Modern Edge Center for the Arts - Home - Leominster, MA

Coming soon; Modern Edge Center for the Arts.

My sister, a graduate from Massachusetts College of Art is sharing her passion for the arts in the twin cities of; Leominster/Fitchburg. She is opening an art center for all ages to take art classes, have art parties, display their work and so forth. This is a major accomplishment for her and will be an excellent asset to the community.

Please take the time to visit her website (see the link below) to view the programs she developed. The grand opening will be in March of 2011.


Modern Edge Center for the Arts - Home - Leominster, MA

Artwork

In addition to my personal blogs I will also share some of my artwork. I am slowly building a portfolio of items, merely for leisure.

The image I am adding today is acrylic on gesso with a hint of nature, enjoy.

Freedom

    This morning on National Public Radio (NPR, WGBH) on The Takeaway, there was a discussion of Freedom (NPR, December 17^th 2010). Freedom is perhaps the primary value of the United States. Our nation was built on immigration; we believed this was the "land of opportunity" where people could live free without the limitations of an over-powering government, as many people experienced in their own homelands. However, with settlement there was a vision that in the "land of opportunity" people would have freedom with their new found citizenship.

    In response to The Takeaway's host, Eric Foner of Colombia University, pointed out the difference in freedom given vs. freedom earned via the struggles that different groups endured. From a historical perspective, the host of The Takeaway proposed, what if individuals who came to the United States were automatically given freedom rather than the necessity to earn it, i.e. slaves, women and other oppressed demographics (NPR, 2010).

    Foner asserts that of course reconsideration of the way things happened is merely in hindsight but points out the difference between given or "entitled freedom" vs. freedom earned. If we began our journey of national establishment giving all Americans freedom, would the outcome be different today?

    As an individual who personally believes in freedom and equality for everyone I would be considered an ethical humanist in contemporary terms (perhaps a socialist in another era— but we will leave that for another blog). I believe that through strife and heartache we all grow and learn a greater sense of appreciation. Nevertheless, this is a horrible argument coming from an American who never knew the struggles of the oppressed. I also strongly believe that the method of how groups of people had to earn their rights and freedoms were unnecessary, unethical and inappropriate.

    Therefore, if we all began with a blank slate, how could American's earn their freedom if it was something ascertained as a natural right? Do we work from the bottom up, so as a blank slate and then build our freedom within this nation state, or do we assume a top-down method where we all begin free and equal and you would suffer the loss of rights and freedom upon ill actions against society's norms? Certainly you can see how both of these methods were institutionalized within our society over time. Individuals who suffered enslavement and oppression had to earn their rights whereas others experience downward mobility because of their actions; such as criminals.

 

 

 

National Public Radio (2010). Retrieved on December 17^th, 2010. Supportive information retrieved from; http://www.thetakeaway.org/2010/dec/17/american-values-freedom/

Intelligence and Standardized Testing

    Research supports that human intelligence extends far beyond our math and verbal abilities (Gardner, H.; Sternberg). However, educational systems (and additional disciplines such as the military, employee recruitment etc.) rely on the use of standardized tests which measure limited intelligences.

    It is quite curious that the realm of research and certainly education recognize this research— it is also a primary focus in education curriculum; yet we are still reliant on standardized tests for admission processes. There are obvious benefits to standardized tests including a baseline measurement of verbal and mathematical knowledge and aptitude; it is also administered to include all of the same information across multiple demographics and geographic locations and is reported to correlate to future success— certainly another debatable perspective.

On the other hand we are aware of test biases, for instance with unfair school resources at different institutions of secondary education. Is it therefore fair to assume that a school with multiple computer labs and access gives those students an upper hand? It is highly common that inner city school systems in more impoverished areas have limited resources for their students, providing that economic standpoints and socioeconomic status as a factor. Ethnicity biases persist for this particular reason and cultural knowledge may be inconsistent with these tests. Consider the different required skills for students who live in urban areas vs. rural domains, do these students need to have the same knowledge? Can we not assume differences amongst the geographical requirements?

A student who values higher/further education may not provide the best information with their SAT scores thus, why is it fair that we use test scores with such a heavy weight on college acceptance? We should also recognize that some people are simply not good at taking tests, some may experience test anxiety or could even have a bad day on the day they are supposed to take the test; such as physical illness.

The recognition of multiple intelligences (Gardner, H.; Sternberg) includes individual's skills in math, verbal, logic, inter/intrapersonal, body kinesthetic and creativity (Myers, D., 2009). An individual who exudes superior creative and artistic abilities is therefore not equal to one who excels in logic or problem-solving abilities. Stigmas regarding athlete intelligence deem these individuals to be less intelligent in several settings; however the highly skilled athletes have a greater skill set regarding the understanding of the body in a different manner than one say, with strong math abilities or verbal comprehension. The question then becomes, is there a more efficient assessment method that measures different intelligences and people's future abilities to succeed— the SATs and other standardized tests are utilized to gage one's future potential, as this is correlational we cannot assume causation.

Perhaps tests of motivation may be more reliable to consider one's future success. The student with that strong value for higher/further education could be more motivated to excel in college than an individual who is simply good at taking tests. Some individuals are intrinsically motivated whereas some are externally motivated. One who is internally motivated could push themselves further because of their desire to succeed. People with external drives consider the potential for better employment, economic advances, and potentially upward mobility from their family's social status they could therefore excel in higher education settings.

If we ignore the potential and intelligence of those who excel in other areas do we lose out on their impending contributions? Some of our greatest thinkers such as Einstein failed to do well in academic settings but obviously contributed greatly to our understanding of mathematics and science. We can also learn from persons of low intelligence scores and even maladies, such as autistic individuals who surpass others in specific areas such as musical talent or complex numerical comprehension.

There is potential to ascertain that standardized tests could be a form of eugenics, or a way to foster the elite who are choice candidates amongst social standards and diminish the less socially revered persons. Upward mobility within civilization is difficult and more rare that we anticipate. With this in mind standardized testing may be another way to hinder unconventional success-driven candidates.

 

 

Current Events

                In April of 1999 I became utterly consumed by mass media. The Columbine massacre prompted me to watch the news on a daily basis and to hear reports as to why this event occurred. I remember about one week later I was in my mother’s room watching the news ever so religiously when she came in the room to find me crying. I remember I was irate with how the news allocated the problems of these boys to the type of music they listened to. I was so upset that the media would prescribe their musical preference as the key component to their inner problems, and neglected to see that there were perhaps other reasons as to why they were the way they were—such as having a mental disorder or suffering from bullying etc. Certainly I was not and still do not agree with the crimes they committed, however I was just shocked at how the media reports stories and how/where they place their blame. Needless to say, my mother only found it appropriate that I take a break from the news.

                One year later I found myself once again glued to the T.V. this time I was infatuated with the Bush vs. Gore Election, although I could not legally vote at the time I was very much so interested in the political debates and the ways in which the candidates portrayed themselves and marketed to the public. The anxiety of this election kept everyone around the globe on the edge of their seats and as you could well imagine a young mind could become as easily consumed with the media coverage just as much as the adult population— perhaps even more so as this is a time of teenage angst and discovering one’s political voice and opinions. With the world waiting breathlessly to find out who the next president would be, I once again became overwhelmed with the media coverage. The intensity and the drama that surrounded the situation and the emotions that arose in the days following the election with re-counts and so forth infected my brain as if it were a timorous legion. After the conclusions calmed it was only necessary for me to once again forfeit my relationship with the news stations. But of course I was weak and would return to the obsessive concerns with news sources several more times; certainly with 9/11 again in 2003 when the U.S. went to war with ‘terror’ and with the Bush vs. Kerry election of 2004.

                While I was able to recognize that my emotional involvement with the media coverage of these events was completely irrational, it never seemed to stop me from going back to it. Keeping my irrational connection in mind I made a conscious decision to watch the news very infrequently and always with caution. In fact I often avoided the news to ensure that I would not become upset with the content or feel depressed with the habitual negativity.

                In my current position as a professor I find it is necessary to stay on top of my game by remaining up-to-date with what is current and relevant in my own field as well as have a good understanding of current events as this can be rather valuable in the learning process. That being said, in an attempt to ease myself into the world of current events I am using my commute as an opportunity to absorb what is going on in the world by listening to NPR/WGBH. Thus far I do find it to be effective. My time in the car is a bit longer than I would care for, however it is a sufficient amount of time to gather information and understand current happenings. I can also appreciate that my time listening to these news casts are limited to the distance that I am driving, and therefore I cannot become overly attached to the media sources.

                I sincerely believe that in our society we are highly desensitized and perhaps overly desensitized by what we see on T.V. or hear on the radio. I know that for me I become too emotionally connected to the media which is why I restrain my news-time but for others images or sounds are merely background music to their daily lives. I certainly hope that individuals do stop and listen to stories that they believe move them, but how often do people get ready or drink their coffee with the news on and only stop to see the weather or the traffic and not if there was a murder recently or act of violence— let alone if there is a positive story to report.

                It seems evident to me that from an evolutionary perspective it is necessary for our body to block out some information and to desensitize us after awhile. For example, images of 9/11 still move us today, but nothing compares to the first time we saw the plane crash into the building. If, again from an evolutionary stand point, we were as moved as the first time we saw this horrid crime take place then we would have sincere difficulties with productivity in our daily lives. That being said, where do we draw the line? It seems that watching/listening to the news is a citizen of the world’s responsibility but watching it to the degree that we do seems to make us emotionally unresponsive. How can we effectively maintain a balance then? How can we educate ourselves without overwhelming us but in a manner that elicits more human empathy?