Replication-Jocelyn W

I chose to replicate a piece called Harlem Renaissance Saturday Night by Archibald Motley Jr.  I was drawn to the bold shapes, colors, and overall energy of the painting.  I also wanted to challenge myself with an image that had a lot of depth the way this one does.

Homework for Thursday- Theory of the Derive

http://library.nothingness.org/articles/all/en/display/314

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dérive
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Situationist_International
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychogeography

Sophia Diaz - reproduction

For my reproduction, I started off with a sketch of a tree (it was just to practice sketching), but then I decided to reinterpret the assignment a bit and use the tree as my starting point for the reproduction. I used the tree and its elements and reinterpreted it in terms of fashion and made three different dress designs either using physical elements of the tree for the style/flow/color of the fabric or for pattern elements that are tree or nature-like. I tried to do another reinterpretation of that reproduction by designing a building inspired by the dresses (in the style of Frank Gehry I guess...I am definitely not an architect, as you can see...). Here they are:

--sophi diaz

Katharine Mead - Reproduction and Essay Response

For my reproduction, I worked with a mural by Diego Rivera.

It was challenging to work with the larger scale and so many different elements in the image, but I learned a lot in the process.  I also like the balance of 3 people with hats/3 goats/3 people with hats.

Regarding Benjamin's essay, I can't consider his ideas without also considering the year, 1936, in which he was writing.  How would he react to the constant march of technology from mimeographs to typewriters to Xerox machines?  And what about the giant museum, critique, marketplace, and canvas that the Internet has created?  Modern art strives to recapture Benjamin's sense of aura and originality by probing further and further beyond the countless ideas that have already been expressed.  How long can artists chase this sense of authenticity, if that is indeed what they are doing?  We are surrounded by so many reproductions of art and design that Benjamin wouldn't even know what to attack first.  I prefer to accept this modern turn of events and look for the moments when reproduction becomes original again through reinterpretation, addition, or glimpses of personal style. 

Katie Deutsch

Hey Guys!

So my email is Katherine_Deutsch@brown.edu and my phone number is 860 798 1547
Give me a call or email about when you want to meet to talk about SketchUp.
 I'm free after 3 everyday so afternoons/evening work best.

You can download it from the website and watch some of the tutorials.


Katie

5 - Cole van Krieken: Reproduction and Response

The piece I chose to reproduce was Raphael's St. George and the Dragon.

I liked all of the intricate detail in the work and tried to focus most on shading, which I haven't really done a lot of.

As for the Benjamin essay, I thought much of his concern about the "aura" of works of art was and is unfounded.  Simply because a work of art is easily reproduced once it has been made has no bearing on the fact that it was tremendously difficult to produce in the first place.  The work is not being created out of thin air, it is produced by a person.  Only after it has been created can it be reproduced.  The aura of the work remains because of the work the original artist put into making it, and no amount of reproduction can change the fact that it is still the artist's work.  It is not mechanical reproduction that is a threat to the aura of art, but rather, mechanical creation.  When machines have gained the ability to not only copy the works of other but create anew in their style, it is then that art begins to lose its value.  Picasso starts to lose his meaning when a computer can produce a portrait of you done in his style in half an hour.  Some of the meaning may be lost, but the only ones who will notice will be the academics.

05 - Alli Schaaff: T.I.E. and Benjamin Response

As a photographer, I'm always blown away by photorealism. That's why I decided to reproduce this oil painting, a self-portrait by Chuck Close, for the Transition, Imitation, Emulation assignment.

As for the Benjamin essay, I found it interesting. It offered a view different than anything I've encountered before - that classical art is not dead; rather, art itself has evolved. I tend to view the traditional and the classical as art, moreso than contemporary pieces, and much moreso than movies, snapshots, Lady Gaga performances. I just find more beauty in the expression of past artists. It left me wondering why no one is sculpting Davids anymore; why no one is building grand cathedrals and monuments; why there has yet to be another modern poet to rival the ancients. But there's nothing wrong with the present, Benjamin offers. Art as a medium has changed completely. The masses have a lot more to do with what is now considered art or not - it's along the lines of a video going viral. Modern art appeals to the masses.

Brook A. Essay Response

Benjamin brings into view some very thought provoking ideas.  I disagree with the belief that mechanical reproduction will ruin the aura of a piece of art.  Indeed the aura is changed with reproduction, but the aura can change in other ways also.  If a painting is moved from a dark display room to a very white, bright display room, the aura is affected.  As Yasmine said, art is art, and mechanical reproduction or the change of settings change the aura, not destroy it.

            I don’t think that this idea applies the same way to the art of acting, whether on a stage or in front of a camera.  The aura is indeed changed, but there is one great loss.  When performing in front of a camera one has the ability to do take after take, to perfect a scene.  An important aspect of acting or dancing is the possibility of imperfection.  Knowing that you have one chance to perform the way you want, to give your audience the intended experience, changes the way you perform.  I believe that filmmaking is its own art, but that changes the art of acting in a negative way.

Brook Achterhof

7 - Daniella: Response & Imitation

The image I chose to copy was George Stubbs', Lion Attacking a Horse, which I stumbled upon in a book in the RISD library. I was really struck by the intensity and gruesome nature of the painting.

 

My thoughts on the Walter Benjamin essay:
I agree with Megan about how most forms of art are reproductions. What I think is unique about artwork is the artist's perspective of the subject of the work, and their perception of it when they are creating their piece. Everyone views the world differently, and this is what shapes makes our creations unique. Even if an exact reproduction of a work of art is made, there were slight differences in the emphasis of certain parts and certainly in the methods of creating it. The medium chosen certainly has a huge bearing on the outcome, and this is a major part of the reproduction's uniqueness.

Another thing I found interesting was his discussion of the cult value of art versus its exhibition value. I think that we often only imagine art as being created to put on display and make a statement for a large audience. I have mixed feelings about this general assumption of art being for the masses-- I think creative expression is more beneficial to the author and, obviously, the audience when shared, but at the same time that expression is often therapeutic and can seem to lose some of its value when it is publicly scrutinized. The same goes for art that is politicized, although I think that this can simply add a new dimension to its artistic value.


 

Molly Junck - Image Reproduction by Hand

I decided to do a famous and familiar image of the Rosie the Riveter World War II poster. 

Here is the original:

And here is my version:

Megan's Response, Reproduction, and Pictures from our Feast :)

In response to Walter Benjamin's essay, I think there is a certain essence about a reproduction that while it is not as special or unique as the original, it holds value in its creativity and accessibility. Most artists have produced reproductions before, but what exactly qualifies as a reproduction? I would even go as far as to wonder what does not qualify as a reproduction. For example, in my mind, looking at a landscape and then proceeding to take a picture or paint it would render it a reproduction, for it is not the original object. Even these past few weeks, as a class we made reproductions when using photoshop to alter images we copied. I see reproductions in a positive light, for without them what we call "art" would be very different today.

Here is my reproduction:
Original-

My Reproduction-

In regards to what I changes, obviously it is a bit different due to the fact it is quite hard to draw a perfect replication of a digital image. I also changed her face paint design.

On a different note, here are just a few pics from our delish feast last thursday!

Benjamin

I also think that the mechanical reproduction of art ruins the aura in someway. Being able to see the original work evokes emotions that I think a reproduction can not evoke. When I looked at paintings that are reproduced, I don't have the same awe and appreciation for that work as I do when I actually see it. For instance the the paintings that Michelangelo produced in the Sistine Chapel when seen in a Calendar for instance are beautiful, but when you view the real thing, it's more then beautiful... it causes you to stop speaking and just stare for minutes. 

Paige Gilley- Imitation

I chose to draw an editorial photo by Paola Roversi that I found in a fashion magazine:

"Translation, Imitation, Emulation": DaVinci's Females Remake-----Claudine

I chose to reproduce Leonardo DaVinci's portraits of women. Firstly, because I am obsessed with him and his style. In my opinion, there is no other artist's line quality that can compare to that of DaVinci. And in order to be a good artist, one must practice by imitating the best first before creating your own style. Secondly, when I was skimming through a book about him, the commentator wrote about how it was interesting how "Leonardo had little interest in exploring a range of ideals of female beauty comparable to the male types that he developed". Most of his women's face are in three quarter view (mostly eyes cast down) for religious purposes to depict modesty or as he puts it "modestia". This made me slightly upset because I am a woman (somewhat of a feminist) and DaVinci is my favorite artist who ironically stereotypes women into one "look". So I decided to alter that vision by reproducing his work as is and then making the women modern and more interesting.

Here are images of his work: (sorry they are not rotated---I am new at using a Mac so I am not sure how to do it :/)

 

 

Here is an image of my reproduction of those drawings:

And then here is the reproduction with the "modern" additions. I am not entirely sure I am happy with the end product but here it is for now:

Art transformation- Yasmine Beydou

So i decided to recreate the Birth of Venus, but to add a contemporary twist, I had her having plastic surgery (the spotted lines indicate "problem areas" that are to be altered through surgery). I thought it was interesting that our standards of beauty have changed so much that maybe the Venus in this painting would not be considered shapely in today's thin-obsessed society and therefore try to mold herself to fit our standards.

Sophia Diaz - Essay Response

Reading this essay was a bit of a brain teaser, as I was not sure how Fascism and Communism truly tied into Benjamin's thesis regarding art and the age of "mechanical reproduction." Also, I felt he was contradicting himself at times but perhaps that was just his way of presenting both sides of the argument...

First and foremost, I want to say that I do agree that sometimes (most times?), absolutely nothing can compare with standing in front of the original Venus de Milo, or other original artwork, rather than viewing a reproduction. But I have to say...I don't really agree with the bashing of mechanical reproduction and technology/camera/film in art.

Anyways, I want to focus on something Benjamin mentioned; that being that "historical testimony rests on authenticity." I think that authenticity does not just apply to the presence of the original painting, but also to pieces of art produced (or reproduced in a new way) by technology. The original anything--be it a painting, a landscape, etc.--does not "whither in the age of mechanical reproduction." Rather, it reactivates the original in a new way (I agree with Charlie and with Yasmine in that respect). It modifies an image in a new, original and fresh perspective that the masses would not have known/discovered otherwise. It becomes unique in its own respect...sure, it's uniqueness does not stem from the "fabric of tradition," but part of making art is about breaking tradition, experimenting and trying new things anyways! (in my opinion).

As for what Benjamin states about film, I completely disagree (and agree with Claudine as well). I come out of certain films completely baffled that something that amazing or that new could be in existence--it inspires a strong reaction in me.

Reactions are a part of what is instigated in Benjamin's definition of an "aura" produced by an original artwork. Films are original, unique pieces of art that inspire reactions from their audiences. I don't think that the film actor is in exile at all--the film actor may not have the same effect on an audience as an actor on a stage, but film actors and films in general still inspire the masses and maintain their own artistic merit. The act of an audience taking the position of a camera and running with the lenses' course of choice is part of the film/cinematic artistic experience.

I also thought that Benjamin's cameraman-mechanical-reproductive image of reality vs. the painter's reality is very interesting. In a nutshell he states that the cameraman's reality consists of "multiple fragments which are assembled under new law" while a painter presents the "total" image of reality. They are both art and both maintain their own unique, potent auras.

Technology and the notion of "mechanical reproduction," however, has only expanded the realm of art in my opinion, not tarnished it.

Response to Benjamin---Claudine

Sorry this is a little late :/ I had lost the paper with the assignment. Well, here it goes:

First off, I thought Benjamin would sometimes contradict himself. He further confused me when he brought fascism and communism into the picture. What he said about them could have been an entirely different essay and didn’t do much to enhance his point of view in my opinion. 

As for the actual question of “authorship, originality, and aura” I agree with Charlie and Katie. Although I am a huge advocate of film and photography, I do agree with Benjamin that there is an entirely different experience when viewing an actual painting or even sculpture in person. You cannot fully appreciate Michelangelo’s David unless you see it in person because a picture cannot evoke how huge it is and every curve of his body. Nonetheless, mechanical reproduction, as Charlie pointed out, does produce an aura of its own--although it is very different from the aura one experiences when viewing a painting in person. It does not mean it is a less appreciable aura. They are just different. 

I think Andy Warhol depicts this notion extremely well. He takes photographs (already “reproductions”) and famous paintings such as The Mona Lisa and redefines their aura on purpose by reproducing them over and over again through silkscreens. For me, it does nothing to subtract from the original work. It becomes original in itself because it produces a different aura and a different reaction from the viewer. As for film, I disagree with Benjamin in that film makes its critic, the audience, “absent-minded”. There have been so many times that I walk out of a screening of a film in awe either of its cinematography or of its message. But this “shock” element that Benjamin considers as a “distraction” is silly because paintings can be just as shocking.   

Leigh Holmes Boy leading a horse picasso

This piece done by Picasso is called Boy leading a horse, but if you look at the picture the boy has nothing to lead the horse. His hand is out and ready therefore looking like he would have rope in his hands, but doesn't. Unless it is hidden within the shadows, I did not see anything in the boy's hands. 

Translation - Austin

Here's a translation of a Rembrandt painting, but I obviously changed the age of the monk a little bit. and also added a tree branch with a bit of light too.

5 - Katie: Recreation Assignment

For this assignment, I recreated a building using Google SketchUp.

This is the building I reproduced:

Here is the reproduction:

http://sketchup.google.com/3dwarehouse/details?mid=8f77a927030a4941f74ced6694d64cc1

(sorry, I couldn't figure out how to get it onto the blog)

This is a picture of the front:

and the back:

If you download it, you can use the "orbit" tool to spin it around. Maybe you can through the website without downloading it. I'm not an expert.

Benjamin Response (Jocelyn)

Benjamin raises interesting questions about the effects of mechanical reproduction on the aura and authority of an original piece of art.  In our digital age, the effects of mechanical reproduction are more widespread than ever and may even make certain masterpieces seem commonplace.  How would the artist behind such pieces feel knowing that their work is accessible to anyone in the world, but can only be viewed on the flattened 13-inch-screen of a laptop?  Viewing art in this manner doesn't provoke audiences to question the authenticity of a piece.  In this sense, I would agree with Benjamin's sentiment that mass reproduction can have a diminishing effect on the aura of a work of art.  However, I do not believe such digital or even mechanical reproductions are intended to replace the original, and should not be interpreted as attempts to do so.


Also, Benjamin seems conflicted concerning photography and how it operates as an art form.  He claims that the products of film and photography are always depreciated, for example, a landscape scene in the middle of a film is easily overlooked.  I can see how this rule might operate within today's films, because it will always be difficult to capture the sense of space that one can obtain by actually experiencing nature.  However, photography and film are valuable as they can bring into view sights impossible for the naked eye, capturing parts of the universe, small and large, that are only accessible to a camera lens.


-Jocelyn

film screening tonight - art, photographs, painting!

Hey everyone,

This is kind of last minute, but I thought I'd post this event happening tonight that relates to some of the things we've touched on in class for anyone who's interested.

The John Nicholas Brown Center for the Public Humanities is sponsoring a screening of the film "David Hockney: The Bigger Picture" followed by a Q&A with the filmmaker.  The film follows Hockney’s efforts to disengage from photography and renew his painting by working for the first time outside in all weathers through the seasons – and it culminates in the largest picture ever made outdoors. It is at once the inspiring story of a homecoming and a revealing portrait of what inspires England’s most popular artist in his later years.

Monday, September 27, 7:30 pm, Smith-Buonanno 106

more info here: http://brown.edu/Research/JNBC/current_events.php

and a clip from the movie here that begins to show the photography vs. drawing/painting themes: http://video.nytimes.com/video/2009/10/15/multimedia/1247465135652/david-hockney-a-bigger-picture.html

-Katharine

Molly Junck - Essay Response

Benjamin's essay is very valuable in that it takes a step back and recognizes the gigantic evolutionary leap (whether forward, sideways, or backwards) in art's relatively newfound reproducibility.

I think there is a give and take to the effects of this.  Art used to be accessible only to the elite, whereas now it is much more widely known and appreciated.  I agree with Charlie that the reproducibility can add to the aura.  Before reproduction was widespread, only those that were physically close to the original art and interested in seeking it out would be exposed to it.  Now anyone with a good internet connection can be inspired by art from 10,000 years ago to the present day.  And when someone goes to MOMA and they stand in front of the Starry Night, an image which most have seem numerous times in reproduction, knowing that you are standing in front of the very canvas that Van Gogh painted is like meeting a celebrity.  When art used to have more of an "aura," that was probably due to less art in everyday life, making the experience of seeing it that much more powerful.  I feel like having a more creative environment with lesser highlights is still better than having a duller one with bright moments.

Another interesting thing to consider is that the essay was written in 1936.  It would be interesting to know what he would think about the modern perception of art, or the posters sold en masse in front of the Ratty, or the films that are created in green screen where the filming of them barely resembles the finished product.

Molly Junck

Paige Gilley- Benjamin Response

           Personally, I agree with Benjamin and I think that seeing a work of art in its original form holds more value than seeing a reproduction of the piece. There is just something captivating about seeing an original piece of artwork that makes it unique and very different from observing a reproduction. The context and setting where the artwork is displayed and viewed probably has an effect on that feeling as well.

However, I would agree with Charlie in that modern technology’s ability to reproduce a painting like the Mona Lisa creates a unique “aura” that allows people to experience art in an entirely different way. A reproduction allows the work to become almost immortal as it can be continuously reprinted and shared throughout time even if the original fades away or changes from its original state. Reproductions allow artwork to be shared around the world and allows for better communication between artists in general. 

Yasmine's Response

Although I won't deny that Benjamin has a point in emphasizing the value of a piece's aura, I don't agree with his assertion that mechanical reproduction of art is leading to art's demise. To me, art is art no matter what form it's in, whether its the original copy, a reproduction, a photograph of it or even a sketch of the original. The beauty and meaning behind a piece is not lost by its replication, but rather it takes on a new form and perhaps a modified meaning. A poster of the Mona Lisa has different meaning than the actual piece- it is more playful and more accessible. I'm not saying that a poster is better or worse, but merely sends a different message.

As for the aura that he talks about, I definitely agree that a certain closeness to a piece is formed when you are standing right in front of the original. You can see the very brushstrokes that the artist used in creating his piece, and from that, experience the piece rather than simply view it. 

Still, I stand firmly in believing that the definition of art is not as narrow as Benjamin's essay makes it seem. Experiencing art does not have to be limited to standing in front of the original.

Essay Response - Austin

I found Benjamin's essay brought forth some highly important aspects and issues with the nature of art--not only the nature of art itself as an independent entity, but art in its context, its place in society, and its role and occupation to humans, how it is perceived, and the significance of artwork and the beholder. Despite the fact that there are many small analytic points Benjamin makes which I am not convinced, which I find to be a stretch, unrealistic or an illogical jump between postulations, on the whole I strongly agree with his general thesis and overarching principles of his essay--and all the ramifications to the essence and position of art that entails (which are seemingly innumerable).

It is fascinating to read Benjamin's idea of what is happening with art in relation to this new age of "mechanical reproduction." I believe that he is completely correct in his basic principle that inherent to a work of "art" is a certain aura that is only present in the single, unique, original piece. I think that this seemingly simple idea has numerous profound extrapolations, and speaks greatly to what goes into art, what art is, by the nature that implies a great level of depth--it is a truly marvelous thing. As Benjamin says, it also speaks to the implicit tie between the artist and his creation. One small point of disagreement for me there, Benjamin maintains that this connection cannot be understood by the beholder and adds to the mystery of a piece; I maintain that this deep connection is not even fully understood by the artist.

Although the loss of such a huge amount of the meaning and essence of the piece is clearly extremely lamentable, I think that is still a necessary evil so to speak. I cannot say how much I have personally gained from the accessibility to all the world of art, and there are millions of others who experience the same, so even though it is not desirable, it still achieves a much greater good. There are a few things also in the artistic realm analogous to this situation I find--I use translations, and live music as my examples. A translation is a necessary evil to me, I lose so much of the aesthetics, so much of the very inherent character and nature by reading something that is translated, the same as viewing a art reproduction. Or, listening to Beethoven's Ninth Symphony on tiny headphones will never be comparable to listening to it performed by a 100-strong orchestra. But in both cases, though I lose so much of the purity and truth of the character of the artwork, I would still much rather listened to the accessible but compromised form, than to never experience, which is infinitely worse in my opinion.

Thank you Benjamin for writing a very interesting essay that leads to much important thought on the nature of art and its place in the human sphere.

image from Ingmar Bergman's The Seventh Seal

Maria-Benjamin Response

I agree with Katie. I think modern technology does contribute to a demise of aura to some extent. I think that seeing a work in its original form, rather than seeing it in reproduction, will always have value. The physicality of an object has a power that adds to the experience of art. When I see a painting, I also imagine the painter in front of it and like to look at the brushstrokes and other aspects that create the "reality" of the painting for me. I think that's why I enjoy developing my own prints in the darkroom more than having them printed, or creating something with my hands and pen and ink instead of using photoshop. The unique feeling of a work that Benjamin discusses is a direct link from viewer to artist, and as such adds to the way in which we perceive a piece. I think there's also something to viewing a piece of art, such as Guernica, for example, and imagining the many other people who have also looked at this same painting in various settings over the years. For me, there is something special about works that one is never able to reproduce, or record, for that matter. It lends itself to a different nature of perception in experiencing the piece.

Mechanical reproduction has however drastically broadened the scope of art and created many new tools and options for experiencing and creating it in previously unheard of ways.

4 - Katie - Response to Benjamin Essay

Unlike Charlie, I think that Benjamin has a point here. There is something missing from looking at a print than at the original. I don't know what that something missing is, and Benjamin gives it the fitting word of "aura."
For example, we all know La Guernica. It's a powerful piece. There is definitely something magical going on when you see it in person. A poster does not do it justice. Charlie talked about size in reproduction, and maybe the magic is in the fact that it is HUGE and in its own blank room. But maybe the magic is seeing Picasso's brush strokes and feeling it right in front of you, touchable at risk of sounding a very loud alarm. However, since not everyone can go to Madrid, is a poster a worthy second best? Benjamin says no, but technology allows Madrid to come to us, so I say yes.

I'm currently sitting in Faunce next to a brightly colored bulls-eye. It's large and a masterpiece by no standards but, the oil creates this texture that as it hits the light makes it shine. Now, if it were replaced by a poster, I would not get this feeling.

Also, I am definitely not a sports fan but I've been to a few Red Sox games and seen a few of them on tv. This limited viewing is enough to understand that the camera chooses the most boring parts of the game. I am more interested in the crowd singing Sweet Caroline and the baby about to get murdered by the person in front of him than Papi sauntering onto the field.

In movies, it is absolutely true that the director emphasizes things and creates the experience for the viewer. But, is that such a bad thing? In my opinion, Benjamin is giving a little too much credit to this whole "aura" thing. A painter can't direct the viewer through the painting as explicitly as a director can through a movie, but if he could, would he?

While I agree with his basic principles, Benjamin is simply putting a little to much emphasis on the true experience over the experience at all. While a poster is no substitute to the real thing, it's better than nothing.

Charlie: Response to "Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction"

I don't necessarily agree with Benjamin's assertions about how mechanical reproduction is the demise of aura. In many ways, the ability of modern technology to reproduce a work tens of thousands of times gives a work a larger than life "aura" that it might not have otherwise attained. The reproduction of paintings in the form of posters allows people to experience a work in way that they otherwise couldn't.

In my opinion, another example of how reproduction can add to "aura" is the omnipresence of the Mona Lisa. Everyone has seen the Mona Lisa---although not necessarily the original. Many people, upon seeing the actual painting in Paris are surprised by how small it is. In this case, mechanical reproduction has built an aura---one that ultimately leads to surprise as the original's lack of scale.

- Charlie

Charlie: Response to "Art in the Age of Mechanical Reporoduction"

I don't necessarily agree with Benjamin's assertions about how mechanical reproduction is the demise of aura. In many ways, the ability of modern technology to reproduce a work tens of thousands of times gives a work a larger than life "aura" that it might not have otherwise attained. The reproduction of paintings in the form of posters allows people to experience a work in way that they otherwise couldn't.

In my opinion, another example of how reproduction can add to "aura" is the omnipresence of the Mona Lisa. Everyone has seen the Mona Lisa---although not necessarily the original. Many people, upon seeing the actual painting in Paris are surprised by how small it is. In this case, mechanical reproduction has built an aura---one that ultimately leads to surprise as the original's lack of scale.

- Charlie

Walter Benjamin: Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction

Please read this before Thursday:

http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ge/benjamin.htm

After our discussion, I thought I'd share this incredible stop-motion film by photographer Bruno Levy.

- Olivia

Megan Nolet- tattoos

Here are my final tattoos:

Videos

Hey errbody!  Sophi just posted the links to some awesome youtube clips, but I'm not too proud to admit that sometimes I'm too lazy to copy and paste a link to watch something.  (but right now, lucky reader, I'm not too lazy since I am in fact making this post)

so, PRO TIP on how to embed videos here for future reference if you're so inclined (if you care. it's not that big of a deal.):
1. find your youtube video
2. click "embed" under the description box
3. copy that long random code
4. come over here and create your post
5. **click "edit HTML" instead of "compose" when you paste the embed code into a post
6. preview to make sure it's all good


and just for kicks, here are the videos Sophi was linking to:





love this one!



-Katharine M.

Sophia Diaz - lots o' stuff

I made two more designs because I have discovered that I like to play with photoshop when I am procrastinating and not doing my homework for my other classes....anyways....here they are. I included four different color variations of the second design.

P.S. here is the "powers of ten" video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUeFzvHz8Bw

P.p.s. this video/poem is AMAZING...I think it's great for people our age, seriously: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEBZkWkkdZA ...speak with conviction!

--sophi diaz