Should Historians “Mind” What’s Been Said? By mcheesaker

who's word's?

According to Google’s new n-gram tool, when researching history, words count.

Literally.

By analyzing over 500 billion words from 5.2 million books in Chinese, English, French, German, Russian, and Spanish, the n-gram tool allows users to track the usage of words from 1500AD onwards. The implications of this tool in terms of historical and cultural research are just beginning to come to light. In the article  “Quantitative Analysis of Culture Using Millions of Digitized Books,” Jean-Baptiste Michel and his fellow researchers suggest that Google’s n-gram can be used to track the emergence of diseases, state censorship and the relative “celebrity” of a given person.

There is no doubt that the n-gram is, and will continue to be, an extremely useful tool in historical inquiry. However, there are some limitations that need to be addressed.

Firstly, the Google n-gram is limited in regards to language. Most of the collected works are written in English. Although this is helpful for me (an Anglophone student from Canada), some of the world’s most spoken languages, like Arabic and Hindi, are not even present in the database.

Furthermore, as Jean-Baptiste Michel notes, the Google n-gram tool simply measures the frequency of words within books, and books alone. Therefore, other publications like newspapers, and academic journal articles are marginalized from each search. The impact of this becomes quite clear when you compare n-gram searches on Google, and an n-gram search that browses through local newspaper clippings like the site, Mining the Dispatch. On Mining the Dispatch, users are able to see the relative frequency of fugitive slave ads that made it into the local Richmond newspaper during the Civil War. Because of its larger scope, and inability to browse through newspapers, this kind of historical deduction cannot be made through Google’s n-gram.

There is no doubt that the n-gram is, and will continue to be, an extremely useful tool in historical inquiry. However, there are some limitations that need to be addressed.

Firstly, the Google n-gram is limited in regards to language. Most of the collected works are written in English. Although this is helpful for me (an Anglophone student from Canada), some of the world’s most spoken languages, like Arabic and Hindi, are not even present in the database

I think it’s also important to note that language, although an important (and often forgotten) indication of culture is certainly not the only one. As historians know, geography, religion and class, all play a critical role in shaping the thoughts, actions and mindsets of a given people. Language is only one small piece of what makes us who we are.

Indeed, Canada, the United States, and the UK, may all be English speaking nations, but we have very different cultures. Just to prove this point, I decided to gauge the relative frequencies of three major sports: baseball, hockey, and football. From 1900-2008, the frequency of hockey was dismal compared to football and baseball. However, this was a search that took into account all English books written during the designated period. I imagine if I were to search a corpus containing only Canadian books, hockey would be mentioned far more frequently..

But more than that, words themselves are limited.

Think about Twitter. Depending on the words we choose to use in our hashtags, our statuses are more searchable. Similarly, if we tweet about a topic that’s trending, what we say is viewed by a larger audience. But what if we don’t use the right words to categorize what we’re saying? What if we type in an extra “s” or add an apostrophe where it doesn’t belong? But more pertinent than that, what if we say one thing, and mean another?

My previous example with sports provides an interesting example. In English, the word “football” can either mean soccer, or American football. In my search, this discrepancy wasn’t accounted for. Therefore, any mention of the word “football,” whether that book was actually talking about soccer or American football, was nonetheless counted. And therein lies another problem with Google’s n-gram: the tool gives us no sense of context.

And for the historian, context is king.

An old Chinese proverb claims that, “If you wish to know the mind of a man, listen to his words.”

After playing around with the Google n-gram, and uncovering its uses, I think this is extremely accurate. However, words are only one investigative tool in the proverbial historical tool-belt that can be used to understand history and culture.

F0r charts and more information visit: http://hist291.wordpress.com/2013/02/03/should-historians-mind-whats-been-said/

Advertisements

Rarespeciesfund.org:T.I.G.E.R.S. – Support the Feline Conservation Federation:

http://www.ligerliger.com/

rarespeciesfund.org

RSF was established to provide funding to critical on the ground international wildlife conservation programs. RSF receives its financing through The Institute of Greatly Endangered and Rare Species (T.I.G.E.R.S.) – http://www.rarespeciesfund.org

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Lobby group targets presidential conventions

Original Post From http://www.theartnewspaper.com

Americans for the Arts is lobbying for the cultural and creative industries at the Democratic and Republican presidential conventions. But even the loudest lobbyists may not be loud enough.

At the Republican convention on 28 August in Tampa, Florida, and at the Democratic convention on 4 September in Charlotte, North Carolina, Americans for the Arts and three other organisations are holding a panel, Arts Speak, at which politicians are expected to talk about the importance of arts education, the positive impact of arts jobs on local economies, and the funding of the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA). Among others, they have booked Mike Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas, and Richard Riley, the former education secretary, to speak. They are already arts supporters, however. It is unclear whether the arts lobby will be able to persuade others to become converts. “The appetite to take up a cultural bill is lacking,” says a congressional staffer with knowledge of the arts caucus.

“Obviously it’s not the same as the unemployment rate, which garners attention once a month,” says Narric Rome, the senior lobbyist for Americans for the Arts, “but when the delegates go home and talk about some of the issues that were voiced at the conventions, this is the kind of thing that they remember”. He says that their events are “the only voice for the non-profit arts” at the conventions.

The lobby group is inviting members from the Congressional Arts Caucus and the Senate Cultural Caucus. But while both groups are sizeable, they do not represent cohesive voting blocks. When the lobby group issued report cards in 2010 based on legislators’ pro-arts records, the Senate Cultural Caucus’s Republican co-chairman, Michael Enzi of Wyoming, received a D+. (Six other arts caucus members nearly failed as well.)

The House caucus, on the other hand, includes eight congress members who are also on the Tea Party Caucus, which wants to shut down the NEA. Add in last-minute election priorities, such as a farm bill and extending tax breaks, and it means that the arts caucus is “not currently working on any priorities or initiatives”, says the congressional staffer, and probably won’t until appropriations come up again early next year.

Federal and state arts spending has declined in the past decade. As the Pew Center on the States notes, state arts agencies have reduced funding by 37% since 2001. However, Americans for the Arts has been campaigning based on statistics that say arts-related jobs have a positive impact on local economies, and Pew says that it “is beginning to pay off”. The National Assembly of State Arts Agencies estimates that state arts funding has increased 8.8% this financial year compared with 2011. The group has also produced a study that says the industry generates $135.2bn of economic activity every year. In June, the Republican-controlled House put forward a bill that would cut the NEA’s funding by $14m to $132m. But, according to the congressional staffer, “it’s unofficially known around [Washington] that the bill will never come to the House floor”. The House will probably pass a resolution this autumn extending the NEA’s current funding levels into 2013.

Click On “Read More”

Tigergrove Now Joined With Flattr.Com

Flattr is the worlds first social micro-payment system

The idea had already been initiated in 2007, but the first release was in 2010 due to typical geeky laziness.

Flattr was founded to help people share money, not just content. Before Flattr, the only reasonable way to donate has been to use Paypal or other systems to send money to people. The threshold for this is quite high. People would just ignore the option to send donations if it wasn’t for a really important cause. Sending just a small sum has always been a pain in the ass. Who would ever even login to a payment system just to donate €0.01? And €10 was just too high for just one blog entry we liked…

Flattr solves this issue. When you’re registered to flattr, you pay a small monthly fee. You set the amount yourself. At the end of the month, that fee is divided between all the things you flattered. You’re always logged in to the account. That means that giving someone some flattr-love is just a button away. And you should! Clicking one more button doesn’t add to your fee, it just divides the fee between more people! Flattr tries to encourage people to share. Not only pieces of content, but also some money to support the people who created them. With love!

Flattr has no different user types. We know that everybody that create also uses other content. And vice versa. We make no difference between people.

Flattr can be used as a complement to accepting donations. Or to having advertising on your blog. Or to help getting small donations you never get for your open source software.

To Start A Flattr Account And Donate Click On: Flattr.Com

Art History: Bauhaus 1897-1993:

Bauhaus Dessau Workshop

Bauhaus Dessau Workshop (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Deutsch: Heinrich Neuy, 60 x 81cm, Druck , li....

Deutsch: Heinrich Neuy, 60 x 81cm, Druck , li. o. signiert “Heinrich Neuy” und Monogramm HN 1984. 37/50. Aus der Reihe Freidrich Becker kinetische Objekte 1985 in den Räumen der Zeitschrift “Symbol” in Köln. Privatbesitz (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Direct artists into a new machine age by marrying art and industry. The process started in 1897 with Art & Craft workshops in Germany and ended in 1933. Bauhaus is not unique. Its principal aim was to bring together ideas from of art and industry.

The main idea was to improve manufacturing in order to improve the quality of life in Germany and create products for export. They had to have a German identity.

Kirchner’s Bathers at Moritzburgm – Expressionism and Jugendstil, he tried to create a unique German art. In Germany artists were all aware of the importance of design and were all trained in Arts & Crafts. This meant no life classes and no copying old masters.

Peter Behrens AEG logo and unique AEG fan.

William Morris felt the machine alienated the worker so he wanted all his goods to be handmade but this was utopian as they were so expensive only the upper classes could buy his work and this was in conflict with his desire to create beautiful goods for everybody.

The German approach was very different as the German Government held been involved in Arts & Crafts since unification (1866 and 1870-71). They wanted to put money into the project and make it successful so it became better known than in England. Their ideas were therefore applied to industry rather than being utopian.

The Bauhaus was a coalition of existing authorities in Weimar. They asked Walter Gropius to head the new art academy – the old Fine Arts School and the Arts & Crafts school. They would learn both skills and work with industry and create products that could be mass produced supported by the Government.

They looked at Morris ‘s medieval – inspired designs but applied it to mass culture. The New Weimar republic post – war brought a new idealism. Gropius ‘s experience during the war caused him to employ painters with utopian leanings.

Gropius was an established architect – he had designed a locomotive, factory and office building. He married craftsmanship with modem materials. He had a utopian idea that architecture could bring together all the arts. He thought Bauhaus would contribute to post – war society.

He introduced a guild system – lecturers were called masters, first year students apprentices and second year journeyman. A medieval craft guild system. The school was divided into workshops – metal, wood, stained glass, colour, textiles, stone and clay. There was also a theatre workshop. Wagnerian ideal of the totalkunstwerk of uniting all the arts. Futurists and the Expressionists also had this idea of uniting all the arts.

Each workshop had a master of form and a workshop master (creativity and the practiced application).

The ultimate of the programme was building. Students were encouraged to experiment with different materials.

Initially students were trained for three years. A small number of students could extend their training to become masters. There was supposed to be no hierarchy. The course outline used a circular scheme. It was unlike traditional art training

A large number of female students were accepted unlike traditional art colleges. Elsewhere females were not accepted into life classes until the late 19.

Areas they felt suited the female nature – intuitive, weaving, looms were brought into the colleges.

Johannes ltten (Eaten) was one of the first masters of form. He wanted to free the hidden talents of the student rather than impose ideas. He was interested in Eastern religions � he introduced breathing exercises before class and dance. He got students to students reduce old masters to blocks of colour. He was Utopian and mystical. There was a clash between utopianism and the manufacture of goods. So he resigned in 1923 after an argument with Gropius

Kandinsky and Klee were also interested in mysticism and utopian ideas.

The book Point and Line to Plane by Kandinsky explained the spiritual association of form and colour. So blue was a circle, red a square and yellow a triangle. Intermediate forms had intermediate colours.  Angles were deemed to have a certain temperature 90 degrees was red, smaller angles yellow, larger cooler.He wrote a colour theory that also linked colour to sound.

Moholy-Nagy was appointed as a much more practical director as Gropius had sold very little in the first three years. Moholy-Nagy replaced Itten. He was influenced by the Constructivists in Russia and wanted to link art and industry.

His medium was photography (see famous photograph looking down from a radio tower).

Moholy-Nagy was much more practical and he introduced distinct design ideas and typography (very distinct and became a symbol of the Bauhaus). He introduced a photographic course from 1923. He produced some very significant works (see photomontage of eyes in palms of hands before a city, alienation. Also see Kranz ‘s superimposition of portrait and Bauhaus).

In 1923 he opened an exhibition that included a model house Hans am Horn. This was very significant as it was designed for the modern middle – class. The purpose was to make life easy for the inhabitants. The living room was an open space for the whole family. The kitchen was the first fitted kitchen worldwide. The children ‘s room had blackboards on the walls and toy boxes that became tables and chairs. These were all firsts and common today. The fitted kitchen, cupboards and so on were all designed to be easily mass produced. The house did away with ornamentation, it was a minimalist house.

Political events in Weimar 1919-1925 were significant and ran parallel with the Bauhaus. There was a very strong local resistance to having the school there. An extreme right wing local government accused Bauhaus of left wing and revolutionary tendencies. The life of the Bauhaus students was Bohemian and threatening to the locals. Gropius was accused of favouring Jewish students.

Gropius designed a memorial to the dead leftwing strikers of 1921. In 1923 his house was searched. In 1924 all funding was withdrawn. The school was moved to Dessau (north east on the way to Berlin, an industrial city).

They all designed the new building. Moholy-Nagy designed the lighting, Gropius the building. It used modern materials and was practical. He also designed the staff accommodation.

The old guild method was abolished and each workshop now had one professor. The school began designing useful goods, such as table lamps, tea infusers, chairs (the famous Wassily (Vaseely]) chair made of steel tubes with two stripes as the seat. They had funding from Dessau but also started generating income from designs. Ruth Hallos carpet design. (gobelin). Also Gunter Stolzl encouraged consumers to put up textile wall hangings. Consumer goods became highly desirable in the late 1920s. Typography workshop was influential. They favoured lower case letters against the German system of capitalizing all nouns. Smooth, clean, clinical typography. It was very provocative to challenge the German language itself. Moholy-Nagy was a very political person who wanted to challenge the state. Bauhaus follows the rise of the Nazi party. When the Nazi’s took control of Dessau in 1924 they moved to Berlin but lasted only one year when in 1925 Hitler took control of the country. It was immediately closed as it was accused of harbouring Jews and left-wingers. Most staff and students went to the US and founded a school in Chicago. Compare with Constructivists as they had similar ideas. The majority of the artists had been to Russia in the early 1920’s. It is important to note the similarities.

 

resource: http://www.artnet.com/artwork/426150585/168763/laszlo-moholy-nagy-untitled-positive-photogram.html

“Anti-Occupy” law ends American’s right to protest: Washington Times

 

 

 

WASHINGTON, D.C.,

August 1, 2012 — I was stunned upon hearing a news report about a protest going on in China. Teachers, parents with their young, school-age children and pro-democracy activitists (one estimate was 90,000 people) marched in Hong Kong to government headquarters last Sunday to publicly protest a new required “Patriotism” class, to be taught in the school system starting in 2015. The protestors think that the effort of the Chinese government here is to brainwash their kids in favor of communism.

What stunned me was that this protest, in China, against the government’s upcoming policy, at the government headquarters, would not now be tolerated here in the United States of America.

Thanks to almost zero media coverage, few of us know about a law passed this past March, severely limiting our right to protest. The silence may have been due to the lack of controversy in bringing the bill to law: Only three of our federal elected officials voted against the bill’s passage. Yes, Republicans and Democrats agreed on something almost 100%.

We have lived through a number of protests, large and small, and if we are like most, we shrug because the protestors or their message is either irrelevant or objectionable to us, and does not affect us. This non-interest is the case even when some of the protestors and some of their messages are highly objectionable.

Recent example Number One are the military funeral protests by the Westboro Baptist Church. This very small, anti-gay group from Topeka, Kansas says that God is punishing the United States for accepting gay rights by killing US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. They protested at the funeral of Elizabeth Edwards, wife of former presidential candidate John Edwards, because she supported gay rights. Our Supreme Court upheld the rights of these bigots to continue their protests. We hated the opinion while we recognized its correctness.

The First Amendment to our Constitution guarantees us the rights of free speech and assembly. A fundamental purpose of our free speech guarantee is to invite dispute. Protests can and have been the catalyst for positive change. Thus while we despise that protestors can burn our flag as protected political speech, and we hate that Neo-Nazis can march down our streets, we recognize the rights of these groups to do what they do and we send our troops across the world to fight for these rights.

Last year’s “occupy movement” scared the government. On March 8, President Obama signed a law that makes protesting more difficult and more criminal. The law is titled the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act, and it passed unanimously in the Senate and with only three “no” votes in the House. It was called the “Trepass Bill” by Congress and the “anti-Occupy law” by everyone else who commented.

The law “improves” public grounds by forcing people – protestors – elsewhere. It amends an older law that made it a federal crime to “willfully and knowingly” enter a restricted space. Now you will be found guilty of this offense if you simply “knowingly” enter a restricted area, even if you did not know it was illegal to do so. The Department of Homeland Security can designate an event as one of “national significance,” making protests or demonstrations near the event illegal.

The law makes it punishable by up to ten years in jail to protest anywhere the Secret Service “is or will be temporarily visiting,” or anywhere they might be guarding someone.  Does the name Secret tell you anything about your chances of knowing where they are?  The law allows for conviction if you are “disorderly or disruptive,” or if you “impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions.”  You can no longer heckle or “boo” at a political candidate’s speech, as that would be disruptive.

After you swallow all of this and correctly conclude that it is now very easy to be prosecuted for virtually any public protest, you should brace yourself and appreciate that it is even worse. Today, any event that is officially defined as a National Special Security Event has Secret Service protection. This can include sporting events and concerts.

The timing of the law was not coincidental. The bill was presented to the Senate, after House passage, on November 17, 2011, during an intense nationwide effort to stop the Occupy Wall Street protests. Two days before, hundreds of New York police conducted a raid on the demonstrators’ encampment in Zucotti Park, shutting it down and placing barricades.

This law chips away our First Amendment rights. Its motivation is 100 percent politically based, as it was designed to silence those who would protest around politicians giving speeches. Both Republicans and Democrats agreed they did not want hecklers at their rallies. If you want to protest a politician speaking to a crowd now, you can do so maybe a half mile or so away.

We used to have a right of access to streets, sidewalks, and public parks to  engage in political discussion and protest. The government should be able to impose reasonable limits to ensure public order, but that power must have a limit; it must never be used to quell unpopular opinion or to discriminate against disfavored speakers.  Protestors must be allowed to be in the same place at the same time as the speaker they oppose. The presence of a Secret Service Agent (remember, how do we know they are there?) should not prevent us from lawfully, non-violently organizing and demonstrating against a cause or a speaker we disfavor.

Paul A. Samakow is an attorney licensed in Maryland and Virginia, and has been practicing since 1980.  He represents injury victims and routinely battles insurance companies and big businesses that will not accept full responsibility for the harms and losses they cause. He can be reached at any time by calling 1-866-SAMAKOW (1-866-726-2569), via email, or through his website. He is also available to speak to your group on numerous legal topics.  Paul is the featured legal analyst on the Washington Times Radio, on the Andy Parks show, on Wednesdays at 5:15 P.M., and he is a columnist on the Washington Times Communities.

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/

 

Songwriting Lessons – Selecting Your Chord Progression

 

Songwriting uses the chord progression as the setting for the song, kind of like the set and scenery in a play. Just like the actors move and speak and have their being upon the stage, set, and scenery, so do the words and melody dance on that very stage that is created by the progression of chords. If you have a deep understanding of how the lyrics, the melody, and the chords interact, and you can select the chords to elicit the same mood that the words are depicting and the melody conveys, then you have a great shot at creating a powerful song.
If you’re very observant, you will notice that a whole lot of songs use very similar if not identical progressions. That similarity is what allows the songs to lock into their genre and styles and be seen as in the pocket of the style they are competing in. Some progressions have a harder edge and are perfect for hard rock, metal, and strong blues. Others are way more relaxed and support strong, singable melodies, and as a result, are more pop and light rock sounding, even folky sometimes, although that depends more on the arrangement than the song itself.
We have cycled through the use and borderline overuse of several main progressions over the years. The I-vi-IV-V progression was everywhere in the 1950s and 60s. In addition there were hundreds, maybe thousands of songs written to the I-IV-V-IV progression , like Twist And Shout, La Bamba, Good Lovin’, Hang On Sloopy, Summer Nights (from Grease), Louie, Louie (with a modified V chord making it minor), and a whole lot more. I’ve included a video here by the Axis of Awesome demonstrating the current popularity of the I-V-vi-IV progression in today’s music. There’s a little bit of swearing, but it makes the point really well about how many songs can very creatively use the same progression, and yet sound completely original.

Original Post From http://thesongwritingblog.com