In fact, I've never seen any analysis of the college writings of artists who ostensibly have academic backgrounds that bear heavily on their music - like Tom Morello or Frank Black, for example.What about musicians who go meta? Like former '80s indie guitar rocker Matthew Bannister, who is now an academic specializing in the sociology of ... men in '80s indie guitar rock.
Someone please explain that tiny white font on a varied black and white background is not the way to get people to read and comprehend something. Maybe that was the point?I know right? How can anyone take her seriously without a professional white background. And it's not like web browsers let you zoom in on text or anything like that.
The terms of the human body, some might say, are determined through a theoretical dissection of both the private environments and public atmospheres in which we live. By terms, the rules and evaluations of bodily condition, I mean to establish a division of perception. The first divide is that of the social body, the perception of our bodies in relation to a larger intellectual and sexual community, one that views each other in groups. The second divide is the condition of our nature, a perception of the body without relation or comparison, a singular entity that is independent, formless, and free. This segregation of seeing is general and yet universal because it capitalizes our differences. By examining these seeming generalizations, we break them down. It is through a demolition and reconstruction of these concepts that we can assign specificity and reason to these ways in which we look.I'm not exactly sure what she's trying to say, but my best guess could be paraphrased like this:
We can think of our perception of the human body along two different dimensions: public and private. The public being our perception of our bodies as members of groups in the larger sexual and intellectual community. The private being our natural, and unrestrained self image. By looking closely at the at these generalizations, we can reason more clearly about how we lookHowever, I don't think the rest of her essay really pulls this off either. If it were written more clearly, we would all be discussing what she had to say, rather then whether or not she's actually a time traveling quantum singularity.
With near-perfect SAT scores, for her, a backup plan was never out of the realm of possibility. As a teenager, Ke$ha had a strong intellectual curiosity that extended beyond the music world.Could just be a mistake on the part of the author. Ke$ha would have been 18 in 2005 (WOW I'M OLD). The scoring changes were in. That's the same year they introduced the new scoring.
The older SAT (before 1995) had a very high ceiling. In any given year, only seven of the million test-takers scored above 1580. A score above 1580 was equivalent to the 99.9995 percentile.[14]It seems unlikely to me that she was in the top half % or whatever. I suppose it's possible, but it seems more likely people are just getting confused between the old and new scores. But I guess it's possible.
« Older The first massively parallel evolutionary circuit ... | Journey into Manhood is a prog... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Burhanistan at 9:16 AM on April 27, 2010 [4 favorites]