http://www.philly.com/philly/health/calendar/?search=y&city=Philadelphia&section&page=5&sortBy=date

4. click on "entertainment", then "art attack"

     When I was reading Flanagan's Critical Play, a quote from French-American artist, Marcel Duchamp, immediately caught my attention. "The spectator makes the picture (Critical Play, Page 10)." This is exactly how I felt as for my recent trips to the city of Philadelphia.

     In my very first trip along Benjamin Franklin Parkway, I had a variety of "spectator experiences" with my classmates. At the Museum of Art, we saw a group of men racing to the top of the stairs, whilst their lady friends were cheering at the finish line. Their playful activity made a real-life art. Witnessing the process of their play of art, some audience outside the museum dismissed their play and found no value in their race, but I enjoyed watching them running on the stairs. It's such a special moment for me to see adults play freely regardless of other people's thoughts. But my idea could be largely different with my friends' opinions. This explains what Duchamp's meant in his words.

     Spectators all have their own interpretations regarding to every piece of art. Some might agree with the artist's ideas. Others may envision a completely fresh sense. They can even add new meanings and new aspects to it, creating their unique version through this original piece.

"Play Hard, Play Fair, Nobody Hurt." This is the central philosophy of New Games Movement. One of its founders was Stewart Brand, well known for being the editor of the Whole Earth Catalog. It started in the late 1960s and became popular a decade later. I found the principles of this movement fascinating, because one of them proposed that although play included competition, winning or losing in the end was not important. Also, the movement pursued to replace competitive sports with cooperative games. The game "Slaughter" would be a good example. In this game, people on the winning side were encouraged to change to the losing side, ensuring there were no winners or losers. This is a really interesting idea.