Personal Aesthetic

David Sokol gave a lecture about "The Noble Room: Unity Temple" located in Oak Park, Illinois. This Unitarian/ Univeralist church was designed by the the famous architect Frank Lloyd Wright. Aside from giving some history of the place he talked about why it took about three years to rebuild after it was destroyed by a fire on June 4, 1905. The famous American architect had his vision of what would be best for the place, the congregation had their opinion on what would be best and most practical, and the contractor from his experience had his personal aesthetic about such a building. These three people came together often and butted heads on quite a few matters. Because each party had their own opinion, the reconstruction of the famous temple was slow.
When it comes down to it, everyone must compromise: Sanjeev needs to either accept Twinkles new found fascination with Christian paraphernalia or suggest a compromising situation in order for their marriage to work out. The narrator in The Yellow Wallpaper and her husband needed to find a room that suited both peoples aesthetic. In order to create a "room of one's own" each person strives to reach his or her own personal aesthetic, but realistically this is not practical. The Unity Temple stands as an example of many compromises. Think about how many compromises you made today? Let's see, for me I have about 5 (finish my math homework/ watch a show, eat a cookie/ go for a longer run, go to half the basketball game/ be on time for work.... the list goes on). If I could have everything my way I would have stayed for the whole basketball game. But if I wasn't at work, people would not have someone to ask questions to. Frank Lloyd Wright would have had less seating and more geometric shapes with planters on top of them, but then the congregation would not have enough seating. Twinkle would continue to collect the knickknacks, but their marriage would most likely fail. We all need to know how to sacrifice our personal aesthetic to mesh together with others, just as Wright had to do with the reconstruction of Unity Temple.

Communication Under the Same Roof

Within "This Blessed House," the characters of Sanjeev and Twinkle quickly get married and begin living together under the same roof. Their love for one another comes across as questionable and their opposite mannorisms and attitudes become clear. Sanjeev has more of a serious attitude and heavily relies on other peoples' opinions. But Twinkle, on the other hand, is livelier and she seems to always look on the bright side of things. While cleaning the new home, Twinkle finds a vinegar bottle with Christ's figure and proudly places it on the undusted mantel. As the process continues, other tacky Christian figures emerge and are placed on the mantel as well. Sanjeev becomes quite irritated by these icons while Twinkle is continually intrigued by them and consciously looks to find more. As I was reading, I was thinking of insignificant mannerisms that people I have lived with do that have irritated me over the years and how I have handled the situation... Does your roommate always keep the shades closed or place her stick bottle on your dresser? Did your brother always slam his door at night? Did your mom chew gum loudly in the car? And did you ever mention that it annoyed you? For me, I related to Sanjeev because he rarely voices these irritations. As insignificant as the act may be, it often begins to build up to something that does not need to be. The key to sharing space with someone is open communication, something that Twinkle and Sanjeev are clearly lacking.

yoo-nuh-vur-suhl?

The question arose in class whether or not we believe Shakespeare's work is universal?? While taking notes during the film "O," I felt like I was writing a brief summary of the plot of Othello... When I was first asked this question I was unsure of how to answer it, so I turned to my trusty friend Mr. Dictionary- he told me that UNIVERSAL mean:
* "applicable everywhere" (yes)
# "affecting, concerning, or involving all" (yes)
+ "used or understood by all" (not necessarily his language used in his text but the drama- yes)
= "present everywhere" (yes)
So after responding yes to each of these definitions, I realized how universal Shakespeare's work really is. By work, I am not just referring to his actual text but rather on a broader level: his drama and plot. Everyone can watch a movie such as "O" and relate to it in some way. We understand feelings of anger, jealousy, love, trust, and hurt because they are uncontrollable human reactions to ordinary situations. What Shakespeare does is pick and pull at universal human emotions, capturing his timeless audience into the plot. This plot can be represented in millions of different ways, but it is and always will be understood.


/ˌyunəˈvɜrsəl/ Show Spelled Pronunciation