I'm Into CBeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!:
A presentation/activity focusing on what makes a bad composition.

Shipka's Forum Prompt:
Bad Compositions

ART:
The "Art" Slide Show
Sarah
Yolanda
Kate
Maggie

WRITING:
Erwin
Bill
Shanna
Amber

MUSIC:
Greg
Brittany
Dev

COMMUNICATION through FASHION:
Examples of Bad Fashion
Elizabeth
Christopher
Crystal

A response to A. Natvoitz's "The Good, The Bad, and the Artsy..." by Shipka
to say that it boils down to personal taste or opinion seems to me to be a cop-out on the critical analysis/awareness front. where do personal tastes or opinions come from? how are they shaped, supported, problematized or even altered over time? why is it that people have to disclaim certain kinds of music or fiction or fashion or whatever with "guilty pleasures"? i hated elvis' music until i fell in love with someone who loved that music--elvis became ultra cool! i've always loved big hair because i grew up at a time when farrah-hair was all the rage. i didn't think much of country music till i moved to a place where it's pretty much all i heard and then it kinda grew on me and i learned to distinguish between what i took to be the good and bad stuff (read: the good stuff sounded more like pop than country and wasn't so twangy). i have always loved the song MMMBop by Hanson, but i know not to say this in front of most people, how come? i've always hated the song safety dance but i think this has to do with the innane lyrics (i.e., lyrics should be important/impactful) and the bad hair stuff that was going down at the time.

         in short, i think there is a lot at stake when one is not in the "taste" or "opinion" majority (unless of course one prides themselves on being contrary. . .) , let's unpack the social/historical stuff about how you all have come to recognize something as being bad, wrong, failing. sure it's personal but it's also social, historical, economical and political.

A response to A. Natovitz and Shipka's post by S. Kibler
I see what you're getting at with the social/economic/political ideas of why/how we like what we like. For instance, I have a friend who flat out refuses to listen to any country music whatsoever. He is a huge fan of classical music and has admitted that he believes that country music is "blue collar." We have actually had arguments about whether there are clear distinctions between the socio-economic groups and their tastes and why this occurs. Sure the "lower classes" are not typically found at the opera, but certainly this is in part due to a financial constraint and not solely on the fact that they do not like opera music. Many people have also never had the opportunity to have opera explained to them, so the context is not there for them to make meaning of what is happening in the performance (think Richard Gere explaining the opera to Julia Roberts in "Pretty Woman" and how moved she was). Perhaps, as you touched on in your post, it is in large part due to exposure. What we are exposed to (or have the opportunity to be exposed to) makes a huge difference on what we end up thinking is "good," and these opportunities are definitely tied to social/economic/ political factors.

A response to Natovitz and Shipka's post by W. Chewning
Ok...I reduced the good/bad argument down to a basic question: Does it (writing, music, fashion, etc.) accomplish what it is intended to do? Let's break that down a little more with the personal versus economic/social/political ideas in mind.

         Let's say that a piece of writing is intended to support an argument, a piece of music is intended to entertain, and a person's fashion is intended to be aesthetically attractive.

         Well, if we look at these arguments on the most personal level of all, then only the person by whom the composition was created need be convinced/entertained/pleased with the final product. But when you start taking the opinions of other people into consideration, then the judgment becomes a more quantitative measure - how many people think that the composition is "good." How many are required to think it's good before we can say that it is definitely good? Is that number a round figure or is it a percentage of those who experience the composition? In other words, if a thousand people say Jerome's clothes are cool, does that mean they are? What if those thousand approvals come from a pool of a billion people?

         I guess what I'm asking is this: does it matter what other people think at all, or are we each the individual judges of what is or is not "good?" See, now we're back to Shipka's point about how our own opinions are influenced by others. At this point, we're dealing with a circular argument, and we all know what that means...

         I have been to so many art gallery openings, shows, and meeting across the country and there is always a piece of art that I love and want for my own. I can then understand the artists thought process and can tell that the piece is worth the money. I can appreciate the work at that point. Yet I also know quite a few artists that could easily say that they were high or drunk when they produced the artwork. I just laugh because I remember at the gallery the high rollers analyzing the artwork talking about the creativity, BLAH BLAH B.S. and yet they have no clue.

         I know some artists in New York that never produced a bad art composition because the results are always masterpieces and fantastic. The pieces that they hated went for the most money because people were willing to pay top dollar for it. I always feel comfortable talking to them about my art trials and tribulations because they can relate and offer positive solutions.

         I remember one time I had gone to an art show down in Soho, New York and the artist had taken and combined trashcan lids and formulated them into a sculpture. It was gross and it smelled so bad that it sat in a corner. I was grossed out and that was a Bad Composition in my mind. I felt the artist was in a rush to produce something to put in the gallery. I was not the only one that had felt the project was a stinky disgrace.

         My talent I recently discovered was completely inherited. My uncle and aunt can draw very well yet I am the only one that draws and creates artwork according to people's lifestyle and taste. My artwork is in so many people's homes right now that I am always amazed at my artwork when I visit. I make a very good profit on my artwork as well yet I never pursued it because I always felt it was no money in it. GO FIGURE.

         In my opinion there are a few stylistic things that I don't like, and I guess would therefore consider bad:

• When facial features are out of place - it irks me
  
• The super deformed style in Anime - it annoys me sometimes
  
• Super high contrast like yellow and black together, colors that really clash, and lots of really bright color all over the place - it makes my head hurt
  

In terms of art as a composition, if the purpose of the art work requires that people look at it to interpret meaning, but the style is such that people can't look at it (like if it is too bright to stare at for long periods) I guess that would be considered a bad composition because it would fail at it's goal. On the other hand, if the content is such that people can't look at it, and that was the author's point, then it would be a good/successful composition even though it would make people uncomfortable. So there is no across the board answer to this question. It's all about personal preference and each individual situation/ composition is different.

         We all know that one quality of bad writing is that it "tells" and doesn't "show." Well, that's bad for some types of writing, especially creative genres that are meant to elicit emotions from or transmit sensory experiences to readers. As Shipka's students, we know that sensory experiences can be delivered through many "modes," and the word "writing" doesn't have to refer only to the words that we print on a page, but also to the way they are delivered and what else accompanies them. A photograph might convey a visual image more accurately than an entire chapter that describes the scene in the most beautiful prose ever constructed. But, in this case, accuracy is rarely the goal; readers of creative genres often desire directed fantasy where they are able to lose themselves in what they are reading. "Showing" just enough of the basics for readers to paint the picture in their minds allows fantasy to flourish. Accuracy would hinder this process, as good writing, in this case, allows one to get lost. So, bad writing would simply not appeal to the sensibilities of the reader which allow for such a powerful impact.

         I would not want to get lost in a prescription medicine label, though. A medicine label that lacks accuracy and would allow the reader to visualize instructions in a creative way would be a good example of bad technical writing. For instance, consider this label: "Take some when you're feeling down; soon you'll be up and out on the town! Drink a lot with these little pills, and don't worry at all about your ills." If this were written on a Xanax bottle, the opportunities for misinterpretation would be plentiful. "Some" is certainly not accurate enough, and I am unsure if "out on the town" suggests that people should go driving after they pop some happy-tablets. "Drink a lot" probably refers to water, but a lot of vodka might not cooperate with Alprazolam. You get the picture... inaccuracy in creative writing can be good, but probably makes for really bad in technical writing.

         Of course, grammar is a much trickier issue. Does bad grammar make bad writing? Maybe... especially if it is really bad. Grammar of lacking extreme and lost speaking of can be understated way. But a misplaced modifier or a dangling participle here or there doesn't always trip up readers. Even though we might spot minor grammatical errors, they don't always confuse us as to the meaning of the words. Then again, poor grammar could hinder the process of the reader getting lost in a creative writer's prose or lose confidence in the technical writer's accuracy. On the other hand, some of the "best" (as considered by many) pieces of writing to date are anything but masterful works of grammatical perfection. Once a writer is famous, they are awarded creative license to dispense with grammar without the negative consequences from critics.

         What it boils down to is that writing is bad if it doesn't do what it is intended to do

A response to W. Chewning's "Bad Writing" by P.C. Paul
That's it!

         If the message being delivered by the author is misinterpreted by most or all of its readers within the community the author is targeting with the message using any mode or many modes of communication then the composition has failed in its communicative objective thereby making it a bad composition because the composition has not delivered the message the author intended.

         Boy this sounds awful familiar now :-(

A response to 's "What Is So Bad That It's Good?" by p, C. Paul
I never ever understood that song as a love song. I always understood it from a "1984," "CIA," "FBI," "NSA (No Such Agency)" or "The Prisoner" point of view. You are on public record 24/7 though audio and video, in essence you are being "stalked" or "constant surveillance.

A response to P.C. Paul 's post by W. Chewning
Sweet! I've always wanted my very own stalker.

A response to W. Chewning 's post by P.C. Paul
My Pet Stalker by the KGB

A response to S. Kibler 's post by C. Gatton
I agree when you say--"something can still be good because of the unintended effects it may have." I wonder if there is any real/definite white or black answer to this "bad composition question."

        a good example: death metal. when i listen to this stuff, first thing that comes to mind is, "what the crap??" how can people actually like to listen to this mish mash of grotesque instrumentation combined with lyrics about beheading family members that can't even be deciphered 'cause the "singer' doesn't sing, he moans, groans, and screams, sounding more as if he's in pain than actually producing melodic vocals."

        well, a good friend of mine is the lead singer of a death metal band called Shredding the Flesh. delightful, huh? my point being, he LOVES this noise he whole-heartedly refers to as music. the same high i get from tunes like those of jack johnson or john mayer, ryan gets from bands like jungle rot, body part trophy case, severe torture, and dying fetus. but, hey, whatever floats your boat!

         i'm assuming that this assignment is going to require me to specify what i think is bad music, even though, as i stated before, i don't think anything can ever really be considered "bad." oh well, in which case, the death metal, as specified above, would definitely be at the top of the "bad" music list. i'm a huge fan of easy listening and incredibly clever lyrics like those of Jason Mraz or Sara Bareilles. therefore, anything that poses as the complete opposite of such musical characteristics would also most likely secure a slot on my "bad" music chart.

         for the record, i'd like to say that i don't agree with this assignment as i don't see any composition as being inevitably "bad." i think maybe we should switch it up a bit and instead ask, "what makes a composition good?"

"Its so GOOD its BAD!!!!" a response to B. Bauhaus' "The question should be: "What makes a composition GOOD?"" by P.C. Paul
What about Controlled Bleeding (pre-industrial) or Pig Vomit?

         Mark Smith basically recites lyrics like John Lydon (Johnny Rotten-Sex Pistols) of PiL (Public Image Limited). They do not sing. He will also chose particular refrains to do bizarre over-accentuating of sounds on words like Lydon. If you ever heard Solitaire by PiL this would be an example of the over-accentuating of particular sounds of the human voice. You know something can be so bad that its good especially when referring to one’s significant other. ;-)

         Allow me to be perfectly clear here. I am addressing sound and not lyrics. I am addressing sound and composition of sound and not repetition or beat/rhythm. There are too many groups to list in various genres. Industrial and post-Industrial becomes a prime example with groups such as Controlled Bleeding, Front 242 (read as Front two four two), Skinny Puppy, and Ministry among others. Some compositions are interesting as far as sound but most are pure noise pollution. Galvanized steel garbage cans used correctly can constitute music and composition but an electric drill allowed to dance on a steel plate constitutes noise pollution, something we tried to protect ourselves from with ear protection in a shop.

         I posted the lyrics to the entire song because I did not want to take the part that really makes Mark Smith’s statement which is so much of the music out there is so bad it sounds like noise such as the industrial music genre. Let’s face it when you use an electric drill on a sheet of aluminum as a musical instrument or the popping of a welding torch or an air ratchet typically used in an auto shop that’s music? If I have to listen to the music with industrial hearing protection I think we have a problem and we have crossed the line from music to noise. "I’m into CB" is the refrain. I do have a question though. Granted that many of us believe that we can recognize, no let me rephrase that, that we can articulate what is Bad Composition and we further believe we can recognize, no, articulate what is Good Composition when we are being put to the challenge, "We think and claim to know and can articulate what is good composition, therefore we should be able to articulate freely what is Bad Composition. In other words, if I brought in this particular song and played it, which was my original intention I think we might have trouble articulating what is bad about it. We recognize it as bad as an absolute majority, believe me everyone would agree "this" music was bad, so bad that we would have to wonder "What would compel anyone to spend $35 on "this" CD boggles the mind." I think in many cases unless we are well-verse and literate in the language, we will find ourselves tongue-tied trying to explain what is bad about a Bad Composition.

         Classical compositions that are masterful and timeless have a feeling of inevitability; each note follows the last as a matter of course, and the end is therefore contained in the beginning. Because of this they are also delicate; one feels that the slightest change would mar their perfect beauty. Such pieces seem to exist outside of time, basic, elemental and eternal. It is hard to imagine the world before them. Mediocre or bad compositions do not give this impression. Instead they seem to wander, languish, amble here and there with no apparent purpose or destination. The sense of inevitability, of the driving force of perfection, is absent. They have little to “say” and seem to exist because an impotent mind forced itself to generate something, anything. Great composers like Beethoven and Brahms wrote music fitting each category, masterpieces as well as belabored exercises. It is hard to describe the difference as I see it, as it is a very nebulous concept. More concretely, I dislike loud, bloated-sounding classical music most of the time. One example is the beginning of Brahms’s first symphony. (Ouch!) I prefer more delicate music, with thinner textures, like chamber music.

         If the message being delivered by the author is misinterpreted by most or all of its readers within the community the author is targeting with the message using any mode or many modes of communication then the composition has failed in its communicative objective thereby making it a bad composition because the composition has not delivered the message the author intended.

         Boy this sounds awful familiar now… :-(

Communication through Fashion
Okay, the Literacy of Dress on the Post-Punk (Alternative Music) Genre Club Scene

(I have chosen this versus the Hippie Wanna-be days because I don’t want to open that door.)

Period: Circa 1983-1993
I love a Man in Uniform: The literacy of dress/fashion in the post-punk (alternative music) genre club scene during the period of 1983 to 1993

Dress was used as a semiotic code (Semiotic = the science of symbols and signs and making meaning from them, this is a part of visual literacy) and varied depending which club one was going to for the evening. Some were dress up, some were dress down depending on the name and night one attended. (IE the club Spit was Friday Nights--Singles Night, so one would go Furniture and Scaffold Dancing dressed in the most tattered of black to symbolize that you were poor and urban. The real punk-ish stuff. Club Malibu was Dress-Up: UP, Saturday Nights--Couples Night we dressed well and posh but one item had to draw you back to the roots of punk in order to be Alternative and NOT DISCO. This could mean army boots with a beautiful willowy sheer black dress, black Chuck Taylor Converse sneakers (Chuckie-T's) with a corporate suit two sizes too large, the Club Paris was French/German New Wave, Mmmmm, sort of like Sarah Miller’s dress [in ENGL 324] which I’ll explain later, 007 on Thursday’s--Singles Club, anything that looked like a spy was kewl.)

         Several songs and groups spoke of the post-punk music genre. The dress would identify to the rest of the club members what was your sub-genre, sub-culture, and the click. "Do you choose a hard or soft option?" (Pet Shop Boys). Pastie Whites dressed in solid black (Depeshe Mode, Joy Division, Bauhaus, The Cure) they would come out and "sweep the floor" very slow deliberate dance movements to accent the feeling of being a ghost (The Dead Living). Hip Hop and Urban Contempt (while it was in its infancy: The Sugar Hill Gang: (Grand Master Flash, Melle Mel, The Furious Five, Afrika Bambaataa, Malcom McKlaren...) anything that was cheap and loose ("Hey I’m no woose, I’ don’t need cardboard for my shoulder spins"). There were many styles some off the rack but the most imaginative were always out of the second hand stores like god awful stuff out of the 60’s (B 52’s).

"This Is My Uniform" (The group "Dalek I" or the old group name "Dalek I Love You." A Dalek is machine or robot collective intelligence salt and pepper shaker looking thingy that was an arch enemy of Dr. Who.) was upper-class soft-core post-punk most times. Okay so what the Hell is an upper-class post-punk dress? (Actually I don’t understand a single word that has been said so far...)

This for men would be upper-class post-punk dress:
Hairstyle
Neat, cropped short, nothing on the shirt collar, nothing around the ears, full crop of hair long on top brushed back = (semiotic) corporate/sales/possibly middle management/has some importance within a company/has a career

Clean shaven
Can be trusted/clean/dependable

Amethyst earring left ear
Pisces/Non-conformist/removable for respectable job/smart enough to not do permanent stuff that ruins chances for better career

Tortoise shell rim-horn glasses
Fashionable/stylish/modern/serious

Black cashmere sport jacket two sizes too large
Two sizes too large is traditional with artists and musicians when wearing suits to separate themselves from being corporate
Message: Non –conformist/upper class/posh/sophisticated

Club Message: "Black is bright as it is hard." (Lyrics by the group Shriekback) "Black is what I wear on the inside because black is what I feel on the inside." Black is typically worn at night and considered formal but never all black.

Two Rock Pins or other pins on both sides of lapel
Messages: emulates a military uniform similar to medals. Also the buttons themselves were varied in order to send out different messages.

Alternative Rock Buttons would inform others of the sub-genres one enjoyed or which artist’s music one was in the mood to hear. The symbolism afforded for an ice breaker/send out message "I identify with this, do you identify with this."

Black Cavaricci’s designer pants
With the wide flared thighs, tall waist and slim calves, definitely non-conformist. Eventually banded from some high schools.

Super long belt with the extra looped over
Definitely non-conformist

Black socks with fancy white geometric patterns
The socks and shoes were highly important as a performer. I learned this in the seventh grade when I was in chorus. Performers even when dressed formally need to display a non-conformist. They somehow have to separate themselves fro the corporate types. The wilder the socks the better. When one puts their foot on the bar rail or any bench like object the socks show. The patterns would be revealed sending a message that this person is a non-conformist.

Shoes
Depended on the club dress codes. Common to wear engineer boots with a suit or High Top Chuckie-T’s (Chuck Taylor Converse sneakers) or army boots with a willowy shear black dress for the women. Definitely signaled to others the wearer was a non-conformist.

In the more posh nightclubs patrons dressed stylishly with several accents that had their roots back in the punk era.

Remember what Mark Smith says, "When you look in the mirror before going out, be sure to look inside and out."
So ends This Is My Uniform.

Return to the top of the page

"Good Composition=Risk Taker?!? If so, I'm no fashionista!" by C. Gatton My creative writing teacher (B. Simon) once told me to write as I dress. I'm very wordy in my writing and she once gave me some advice to help with this problem--"Write how you dress. You don't over-accessorize, Crystal, in your dress so don't do it in your writing. If the words don't fit in your writing, don't place it within the context of your paper. You wouldn't pair a red shirt with a pink skirt, would you?" She actually made a good point, although, I still "over-accessorize" in my writing.

         I like to exude an orderly external self; it is very important to me. I think my mom is somewhat responsible for this quality in me. My grandmother always told me that my mom would never step out of the house without perfecting her external self (as best as possible--no one is perfect), even if she were going to the gas station to fill up the gas tank. One day (just recently), I walked out of my bedroom wearing blue and tan striped pants with a silver shirt and black shoes. I was in a rush to a group meeting on a Saturday morning (for English 324) and as soon as I stepped into the door, my sister said "Wow, Crystal I'm surprised you stepped out of the house today. You don't match at all!" I wasn't matching, but it was a Saturday morning and I didn't care at the time. I suppose I was conveying bad composition this day, but everyone deserves to have an off day, right?!?

         When it comes to good composition--I'm also with Brittany on this one. Good composition is very subjective! What's great composition to one is horrible to another. For example, I may think that my fashion displays good composition (at least I try anyway), others may view it as awful composition. Someone like Sarah Miller (who is in English 324) probably views my fashion as very boring. She plays with fashion and takes more RISKS than I ever would have the guts to do, and I admire that. I suppose that in the way that I conduct my composition of fashion is very inside the box. I try to make my outfits consistent--somewhat in a linear order. From clothing to jewelry, I attempt to have all aspects flow together in both color and style, yet I never try go too bold or too big or overboard. I enjoy elegance and classiness in a subtle manner; conveying eloquence in composition is something I attempt to do or at least attend to. Like Sarah, Yolanda is another bold dresser, yet a much different dresser. She takes risks with bright colors and dives into the latest fashion trends. Her fashion makes great composition for her and it also matches her fun and bright personality--but not everyone could pull off her fashion choices.

         I enjoy looking at others’ choices in external dress. In middle school, my cousin was a gothic dresser. I never liked the composition of gothic dressers (the monotonous repetition of black, the gaudiness of black makeup, etc.), but still admired my cousin, as well as others who made this choice, for their boldness. I don’t think I’ll ever have the boldness to go too far outside the box. I enjoy watching the latest trends in fashion, but never get too crazy with them because I know the fashion trend will only last for a short period of time. For example, I enjoyed watching the uggs (sp?!?) madness, but never liked them personally, and didn’t afford myself the purchase just because they were in style. I enjoy the half-sweaters, and actually bought one, but won’t really wear it because I don’t feel my body is slim enough to pull it off.

A few things that make bad composition for me when it comes to fashion (although, others may feel differently!):

• Clashing of colors/patterns that aren't aesthetically pleasing to the eye (Pairing red with pink, pea green with yellow or brown and yellow, red stripes etc.)
  
• Clothing that reveals a little too much skin; be confident and show off your assets but be subtle about it; leave some imagination for the viewer!
  
• Gaudiness--less is more for me (this goes with makeup too!). Again this means bright colors or matching bright/large patterns with huge jewelry, etc.
  
• Jumpsuits! Over bearing?!? There is no transition!
  

No matter what composition we are talking about-writing, music, film, art, fashion, poetry, interior decorating, cooking, etc.--I would have to agree with Bill--bad composition is something where its parts don’t carry through with its intended purpose (the whole doesn’t match its parts). My intended purpose with my fashion choices is to always convey a modern but classic look. To exude classiness through my external choices of fashion, hair and makeup is important for me. If other people do not read this about me, then I would agree that I’ve failed at making good composition through my external appearance. Of course, again, one person may think I’m conveying good composition and others may think I’m conveying poor composition. Again, one person may think Brittany conveys good composition through her music, and others may disagree. It’s all in the eye of the beholder! [or ears as the case may be] Also, just like writing, all fields of work can use improvement/adjustments/revisions but that's the beauty of imperfections! At least, I think so anyway....

A response to C. Gatton's "Good Composition=Risk Taker?!? If so, I'm no fashionista!" by W. Chewning
Barbara Simon rocks! She's my buddy. :-) Your post rocks, too. VERY thoughtful.

A response to C. Gatton 's "Good Composition=Risk Taker?!? If so, I'm no fashionista!" by P.C. Paul
As it was once said, “Why Can’t Everyday Be Halloween” by Ministry. The only poor clash or contrast I see in this dress is the earth tone fall color of tan with the winter colors. Black and blue is okay, Silver on blue with black is okay. The Silver breaks up the darker colors and creates an effective contrast, but the tan is what throws everything off (mixing a fall color with winter colors.)

         I beg to differ in your word choice and would say “conservative.” Sarah’s dress would be expected and encouraged in a graphic art studio, advertising or anywhere where one is expected and encouraged to rage against social norms or the machine as the case may lie therein.

         Risks? Sarah is sending a different political and societal message than you are with her dress and stating that I am not a part of the social norm but that I choose to belong to alternative social circle on the peripheral of the greater community. The message also speaks to her own social circle in that it lets them know that she is one of them. It’s a uniform.

         On the "B" side, Ms. Gatton, you carry your own fashion of elegance well also and as I said, conservatively. I think you choose to blend with the surrounds rather than shout, "Here I am!" There is an elegance to conservatism. It's obviously political although you may not see it this way. And so, i tip my fedora to you and say, you do wear it well, my dear.

         Yolanda is sending a completely different message and again her dress is a uniform that will attract like minded people.

         Outside of the box? More like thinking inside a coffin. “Graveyard Music for Tombstone Minds” (Blackie Blackhole 1983). I love this catch-all container of “Gothic.” It amuses me to no end. This term did not exist when the music genre was developing. Oh, for the most part it was known as the “Manchester Movement” because most of the groups were coming out of the Manchester England night clubs at the time. There were many sub-genres also like Post-Nillist Pop and No Wave, whose name disappeared into the woodwork. I see much of the music of the time period fractured now into genres that did not even exist at the time like Gothic as an example. I find it fascinating how history is re-written to re-represent exactly how the author chooses to manipulate the audience.

Return to the top of the page

"Get Your Own Meaning of Life" by E. Piccirillo

where are these posts coming from!! this is making my arms itch reallllly bad!!!

this question should be some sort of a seminar/colloquium/wrestling match at the end of the semester in the quad. it's an intentional impetus for combat disguised as a question: "what makes a composition bad?" [Hahahaha. Shipka, Phil, and Daniel are just trying to start a food fight in here.]

         we have come to know that a composition is much more than a primary school paper or a research essay or a 5-part argument. we have actively learned from each other what else is a part of this category and why and how and when and where. this part is easy.

         but what makes one bad or good is beyond our grasp. if we did have the ability to generally categorize why something is bad, then there should most definitely be an agenda for what makes one good. the impossibility of doing one, eliminates the possibility of doing another.

         ART when looking at art people often say: I could do that myself! Does that mean it's not good art, even though it's still hanging in a museum?

         FASHION when looking across the catwalks of the world there are numerous ensembles that shock one to say: I would never wear that it's ridiculous! so does that make it bad fashion?

         perhaps the difference comes from the not knowing. what do we really know about art and fashion. perhaps we are on our way to becoming experts in the field of composition/text/communication, but what constitutes an expert?

         this leads me to think about the grading scales we see on syllabi: what makes a A paper, B paper, C paper, D paper, F paper... Things like "An excellent essay" "A Clear Aim" Stylistic Maturity" OK, on whose terms? Mine or Yours or Andrea Lundsfords or Shipka's? We conform to certain instructors expectations, but should we NOT be conforming to our own? I think we should decide what is good and what is bad and therefore strive to avoid the bad for us. From this we will learn the most about writing and about ourselves. It so often happens that during a personal strive for excellence in composition, no matter the medium, there is often excellence in final product. To say Fooey and Fuck It and I do what I want, doesn't work unless there is a responsibility and a romance and a passion during the process.

         This cycle of who defines what and who is an expert and who gets to decide is like looking for the meaning of life. [42!] it couldn't possibly be the same for everyone. could it? it couldn't be. wait, who knows the answer? is there a god, what came first the chicken or the egg? Are overalls still in style? Did Jackson Pollock intend to the patterns of Number 32 for a purpose? I have my ideas. Now get your own.

A response to E. Piccirillo's "get your own meaning of life" by P.C. Paul
I have already answered the question. Bad composition is any composition that does not convey to its intended audience the meaning-making intended by the designer.

         Right! It is called Status Quo. You play the game, you give them what they want, you receive a grade, you get a little pat on the head, when you graduate and you want to be a slave to the art you say "Fuck All Of You... I'll Do What I Want" otherwise you work for someone else to collect a paycheck and you do what you are told to do [Shut up and sit down!]. Believe me, even your audience will dictate to you what to do and what not to do. Believe me. Go out there somewhere on the Internet, publish on your own, develop a following. If you provide a place for the audience to respond you will find that, "yes, they love what you do, but could you do "this" then I'll love it/you more. Conditions. Doesn't matter whether its the fashion runway, the art gallery, the music industry, or the NY times Best Seller List, "Opinions are like assholes, everyone's got one." Time and time and again you will find that the audience will try to bend you in their direction. You have two choices: become a slave to the masses or a slave to your own creative processes. You can choose to give them what they want or your can continue your own growth process of learning "who am I and why am I here?" "This" is always a form of tension between the designer and the audience just as it is between the technology and the designer.

Answers to your dumb ass questions:

1. "This cycle of who defines what and who is an expert and who gets to decide is like looking for the meaning of life. it couldn't possibly be the same for everyone, could it?" The answer is 42. The problem is what was the original question and it is not "What do you get when you multiply 6 X 7?" Or is it?
2. "is there a god?" The answer is yes. Prove it? Easy, look around you, look into all the science books, this is all too fantastic to be "random" see definition of "creative." The problem is not that science does not have all the answers, the problem is we don't have all the science. Yet.
3. "What came first the chicken or the egg?" The answer is neither, actually bacteria came first. Life had to start with a single cell organism and evolve beyond. Note that everything we do and create was built as an extension of someone else's labors. We only continue where someone else left off.
4. "Are overalls still in style? The answer is yes, if you are an auto mechanic or a laborer."
5. "Did Jackson Pollock intend for the patterns of Number 32 for a purpose?" The answer is yes. He specifically made the pattern to make people itchy scratchy. I don't have sunburn yet, still, "this" image makes me scratch. I think I need to listen to some Hip Hop to cure me of "this" itch.
6. "I have my ideas." Great, so do I.
7. "Now get your own." I already have my own thank you. Hahahaha.

You make me dizzy Ms. Lizzy...

Return to the top of the page

"What is BAD???" by D. Wentworth Phil and I kinda predicted that we were going to get the "Personal Likes/Dislikes" definition on the word “BAD”. "Bad" does NOT need to be related to taste or opinion. "Bad" can refer to a message/idea/meaning that the composition is failing to present.

         One example that I've been using has been Sesame Street. If that show played a song on the alphabet, but sang the letters in a completely different order, and the child listening to it would remember that incorrect order... this could be considered a “bad’ composition. It took valid information but presented it in an incorrect manner [order].

         If the definition of the word “bad” is driving you nuts, then replace it with the phrase, “Compositions that are poorly presented” or even “Wow this sucks on so many intellectual levels.” The latter is probably not a good example, but your own ideas make up the definition of “bad.” By talking about what’s “good” is in a way, the same as discussing what is “bad,” only the opposite. Make sense?

         In a previous Shipka class, a student wrote a song SO BAD, that it was actually good. How often does this occur? I am reminded of the Macarena, Baby Got Back, and hell, Vanilla Ice Baby. HOW BAD can a song get before its actually GOOD!? The question of “what is good?” is again brought up.

         So what I’m pretty much saying is that you can’t explain what is good without explaining what is bad. Period. It’s tricky I know.

         Throughout the semester, we’ve been looking at different forms of compositions that succeed in teaching/showing. This assignment is mainly to present examples of the opposite of what we discussed all semester long.

Return to the top of the page