tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1471649638591328998.post613822751585361952..comments2012-05-04T09:48:54.806-07:00Comments on The idea of the ordinary: Showing offKristen Casehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00311990318060061096noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1471649638591328998.post-74231997955102553352012-04-27T09:49:35.443-07:002012-04-27T09:49:35.443-07:00I didn't think about it that way, but I guess ...I didn't think about it that way, but I guess it doesn't fall under good or bad. It is just normal and it is expected. Gabriel's speech is made to be understood by those of less education than he is, since he stresses over the use of writers who they will have never read. It is made to be understood at a simple level and it is not appreciated for it's brilliancy of writing and word choice, but rather the sentiments that he is expressing about their hosts.<br />Mary Ann's musical piece is meant to be a show of skill and finesse. It isn't about how the sounds coming from the piano all fit together, but rather that all of the notes are played correctly. It may not be very interesting, but it would be easy to tell when something went wrong with the piece and that is what makes it a good talent showcase: no chance of messing up and getting away with it. To relate it to symposium again: the antioxidants in coffee presentation. No one wants to know all of the chemical reactions that she needed, wants to know all of the equipment she used and how it worked, how many hours she spent every Friday working on that presentation. All people want to hear is what she got. And apparently the results were fantastic, because I heard faculty talking about it all day. They neither know nor want to know all of the background and that background is what makes you truly be impressed with the project. So the presentation is for the presenter. It is fine if the people listening don't completely understand. I honestly don't want to be so knowledgeable about EVERYTHING that I really understand their works.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1471649638591328998.post-69855235227455469432012-04-26T19:36:42.531-07:002012-04-26T19:36:42.531-07:00Well, I thought you were brill, for what it is wor...Well, I thought you were brill, for what it is worth. <br /><br />It is interesting that Mary Jane's performance--of an "Academy piece" is ignored, while Gabriel's (his toast) is a smash. Is that good or bad? I've never really understood the valence of "Academy piece": does it suggest precious, affected? or actual artistic talent and ambition, which the sad bourgeois party guests (and Gabriel) do not appreciate?Daniel Gunnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10789277936440307747noreply@blogger.com