The softly lit Cathedral Basilica of the Immaculate Conception in downtown Denver hosted a kaleidoscope of people as the Sunday evening Mass began. A guitarist, violinist and pianist played soft, warming music as people filled the aisles. The aura of the church was clearly meant to be welcoming and revitalizing. A continual flow of people visited the four confessionals located on both sides of the cathedral. To a non-Catholic the big brown confession booths seemed slightly intimidating. The high ceiling and tall white columns gave a sense of freedom and purity and the stained glass windows were pieces of art in themselves.
After the seminarians carried the crucifix to the front of the church, Archbishop Chaput welcomed his congregation and said “In the name of the father the son and the holy ghost. Amen.” The beginning of the mass consisted of several readings from the old testament, the new testament and the gospel. At the Cathedral the Mass is celebrated by the Archbishop, and he is assisted by one or two priests and several deacons.
After several more Catholic rituals, the Archbishop began his homily. He reminded us that that the important season of lent is just around the corner and that each of us should begin to frequently think about its significance. “Lent,” he said, “used to be a time to prepare for baptism.” The Archbishop clearly assumed an audience well versed in Catholic doctrine. He spoke about how nowadays most people tend to get baptized when they are born so lent is meant to rejuvenate each person’s baptism and to appreciate God in the fullest way possible. “One of the best ways to do this” he exclaimed “is to give up something important.” He said that lent doesn’t necessarily mean you must give something up to punish yourself. It is simply to give something up to make yourself a better person.
To gain the congregation’s attention and not merely preach, the archbishop reiterated the heart-warming gospel reading about Jesus’ healing powers. In one case, Jesus cured a crippled man so that he could walk again, simply because of the crippled man’s deep faith in God.
He used this as an introduction to the meaning of lent. As he began explaining lent it seemed that what he was saying could be applied toward any person, not just Catholics, whereas at the beginning of the Mass it seemed like one must be Catholic to understand half of what he was saying. The archbishop explained how there are three main aspects to lent: charity, fasting, and prayer. Charity, being the most important of the three was discussed first. The archbishop meticulously spoke about how lent is a time to give up doing some things one would normally do (such as going out to dinner) so that they can give money to the poor. Archbishop Chaput reminded his fellow Catholics that they must remember those who are in need and appreciate all that they have.
The next topic he talked about was fasting. One should fast completely on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday which are the days that mark the beginning and end of lent. He mentioned that in between those days one should just eat two smaller meals that would normally be equivalent to one regular meal, and one regular meal. In other words, one should eat as little as possible during the day, without getting faint or sick so that they can remember Jesus’ suffering. He finished explaining the idea of fasting by saying that people should completely give up meat on Fridays. The Archbishop clarified that, while it is acceptable to eat fish on Fridays, as it is the “meat of the poor people,” it is not in the spirit of lent to go out and order a lobster dinner. Many people in the audience giggled when he said this. As his congregation went on I felt less and less left out because I could directly relate to what he was saying. If people gave it up more often, they might find it a special occasion to eat meat and would certainly appreciate it more.
The last part of his homily was about prayer. He began by saying, “If you don’t already attend Mass every week, you should start by doing that.” People who already pray devoutly (and possibly even attend Mass several times every week) should cut out time during the day and follow the Liturgy of the Hours which is a set of prayers that one says during certain times of the day. He mentioned that it is extremely easy to get caught up doing activities and forget about one’s faith. Many forget about reflecting on the most important aspects of life whether it be appreciation for what we have, family, etc. and lent is a time to remember these things. Almost every person gets caught up in all the events of the day and forgets about the most important things in life; things we wouldn’t necessarily appreciate unless we lost. Archbishop Chaput went on to say that lent is also a time to put other things aside so that one can really show their love and gratitude for Jesus and his suffering. He also talked about how one should make sure his/her friends are not bringing him/her away from prayer and faith and that one should choose friends that reinforce the importance of faith in everyday lives.
Although this homily was directed towards Catholics it served as an important message for everyone. There are times in life when one must cut back on things and appreciate what they have. Overall the Archbishop presented this idea in an interesting and powerful way. For Catholics, it was a simple reminder of how to be a good Catholic and fulfill their deeds and be respectful and loving to God.
As the homily ended the Mass went into the liturgy of the Eucharist, which is where a person receives the body and blood of Jesus because Catholics believe that this is how people come in communion with Jesus. As the Mass ended people chatted with friends and relatives as they slowly walked out of the cathedral. Everyone seemed to have a sense of relaxation, ready to start the upcoming week with new thoughts on their mind.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Ash Wednesday Service Prompts Reflection on Life's Choices, by Zach Teves
Religion was in full force this fine morning and for a major holiday no less. The Ash Wednesday service had a shocking turn out at Evans Chapel—a mere eight or ten people, a priest, and a pile of ash to smear on the foreheads of those true believers. The service started quickly with the priest realizing no one else would be attending the early morning service. This did give him a chance to stare through the faces of the few people who managed to wake up in time after the Mardi Gras festivities of the prior night. As he spoke, he would look at each member of the audience for a steady five minutes individually. The engaging eye contact really allowed you to feel the language being spoken and, though it was slightly discomforting, was an important part of the service for all. Sitting through a service like this is rare, in that it provides an almost one on one feel with the preacher and the audience member. It creates the feeling of almost an oneness with the priest and seems to bring one closer to God.
As the service progressed, the priest became more vehement with his language, seeming to become more comfortable with the small audience. It was almost as if a professor was teaching his first class of the quarter and was still slightly uncomfortable at the beginning. As he warmed up, the audience began to perk up and pay more attention; there were no more awkward pauses or uncomfortably long stares, which the crowd seemed to appreciate. He spoke bible verses, preached psalms, yet avoided all hymns. He even spoke “Hosanna in the highest,” which is generally chanted at the very least.
As the preacher worked through the various required aspects of a church service, he came to the sermon. This point provides the preacher free rein to speak on whatever subject he feels is important with a generally unlimited (within good taste) amount of time. He chose the topic of the day to be each individual’s particular life choices. He felt that morality within society was slowly diminishing and he felt it was also a very important topic that needed to be addressed. As he started, he was vehement in speaking directly towards the few individuals that had showed up that particular early morning. Like earlier, he stared into each person’s soul, it seemed, and spoke with such force and passion, that one could feel the words, not just hear them. This was very effective in getting his point across. He addressed the war as a prime example of lack of morality within society and spoke most heavily on the economic downfalls and how corrupt people were to blame. His words almost seemed to be lyrics to a punk song throughout the sermon. He bashed the government, society in general, and many people in power. This was critically important in making his point, as this created the scene or problem and he, in turn, provided the answer. Jesus, God, the Bible, and religion in general were his answer to these terrible problems. He spoke of all the great works of God and the morality behind each choice that was described. He spoke of what the lowly mortals could do to live a moral life and what was required of each of us “diligent followers” in order to positively affect the situation.
As his sermon wound down, he closed the service quickly without hymn or even psalm. He instead chose a short prayer and dismissed those that attended with the message, “Go with God, and enjoy your day.” All in all, the service provided an almost Catholic atmosphere even though it was a Christian service. The preacher made many vehement points throughout and, without song, chant, and virtually without psalm, he managed to move his small audience. It was quite apparent in the facial expressions of those leaving the chapel that they were in deep thought on what had just been provided to them. He left the few followers in an almost palpable disbelief that, in such a short amount of time, so many important things could be addressed. The crowd dispersed quickly upon exiting the chapel and I followed suite, but it was quite apparent that everyone had been changed, even if it was just in thought.
As the service progressed, the priest became more vehement with his language, seeming to become more comfortable with the small audience. It was almost as if a professor was teaching his first class of the quarter and was still slightly uncomfortable at the beginning. As he warmed up, the audience began to perk up and pay more attention; there were no more awkward pauses or uncomfortably long stares, which the crowd seemed to appreciate. He spoke bible verses, preached psalms, yet avoided all hymns. He even spoke “Hosanna in the highest,” which is generally chanted at the very least.
As the preacher worked through the various required aspects of a church service, he came to the sermon. This point provides the preacher free rein to speak on whatever subject he feels is important with a generally unlimited (within good taste) amount of time. He chose the topic of the day to be each individual’s particular life choices. He felt that morality within society was slowly diminishing and he felt it was also a very important topic that needed to be addressed. As he started, he was vehement in speaking directly towards the few individuals that had showed up that particular early morning. Like earlier, he stared into each person’s soul, it seemed, and spoke with such force and passion, that one could feel the words, not just hear them. This was very effective in getting his point across. He addressed the war as a prime example of lack of morality within society and spoke most heavily on the economic downfalls and how corrupt people were to blame. His words almost seemed to be lyrics to a punk song throughout the sermon. He bashed the government, society in general, and many people in power. This was critically important in making his point, as this created the scene or problem and he, in turn, provided the answer. Jesus, God, the Bible, and religion in general were his answer to these terrible problems. He spoke of all the great works of God and the morality behind each choice that was described. He spoke of what the lowly mortals could do to live a moral life and what was required of each of us “diligent followers” in order to positively affect the situation.
As his sermon wound down, he closed the service quickly without hymn or even psalm. He instead chose a short prayer and dismissed those that attended with the message, “Go with God, and enjoy your day.” All in all, the service provided an almost Catholic atmosphere even though it was a Christian service. The preacher made many vehement points throughout and, without song, chant, and virtually without psalm, he managed to move his small audience. It was quite apparent in the facial expressions of those leaving the chapel that they were in deep thought on what had just been provided to them. He left the few followers in an almost palpable disbelief that, in such a short amount of time, so many important things could be addressed. The crowd dispersed quickly upon exiting the chapel and I followed suite, but it was quite apparent that everyone had been changed, even if it was just in thought.
Violinist Impresses Audience with Musical Range, by Kate Sanford
Every seat in the concert hall was taken. As the lights dimmed, silence filled the room as anticipation permeated the room. The empty stage shined in the bright lights except for a huge black grand piano, which deserved applause in itself for its complexity and beauty. After several slow seconds passed by, Linda Wang – a well known violinist – and Alice Rybak – the accompanying pianist stepped out on stage. Applause broke the silence immediately. It was clear that the reputation of these two great musicians was deeply cherished by many people.
Linda Wang began by playing a famous song by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, titled Rondo in C Major. Many of Mozart’s pieces, including this one, are not considered largos or adagios (which are usually long and slow) or allegros (which are usually fast and up-beat). In the music world, this piece is considered an allegretto grazioso, which is somewhere in between an allegro and a largo and often has aspects of both. Written in 1781, this piece had a feel of aristocratic elegance to it and certainly made one feel like they should sit up a little straighter and straighten their collar. Because this song is a combination of largo and allegro, it seems almost as if it was telling a story to the audience where happy and sad events continually occur. There were parts of the song that were meant to invoke emotion (whether it be melancholy or joyful), and parts of the song that were just merely nice to listen to. Although Linda Wang played this piece perfectly and made it as elegant as could be, everyone in the audience knew that this was just her warm-up song and there were much more challenging pieces yet to come. However, playing a piece by such a well known composer was a spectacular way to instill familiarity and ease in the audience. Violin concerts can hold a lot of pressure because it doesn’t take much to make an error, especially when the violinist and pianist are relying on each other to create the music.
The next piece Dr. Wang played was written by Edvard Greg in 1886-1887 while he was on a “composition vacation” in the mountains of Norway. This piece was deeply infused by the “natural landscape and folk idioms” and there is no doubt it was written to relax and spark imagination in the audience. The sound of it was inspirational, relaxing, and heart-lifting and it made one question what the mountains looked like that the music was so elegantly describing. The sound of it almost seemed as if it could cure a sickness. It seemed that its purpose was purely to please, and the loud applause from the audience made it clear that the music had completed its task, and that Linda Wang had successful played it and portrayed its musical classiness. After this song was the intermission, but people seemed so relaxed in their seats that they hardly wanted to get up from their chairs. It seemed that every conversation in the room had to do with how impressed people were.
The last major song that was played was a Chinese piece called The Stream Flows. The composer, Bright Sheng, noted in his preface to the score,
“The rising moon shines brightly
It reminds me of love in the mountains
Like the moon, you walk in the sky,
As the crystal stream flows down the mountain.
A clear breeze blows up the hill,
My love, do you hear I am calling you?”
The piece was extremely expressive and the notes constantly varied from very high notes to deep low notes. Because of the composer’s descriptive preface, people could make up their own visions of the crystal stream and clear breeze based on what they got out of the music. Throughout the song Dr. Wang would occasionally pluck the strings or bounce her bow as a description of the nature the music was describing. Also, one could feel the longing and affection in the lover’s heart. Linda Wang filled her bow with the profound sound of the music, allowing her audience to drift away into another world. The oriental melody gave the vision of flowers blowing in the breeze in the Chinese mountains.
While listening to the music, people had a variety of reactions. Some closed their eyes and seemed to slip into another world and some looked critical, intent on seeing all the motions the musicians made. Several people glanced around the room, not in boredom, but rather in thought. Some swayed with the rhythm. Each song that was played seemed to instill a different emotion in the audience.
Although there were a variety of emotions and vibes in the audience, the mood of the musicians could not have been more clear. They were in deep concentration, aware that they were playing in front of an audience, but somehow lost in the passion of their playing. As Linda Wang played her violin her body movements were symbolic of the zeal of the song. When the music was loud, intense, and no doubt more challenging to play, she would accentuate her upper body movements. Her feet never moved but it was not uncommon for her torso to twist and turn with the music. When there was a significant crescendo, she would tend to pull her violin up and move in hasty motions. When the notes were quiet and slower she tended to gently sway. It almost seems as though the way a violinist moves when they play is a reflection of who they are and what they are trying to show the audience.
It is hard to say why so many people are so passionate about the sound of classical music. Everyone certainly has a different explanation for what they find pleasing about it. Will people 1000 years from today continue to gather at a concert hall and listen to Mozart’s famous pieces, and if so, will there still be the same reactions? Did people one thousand years before now have the same feelings?
As the musicians left, the big beautiful shining stage remained and once again the big black piano stood out. But it now seemed to expose an enchanting meaning, as if it were something mysterious with endless musical possibility, waiting to entertain people. The music that was played on it tonight was a tiny percentage of beautiful music that has been and will be played.
The standing ovation (that lasted long after the musicians had left the stage) at the end of the concert proved that people were thoroughly impressed. The combination of talent, beautiful sound, complex instruments, and timelessness made it a night filled of awe and inspiration.
Linda Wang began by playing a famous song by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, titled Rondo in C Major. Many of Mozart’s pieces, including this one, are not considered largos or adagios (which are usually long and slow) or allegros (which are usually fast and up-beat). In the music world, this piece is considered an allegretto grazioso, which is somewhere in between an allegro and a largo and often has aspects of both. Written in 1781, this piece had a feel of aristocratic elegance to it and certainly made one feel like they should sit up a little straighter and straighten their collar. Because this song is a combination of largo and allegro, it seems almost as if it was telling a story to the audience where happy and sad events continually occur. There were parts of the song that were meant to invoke emotion (whether it be melancholy or joyful), and parts of the song that were just merely nice to listen to. Although Linda Wang played this piece perfectly and made it as elegant as could be, everyone in the audience knew that this was just her warm-up song and there were much more challenging pieces yet to come. However, playing a piece by such a well known composer was a spectacular way to instill familiarity and ease in the audience. Violin concerts can hold a lot of pressure because it doesn’t take much to make an error, especially when the violinist and pianist are relying on each other to create the music.
The next piece Dr. Wang played was written by Edvard Greg in 1886-1887 while he was on a “composition vacation” in the mountains of Norway. This piece was deeply infused by the “natural landscape and folk idioms” and there is no doubt it was written to relax and spark imagination in the audience. The sound of it was inspirational, relaxing, and heart-lifting and it made one question what the mountains looked like that the music was so elegantly describing. The sound of it almost seemed as if it could cure a sickness. It seemed that its purpose was purely to please, and the loud applause from the audience made it clear that the music had completed its task, and that Linda Wang had successful played it and portrayed its musical classiness. After this song was the intermission, but people seemed so relaxed in their seats that they hardly wanted to get up from their chairs. It seemed that every conversation in the room had to do with how impressed people were.
The last major song that was played was a Chinese piece called The Stream Flows. The composer, Bright Sheng, noted in his preface to the score,
“The rising moon shines brightly
It reminds me of love in the mountains
Like the moon, you walk in the sky,
As the crystal stream flows down the mountain.
A clear breeze blows up the hill,
My love, do you hear I am calling you?”
The piece was extremely expressive and the notes constantly varied from very high notes to deep low notes. Because of the composer’s descriptive preface, people could make up their own visions of the crystal stream and clear breeze based on what they got out of the music. Throughout the song Dr. Wang would occasionally pluck the strings or bounce her bow as a description of the nature the music was describing. Also, one could feel the longing and affection in the lover’s heart. Linda Wang filled her bow with the profound sound of the music, allowing her audience to drift away into another world. The oriental melody gave the vision of flowers blowing in the breeze in the Chinese mountains.
While listening to the music, people had a variety of reactions. Some closed their eyes and seemed to slip into another world and some looked critical, intent on seeing all the motions the musicians made. Several people glanced around the room, not in boredom, but rather in thought. Some swayed with the rhythm. Each song that was played seemed to instill a different emotion in the audience.
Although there were a variety of emotions and vibes in the audience, the mood of the musicians could not have been more clear. They were in deep concentration, aware that they were playing in front of an audience, but somehow lost in the passion of their playing. As Linda Wang played her violin her body movements were symbolic of the zeal of the song. When the music was loud, intense, and no doubt more challenging to play, she would accentuate her upper body movements. Her feet never moved but it was not uncommon for her torso to twist and turn with the music. When there was a significant crescendo, she would tend to pull her violin up and move in hasty motions. When the notes were quiet and slower she tended to gently sway. It almost seems as though the way a violinist moves when they play is a reflection of who they are and what they are trying to show the audience.
It is hard to say why so many people are so passionate about the sound of classical music. Everyone certainly has a different explanation for what they find pleasing about it. Will people 1000 years from today continue to gather at a concert hall and listen to Mozart’s famous pieces, and if so, will there still be the same reactions? Did people one thousand years before now have the same feelings?
As the musicians left, the big beautiful shining stage remained and once again the big black piano stood out. But it now seemed to expose an enchanting meaning, as if it were something mysterious with endless musical possibility, waiting to entertain people. The music that was played on it tonight was a tiny percentage of beautiful music that has been and will be played.
The standing ovation (that lasted long after the musicians had left the stage) at the end of the concert proved that people were thoroughly impressed. The combination of talent, beautiful sound, complex instruments, and timelessness made it a night filled of awe and inspiration.
Future Doctors Encouraged to Think Ethically, by Milly Wade-West
A room filled with intelligent, 4.0 GPA bearing, pre-med undergraduates, who anxiously awaited their guest speaker. I was distinctly the odd one out, a freshmen psychology major taking notes for a core class, at an MCAT club group lecture on bioethics. All of the students in the room nervously discussed practice tests and medical school applications. The speaker, Dr. Alexander, an ex-reproductive endocrinologist came to address the future doctors of the ethical decisions they will be faced with as they furthered their careers in the medical field.
By establishing his status as a former medical practitioner he had the audience’s undivided attention before even stepping in the room. The two letters “Dr.” preceding his name drew in an audience invested in medicine. The members were already accustomed to the hard-working lifestyles of doctors. However they, much like me, were not aware of the ethical battles faced that Dr. Alexander described to us. His use of persuasive language forced us to become aware of these issues. He argued to us that doctor’s need more than medical knowledge; they also need to be experts on ethical issues. His previous experiences in the medical field provided him with credentials to earn the immediate respect of the undergraduate students. Being that he had already been through many of the situations he described to us gave him an experienced perspective to talk from. Dr. Alexander provided the necessary information to prepare a medical student for a career as a doctor. With his prior knowledge he provided concrete examples faced by many on a daily basis.
Another way that Dr. Alexander drew in his audience was through setting the stage for doctor’s ethical battles by introducing the basic principles of ethics. By presenting a basic foundation of what ethics were it struck up a thought process in the audiences mind. He explained that ethics are a part of our unconscious everyday lives. By bringing our attention to the little things that we do everyday, such as holding the door open for the person behind us, the audience was able to make a connection. This connection was the one between the unconscious and consciousness ethical choices we make everyday. Without making this transition clear to us we would not have been able to place ourselves in the shoes of a doctor. An example of an unconscious ethical choice is doing something that is inherent within us. Conscious ethical choices are much harder to make and involve a considerable amount of time and attention. By relating our everyday decision making to an ethical battle regarding a patients life it made a realistic bridge for the audience to cross.
Once we were in the mindset of a doctor, the speaker presented these individual ethical issues and asked the audience to place themselves in the shoes of the physicians required to make these tough decisions. This persuasive speech brought a famous quote to mind, “Don’t criticize anyone until you’ve walked a mile in his or her shoes.” As spectators we are so quick to judge doctors who, in one of his examples, unreasonably contacted the Child Protective Services. From the outside, people may fell that is ridiculous or unnecessary. However, from the perspective of a doctor he may be saving someone’s life and merely following what is asked of him in his job description. By establishing the unapparent connection between everyday choices and those of doctors the audience almost made a transformation right in front of Dr. Alexander’s eyes. Being able to analyze situations as a doctor forced us to form a deeper connection with the problems they face and have a personal outlook on what we would choose to do. This allowed the audience to see firsthand whether this was something they would be capable of doing long term. By doing this, the medical students had a perfect example of if they wanted to continue in their field of study.
By establishing his status as a former medical practitioner he had the audience’s undivided attention before even stepping in the room. The two letters “Dr.” preceding his name drew in an audience invested in medicine. The members were already accustomed to the hard-working lifestyles of doctors. However they, much like me, were not aware of the ethical battles faced that Dr. Alexander described to us. His use of persuasive language forced us to become aware of these issues. He argued to us that doctor’s need more than medical knowledge; they also need to be experts on ethical issues. His previous experiences in the medical field provided him with credentials to earn the immediate respect of the undergraduate students. Being that he had already been through many of the situations he described to us gave him an experienced perspective to talk from. Dr. Alexander provided the necessary information to prepare a medical student for a career as a doctor. With his prior knowledge he provided concrete examples faced by many on a daily basis.
Another way that Dr. Alexander drew in his audience was through setting the stage for doctor’s ethical battles by introducing the basic principles of ethics. By presenting a basic foundation of what ethics were it struck up a thought process in the audiences mind. He explained that ethics are a part of our unconscious everyday lives. By bringing our attention to the little things that we do everyday, such as holding the door open for the person behind us, the audience was able to make a connection. This connection was the one between the unconscious and consciousness ethical choices we make everyday. Without making this transition clear to us we would not have been able to place ourselves in the shoes of a doctor. An example of an unconscious ethical choice is doing something that is inherent within us. Conscious ethical choices are much harder to make and involve a considerable amount of time and attention. By relating our everyday decision making to an ethical battle regarding a patients life it made a realistic bridge for the audience to cross.
Once we were in the mindset of a doctor, the speaker presented these individual ethical issues and asked the audience to place themselves in the shoes of the physicians required to make these tough decisions. This persuasive speech brought a famous quote to mind, “Don’t criticize anyone until you’ve walked a mile in his or her shoes.” As spectators we are so quick to judge doctors who, in one of his examples, unreasonably contacted the Child Protective Services. From the outside, people may fell that is ridiculous or unnecessary. However, from the perspective of a doctor he may be saving someone’s life and merely following what is asked of him in his job description. By establishing the unapparent connection between everyday choices and those of doctors the audience almost made a transformation right in front of Dr. Alexander’s eyes. Being able to analyze situations as a doctor forced us to form a deeper connection with the problems they face and have a personal outlook on what we would choose to do. This allowed the audience to see firsthand whether this was something they would be capable of doing long term. By doing this, the medical students had a perfect example of if they wanted to continue in their field of study.
The Big Picture at the Denver Art Museum, by Milly Wade-West
I stepped into the door and was transported throughout the ages starting in the 1400’s and soaring all the way to present day. It sounds like a time machine, but what I experienced was a public display of history throughout the world at the Denver Art Museum. Each level was symbolic of a specific time period portrayed as the various artists saw life at that time. The art displayed was a showcase to the community of Denver of the significant opinions of the artists throughout the ages. It presents the audience with a physical example of how opinions have either changed or remained the same over time. Much of the artwork inspired and spoke to the community on many relevant issues to any human being at any point in their life. The main ideas and concepts being portrayed throughout the museum included the importance of perception, our significance in the world, the development of complexity and the prominence of individuality in our society.
The artists in the museum express their opinions much in the same way as a public speaker does. Instead of vocalizing their thoughts they have displayed them physically to be passed on throughout generations. This way, their opinions can be preserved over time and interpreted by the audience on an individual basis. Many of the pieces expressed the varying angles that apiece can be interpreted as. That is why and how art can be so meaningful because it may take on a different meaning to each person and move people in various ways. It has the ability to persuade the community to take action in their everyday lives.
There was a section of the exhibit called ‘Floating Time.’ It was a portrayal of the similarity between art and time, both being human inventions. The exhibit was in a dark room with a section of the carpet displaying florescent, moving numbers. The artist was trying to project the idea of development. This modern piece of art reflected the transformation of the significance of time. In formative years, such as the art displayed around this exhibit, time was of no essence and life was a much simpler experience. There was a lot of art displayed that showed the simplicity of life before complex inventions. For example, there were countless paintings of native Indians in relaxing, derelict environments. When the white people were introduced the paintings began to generate the feelings of violence and living on the edge.
One level was dedicated to the lifestyle of Native Indians. It persuades the community of Denver to give equal rights to all races. It was a public display of the significant role they played in the development of this country. They had countless displays of the masks that Native Indians would wear to perform plays and have their own displays of rhetoric situations. Many of the masks and facial sculptures had more than one way to perceive them. For example, there was one that showed the image of a man, walrus and a caribou. This was another example of the different perceptions humans can have towards everyday objects. At the end of this level towards the elevator there was a final painting of what seemed to be a portrayal of everyone coming together, the first example of an American melting pot. It was a depiction of a group of people during the gold rush including men, women, Native Indians, children and even animals. This encourages the society of Denver to be accepting of differences and that in the end we should all have equal opportunities.
The most thought provoking and persuasive area for me was that of the European art. It was ironic because this level was when the art started to become depictions of narratives as opposed to having a symbolic nature. There were many paintings alluding to the emotional and physical relationship between a mother and her child. They all emphasized the untouchable bond and the omnipresence a mother has in her child’s upbringing. No fathers were ever included in the pictures, which alluded to the fact that they were absent during these times. In the portraits section in this area, artists intended to capture interactions between people and expose the body language of specific individuals. Children were portrayed as happy go lucky, while women were generally distressed and men were self-important.
In the places section it was said that all people see images of places in different ways. Our perception is based on previous exposure and experiences prior to the viewing of the artwork. It can be a pleasurable or painful experience based on our previous memories associated with an area representative of that a particular image. They were the most beautiful pictures in the museum and encourage the audience to preserve the beauty of the world as much as possible. After some of the landscape portraits there was a window showing the skyline of Denver, which was a possible reminder of the beauty we still see, everyday.
In conclusion, the Denver Art Museum rhetorical event persuades the community of Denver to live in the moment through visual displays of history. The audience saw how life has developed from the Renaissance, to the Tudors, to the Native Indians all the way up to present day. The opinions that have remained the same throughout time were reinforced in the modern art section. There were more pictures of endless landscapes highlighting on the insignificance of individuals in comparison to the entirety of the world. Things are not always what they appear to be and that is mostly due to the varying perceptions people have. The Denver Art Museum persuades the community of Denver to open up their eyes to the world around them and to what is really significant in the grand scheme of things.
The artists in the museum express their opinions much in the same way as a public speaker does. Instead of vocalizing their thoughts they have displayed them physically to be passed on throughout generations. This way, their opinions can be preserved over time and interpreted by the audience on an individual basis. Many of the pieces expressed the varying angles that apiece can be interpreted as. That is why and how art can be so meaningful because it may take on a different meaning to each person and move people in various ways. It has the ability to persuade the community to take action in their everyday lives.
There was a section of the exhibit called ‘Floating Time.’ It was a portrayal of the similarity between art and time, both being human inventions. The exhibit was in a dark room with a section of the carpet displaying florescent, moving numbers. The artist was trying to project the idea of development. This modern piece of art reflected the transformation of the significance of time. In formative years, such as the art displayed around this exhibit, time was of no essence and life was a much simpler experience. There was a lot of art displayed that showed the simplicity of life before complex inventions. For example, there were countless paintings of native Indians in relaxing, derelict environments. When the white people were introduced the paintings began to generate the feelings of violence and living on the edge.
One level was dedicated to the lifestyle of Native Indians. It persuades the community of Denver to give equal rights to all races. It was a public display of the significant role they played in the development of this country. They had countless displays of the masks that Native Indians would wear to perform plays and have their own displays of rhetoric situations. Many of the masks and facial sculptures had more than one way to perceive them. For example, there was one that showed the image of a man, walrus and a caribou. This was another example of the different perceptions humans can have towards everyday objects. At the end of this level towards the elevator there was a final painting of what seemed to be a portrayal of everyone coming together, the first example of an American melting pot. It was a depiction of a group of people during the gold rush including men, women, Native Indians, children and even animals. This encourages the society of Denver to be accepting of differences and that in the end we should all have equal opportunities.
The most thought provoking and persuasive area for me was that of the European art. It was ironic because this level was when the art started to become depictions of narratives as opposed to having a symbolic nature. There were many paintings alluding to the emotional and physical relationship between a mother and her child. They all emphasized the untouchable bond and the omnipresence a mother has in her child’s upbringing. No fathers were ever included in the pictures, which alluded to the fact that they were absent during these times. In the portraits section in this area, artists intended to capture interactions between people and expose the body language of specific individuals. Children were portrayed as happy go lucky, while women were generally distressed and men were self-important.
In the places section it was said that all people see images of places in different ways. Our perception is based on previous exposure and experiences prior to the viewing of the artwork. It can be a pleasurable or painful experience based on our previous memories associated with an area representative of that a particular image. They were the most beautiful pictures in the museum and encourage the audience to preserve the beauty of the world as much as possible. After some of the landscape portraits there was a window showing the skyline of Denver, which was a possible reminder of the beauty we still see, everyday.
In conclusion, the Denver Art Museum rhetorical event persuades the community of Denver to live in the moment through visual displays of history. The audience saw how life has developed from the Renaissance, to the Tudors, to the Native Indians all the way up to present day. The opinions that have remained the same throughout time were reinforced in the modern art section. There were more pictures of endless landscapes highlighting on the insignificance of individuals in comparison to the entirety of the world. Things are not always what they appear to be and that is mostly due to the varying perceptions people have. The Denver Art Museum persuades the community of Denver to open up their eyes to the world around them and to what is really significant in the grand scheme of things.
DU Students Use Open-Mic Night to Speak out against Racism, by MaryKate DeGraw
The tables at the University of Denver’s Sidelines Pub & Grill were all turned around and chairs disregarded the normal order, all in order to face the small, black stage hidden in the corner of the restaurant. For that evening, the end of the day of February 24, 2009, there was an open- mike night at the popular collegiate grill.
The night of student poetry, narrative, and drama opened with a DU writing professor explaining the purpose of the event as a way for students to express their views and reflections on the world around them, or merely what came to their mind as they spoke. It was to be, essentially, a night of student participation in the rhetorical discussion on the issues that define our world.
The first performance was by a small group of students from the campus organization, Asian Student Alliance (ASA). The skit they performed, entitled “Insolidarity”, was a silent visual drama tracing the history of discrimination against Asian and Asian- Americans in the United States and asserting the importance of society’s (and especially the Asian community’s) rejection of such treatment. Though not the traditional rhetorical means of persuasion in which the rhetor vocally attempts to influence his audience, the use of displayed language on posters and in a slideshow in the ASA skit made just as strong impression on the audience as the strongest of spoken words. The title of the skit explicitly explained the purpose of the short drama, as well, so there was no misunderstanding that the 5 students of various Asian ethnicities were performing in order to unite all peoples, and especially Asian peoples, in a violent societal rejection of the historical prejudices against Asians, prejudices that still pervade in modern America.
From the brief yet powerful facts that were displayed on posters dropped in rhythm to the strong base of background music, to the slideshow exhibiting moving images of Asian oppression in America with short explanations, the skit elicited first extreme interest in the words and images presented, and then emphatic nods of approval from the crowd. For within three minutes, the ASA educated the audience on the history of Asian discrimination—from the mistreatment of 19th century Chinese rail road workers, to the WWII internment of thousands of Japanese Americans, to the very current stereotypes attributed to the Vietnamese after the Virginia Tech shootings—demonstrated the burgeoning Asian movement to resist such racially unjust treatment, and extended an invitation to all ethnicities to help combat such discrimination. Insolidarity—or unity in working towards a common goal—was, as the skit showed, necessary to prevent the horrific incidents that stain America’s past from staining our own modern times.
The remainder of the night’s speakers seemed to follow the theme set forth by the ASA. Following the drama, a student approached the stage, was introduced as “Don”, and began reading a narrative poem. Like the ASA mini-production, the original poem Don read addressed the presence of prejudice in Denver. Don’s poem narrated a recent bus experience he had and what he learned of himself because of it; he noted what his views had been and the assumptions he automatically made of the people who got off at the Colfax station (Colfax being a notorious center of fear in the Denver Community), and, in the poem, proceeded to question those perceptions, both in society and in his own person. Don’s poem discussed how he, during his bus ride, had automatically associated the people exiting the train on Colfax as somehow being connected with crime and poverty, and in general, merely inferior to himself simply due to the geographic location of their destinations. Of course many of the people exiting on Colfax were different than himself, Don recognized; many were women, and many were older, and many were of a different race. Yet how much was he missing by writing them off so quickly? As the conclusion of Don’s poem asked, how much could we learn if we all actually talked to someone different than ourselves?
Like Don, and the ASA, the other speakers that performed that night all addressed the issue of race and the influence it still has in our world, in politics and in our personal lives and perceptions. One speaker, Russell, gave a moving performance of slam poetry. In addition to his obvious, jarring talent in writing, Russell’s content stirred strong emotion, as well. Focused primarily on the futility of politics and the corruptness of government in social policies, Russell’s poetry concentrated mainly on the seemingly inevitable path many a minority citizen’s life seemed to have. In one brief line, he summed this by bluntly and quickly stating, “The skin is the sin.” His observation of the lack of opportunity and fairness in our society, still, left Russell repeating throughout his poem, and ending his performance with the same, brief remark, “Days of the Despair.” Russell’s poem was strengthened by a second performance of slam poetry by a Denver local, Lorenzo. Lorenzo focused on the same inevitability of minority citizen’s lives. Many minority citizens were essentially trapped by society; by the neighborhood they lived in, by the school they went to, by what language they spoke, and most of all, by what color their skin was. As he narrated a story of a gang-banger from the first person, Lorenzo moved the crowd to visible emotion in describing the youths trapped in neighborhoods where not joining a gang was not an option, and a day without violence was a day out of the ordinary.
It was the last speaker, however, that truly connected all these events to DU. Though not as emotionally moving as the ASA skit or the student poetry, Sarah’s reading of a recent essay she wrote centered the audience on the idea of racial inequality at DU, inequality expressed merely through numbers. Racism, as Sarah pointed out, had to be combated, yet by isolating ourselves (the DU community) from major groups of different ethnicities, we, as a school, were perpetuating a form of racism ourselves, exclusionism. Though surely none of the participants and none of the audience were racists, Sarah’s opinion that DU—its administration, its faculty, and its students—should take a more proactive role to diversify our university was widely received as fact.
And so, with Sarah’s conclusion on the path DU should take, her peers’ consensus on such a path, and an excerpt from the Vagina Monologues, the open-mike night at the Pub was ended. Though the night passed shortly—the event was only an hour and a half long—the views expressed merited further contemplation and action; the audience seemed to recognize this as the usually rambunctious college students left the restaurant in primarily serious, reflective moods.
The night of student poetry, narrative, and drama opened with a DU writing professor explaining the purpose of the event as a way for students to express their views and reflections on the world around them, or merely what came to their mind as they spoke. It was to be, essentially, a night of student participation in the rhetorical discussion on the issues that define our world.
The first performance was by a small group of students from the campus organization, Asian Student Alliance (ASA). The skit they performed, entitled “Insolidarity”, was a silent visual drama tracing the history of discrimination against Asian and Asian- Americans in the United States and asserting the importance of society’s (and especially the Asian community’s) rejection of such treatment. Though not the traditional rhetorical means of persuasion in which the rhetor vocally attempts to influence his audience, the use of displayed language on posters and in a slideshow in the ASA skit made just as strong impression on the audience as the strongest of spoken words. The title of the skit explicitly explained the purpose of the short drama, as well, so there was no misunderstanding that the 5 students of various Asian ethnicities were performing in order to unite all peoples, and especially Asian peoples, in a violent societal rejection of the historical prejudices against Asians, prejudices that still pervade in modern America.
From the brief yet powerful facts that were displayed on posters dropped in rhythm to the strong base of background music, to the slideshow exhibiting moving images of Asian oppression in America with short explanations, the skit elicited first extreme interest in the words and images presented, and then emphatic nods of approval from the crowd. For within three minutes, the ASA educated the audience on the history of Asian discrimination—from the mistreatment of 19th century Chinese rail road workers, to the WWII internment of thousands of Japanese Americans, to the very current stereotypes attributed to the Vietnamese after the Virginia Tech shootings—demonstrated the burgeoning Asian movement to resist such racially unjust treatment, and extended an invitation to all ethnicities to help combat such discrimination. Insolidarity—or unity in working towards a common goal—was, as the skit showed, necessary to prevent the horrific incidents that stain America’s past from staining our own modern times.
The remainder of the night’s speakers seemed to follow the theme set forth by the ASA. Following the drama, a student approached the stage, was introduced as “Don”, and began reading a narrative poem. Like the ASA mini-production, the original poem Don read addressed the presence of prejudice in Denver. Don’s poem narrated a recent bus experience he had and what he learned of himself because of it; he noted what his views had been and the assumptions he automatically made of the people who got off at the Colfax station (Colfax being a notorious center of fear in the Denver Community), and, in the poem, proceeded to question those perceptions, both in society and in his own person. Don’s poem discussed how he, during his bus ride, had automatically associated the people exiting the train on Colfax as somehow being connected with crime and poverty, and in general, merely inferior to himself simply due to the geographic location of their destinations. Of course many of the people exiting on Colfax were different than himself, Don recognized; many were women, and many were older, and many were of a different race. Yet how much was he missing by writing them off so quickly? As the conclusion of Don’s poem asked, how much could we learn if we all actually talked to someone different than ourselves?
Like Don, and the ASA, the other speakers that performed that night all addressed the issue of race and the influence it still has in our world, in politics and in our personal lives and perceptions. One speaker, Russell, gave a moving performance of slam poetry. In addition to his obvious, jarring talent in writing, Russell’s content stirred strong emotion, as well. Focused primarily on the futility of politics and the corruptness of government in social policies, Russell’s poetry concentrated mainly on the seemingly inevitable path many a minority citizen’s life seemed to have. In one brief line, he summed this by bluntly and quickly stating, “The skin is the sin.” His observation of the lack of opportunity and fairness in our society, still, left Russell repeating throughout his poem, and ending his performance with the same, brief remark, “Days of the Despair.” Russell’s poem was strengthened by a second performance of slam poetry by a Denver local, Lorenzo. Lorenzo focused on the same inevitability of minority citizen’s lives. Many minority citizens were essentially trapped by society; by the neighborhood they lived in, by the school they went to, by what language they spoke, and most of all, by what color their skin was. As he narrated a story of a gang-banger from the first person, Lorenzo moved the crowd to visible emotion in describing the youths trapped in neighborhoods where not joining a gang was not an option, and a day without violence was a day out of the ordinary.
It was the last speaker, however, that truly connected all these events to DU. Though not as emotionally moving as the ASA skit or the student poetry, Sarah’s reading of a recent essay she wrote centered the audience on the idea of racial inequality at DU, inequality expressed merely through numbers. Racism, as Sarah pointed out, had to be combated, yet by isolating ourselves (the DU community) from major groups of different ethnicities, we, as a school, were perpetuating a form of racism ourselves, exclusionism. Though surely none of the participants and none of the audience were racists, Sarah’s opinion that DU—its administration, its faculty, and its students—should take a more proactive role to diversify our university was widely received as fact.
And so, with Sarah’s conclusion on the path DU should take, her peers’ consensus on such a path, and an excerpt from the Vagina Monologues, the open-mike night at the Pub was ended. Though the night passed shortly—the event was only an hour and a half long—the views expressed merited further contemplation and action; the audience seemed to recognize this as the usually rambunctious college students left the restaurant in primarily serious, reflective moods.
Prophetic Rhetoric, by MaryKate DeGraw
Sunday, February 8, brought a guest speaker to Power Invasion Ministries, an evangelical church located in southern Denver. A detailed bulletin announced the guest and informed me that the speaker was a prophet, a man named David Wagner.
Power Invasion Ministries, a large, forest green stucco building—a building announcing itself as a church only through a conspicuous billboard bordering the side of a nearby highway—nearly brimmed with excitement for the speaker and with people; there was not one pew in the vast red-carpeted sanctuary that did not have a variety of people warming its plush, purple, “maybe” velvet upholstery. And a variety of people were present—from families of every form to individuals of varying age, gender, and ethnicity. Yet, somehow, over the course of 33 minutes, the speaker managed to speak personally to seemingly all of them. Throughout his delivery of his sermon/prayer/revelation/speech, David Wagner elicited applause from every corner of the church sanctuary, and the praise shouted at him continually echoed in the heights of the building’s wood-paneled, vaulted ceilings.
Yet, before David Wagner would speak, praise-and-worship had to commence and end. The church seemed to breathe with life when the singing began. Enthusiasm infused nearly every church- goer as the upbeat music and the deep alto of the lead singer filled the entirety of the large sanctuary. As the singing progressed, a wave of emotions swept through the congregation. At times the church seemed to jump with joy as multitudes of people jumped, laughing and shouting and singing all at once, and an air of exhilaration surrounded everyone. Women of every age ran down aisles with long purple, gold, and red banners flying in the air behind them, and young children danced in front of the stage. Yet, at other times, the congregation evinced a deep sense of somberness. Heads were bowed, shouting ceased, and music slowed. For 40 minutes the church underwent such emotional fluctuations, and at the end, the anticipation surrounding the proclaimed prophet was amplified to a calm hysteria. By the time the pastor of the church rose to announce the guest orator, the crowd was more than ready to receive what Wagner had to say. Luckily, the senior pastor of Power Invasion Ministries was more than willing to save Wagner time and candidly explained his guest’s ethos. As he noted, Wagner the Prophet was an admirable man, a godly man, a family man, and a successful man. The crowd nodded in approbation, and David Wagner walked up to the stage and began speaking.
A surprisingly young man, Wagner continued to build his ethos despite the firm foundation the leader of the church had already provided him. He graciously thanked the pastor and praised him appropriately, pointed to his children sitting in the front pew with his wife, and told several stories of churches he had recently visited and how they proved the validity of his prophetic words. From Florida to California, Wagner accounted churches in many states that had seen his words fulfilled in reality. After several minutes of thorough character sketching, Wagner finally approached the subject all had been anxiously awaiting; his prophetic message for Power Invasion Ministries.
From his ethos building rhetoric, Wagner transitioned directly into rhetorical appeals to pathos. The economy was bad, and the situation was getting worse, Wagner explained, yet the people of Power Invasion Ministries Power should stop worrying. In fact, he said, Power Invasion Ministries should expect rapid expansion, its pastor far-spread blessing, and its congregation financial stability the like of which they had never experienced, even with the state of the world economy. Drawing upon the many examples of mega churches scattered across the United States, Wagner assured the congregation that because of their sincerity in their faith, their devotion to their church, and their general goodness, Power Invasion Ministries would experience such growth as to be Denver’s mega church. They would be under the protection of God and prosper even in the poorest of economic situations, for, as Wagner assured the congregation, they were not of the world but of God, thus God would provide and care for them. “I see,” Wagner proclaimed, “notices stating PAID IN FULL, PAID IN FULL. And not for just this month, but for every month, PAID IN FULL, PAID IN FULL!” At times, possibly in order to further reassure the congregation of his message and build his ethos(for what higher authority is there than God?), Wagner spoke as if he were God himself, or merely an instrument that He was speaking through, and the words coming from his mouth were not his own but the very words of the God. Hence, with such rhetoric, Wagner comforted his audience with his words, words that appealed to their desire for security and safety. He elicited emotions (emotions often vocalized in soft exclamations and shouts of loud praise) of peace and happiness.
Wagner’s message, though seemingly far-flung, was surprisingly successful among the congregation of Power Invasion Ministries. He spoke directly to his audience, addressing them in an informal manner all while still conveying his superior knowledge in the spiritual. He spoke to the congregation as if they were friends he was bringing a gift to from a very rich third party, and he was merely there to announce the gift and explain why they were receiving such a generous present. Wagner’s tone was warm and his words flowed confidently and quickly, as if he were a sports’ historian speaking about long-before established facts, like who won Super Bowl 32, rather than events that had yet to occur. His confidence in his own message shifted to his audience, and the congregation seemed to absorb every word Wagner spoke. Yet, though there appeared to be no skeptics in the crowd, throughout his message Wagner continually referenced his past successes, perhaps a very subtle appeal to logos. Such was unnecessary, however, for Wagner’s appeals to ethos and pathos were more than effective.
I left the church early. Yet even before I had made my way discreetly out the back door of the sanctuary and out the front door into the calm of the parking lot, I saw how successful Wagner’s oratory skills were. The multitudes of church-goers engulfed the prophet David Wagner the minute a final offering was concluded, a final song sung, and a final prayer prayed.
Power Invasion Ministries, a large, forest green stucco building—a building announcing itself as a church only through a conspicuous billboard bordering the side of a nearby highway—nearly brimmed with excitement for the speaker and with people; there was not one pew in the vast red-carpeted sanctuary that did not have a variety of people warming its plush, purple, “maybe” velvet upholstery. And a variety of people were present—from families of every form to individuals of varying age, gender, and ethnicity. Yet, somehow, over the course of 33 minutes, the speaker managed to speak personally to seemingly all of them. Throughout his delivery of his sermon/prayer/revelation/speech, David Wagner elicited applause from every corner of the church sanctuary, and the praise shouted at him continually echoed in the heights of the building’s wood-paneled, vaulted ceilings.
Yet, before David Wagner would speak, praise-and-worship had to commence and end. The church seemed to breathe with life when the singing began. Enthusiasm infused nearly every church- goer as the upbeat music and the deep alto of the lead singer filled the entirety of the large sanctuary. As the singing progressed, a wave of emotions swept through the congregation. At times the church seemed to jump with joy as multitudes of people jumped, laughing and shouting and singing all at once, and an air of exhilaration surrounded everyone. Women of every age ran down aisles with long purple, gold, and red banners flying in the air behind them, and young children danced in front of the stage. Yet, at other times, the congregation evinced a deep sense of somberness. Heads were bowed, shouting ceased, and music slowed. For 40 minutes the church underwent such emotional fluctuations, and at the end, the anticipation surrounding the proclaimed prophet was amplified to a calm hysteria. By the time the pastor of the church rose to announce the guest orator, the crowd was more than ready to receive what Wagner had to say. Luckily, the senior pastor of Power Invasion Ministries was more than willing to save Wagner time and candidly explained his guest’s ethos. As he noted, Wagner the Prophet was an admirable man, a godly man, a family man, and a successful man. The crowd nodded in approbation, and David Wagner walked up to the stage and began speaking.
A surprisingly young man, Wagner continued to build his ethos despite the firm foundation the leader of the church had already provided him. He graciously thanked the pastor and praised him appropriately, pointed to his children sitting in the front pew with his wife, and told several stories of churches he had recently visited and how they proved the validity of his prophetic words. From Florida to California, Wagner accounted churches in many states that had seen his words fulfilled in reality. After several minutes of thorough character sketching, Wagner finally approached the subject all had been anxiously awaiting; his prophetic message for Power Invasion Ministries.
From his ethos building rhetoric, Wagner transitioned directly into rhetorical appeals to pathos. The economy was bad, and the situation was getting worse, Wagner explained, yet the people of Power Invasion Ministries Power should stop worrying. In fact, he said, Power Invasion Ministries should expect rapid expansion, its pastor far-spread blessing, and its congregation financial stability the like of which they had never experienced, even with the state of the world economy. Drawing upon the many examples of mega churches scattered across the United States, Wagner assured the congregation that because of their sincerity in their faith, their devotion to their church, and their general goodness, Power Invasion Ministries would experience such growth as to be Denver’s mega church. They would be under the protection of God and prosper even in the poorest of economic situations, for, as Wagner assured the congregation, they were not of the world but of God, thus God would provide and care for them. “I see,” Wagner proclaimed, “notices stating PAID IN FULL, PAID IN FULL. And not for just this month, but for every month, PAID IN FULL, PAID IN FULL!” At times, possibly in order to further reassure the congregation of his message and build his ethos(for what higher authority is there than God?), Wagner spoke as if he were God himself, or merely an instrument that He was speaking through, and the words coming from his mouth were not his own but the very words of the God. Hence, with such rhetoric, Wagner comforted his audience with his words, words that appealed to their desire for security and safety. He elicited emotions (emotions often vocalized in soft exclamations and shouts of loud praise) of peace and happiness.
Wagner’s message, though seemingly far-flung, was surprisingly successful among the congregation of Power Invasion Ministries. He spoke directly to his audience, addressing them in an informal manner all while still conveying his superior knowledge in the spiritual. He spoke to the congregation as if they were friends he was bringing a gift to from a very rich third party, and he was merely there to announce the gift and explain why they were receiving such a generous present. Wagner’s tone was warm and his words flowed confidently and quickly, as if he were a sports’ historian speaking about long-before established facts, like who won Super Bowl 32, rather than events that had yet to occur. His confidence in his own message shifted to his audience, and the congregation seemed to absorb every word Wagner spoke. Yet, though there appeared to be no skeptics in the crowd, throughout his message Wagner continually referenced his past successes, perhaps a very subtle appeal to logos. Such was unnecessary, however, for Wagner’s appeals to ethos and pathos were more than effective.
I left the church early. Yet even before I had made my way discreetly out the back door of the sanctuary and out the front door into the calm of the parking lot, I saw how successful Wagner’s oratory skills were. The multitudes of church-goers engulfed the prophet David Wagner the minute a final offering was concluded, a final song sung, and a final prayer prayed.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Kennedy's Conversation on Sustainability, by Kristen Elliott
The elegant chandeliers of the Gates Concert Hall slowly dimmed, engulfing the crowd in silent anticipation. Every eye was impatiently fixed towards center stage and the lone, illuminated podium that rested there. An endless murmur of curious voices surrounded me as I absentmindedly doodled on this morning’s program containing environmental sustainability information. After several stretched minutes of waiting, a figure appeared towards the back of the stage. His pace was proud and dignified as he approached the podium. His features became increasingly pronounced as he stepped towards the spotlight, in unison with the crowd’s steadily escalating applause. He politely hushed the audience and in a clear voice introduced himself to the crowd as Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Kennedy’s speech on sustainability wasn’t so much a lecture as it was a relaxed conversation. He addressed the hundreds in the audience as comfortably as if he were speaking to old friends, using everyday diction and throwing in jokes to balance out the heavy arguments he was presenting to the auditorium. He even good-naturedly mentioned that he had to “make this short” because he had plans to go skiing with his family shortly afterwards. His easygoing personality created a comfortable atmosphere and as I let my mind wander, I could have sworn I was in a familiar living room listening to him instead of a crowded auditorium. This down to earth approach to his speech gave his rhetorical presentation a sense of pathos, which helped his audience immediately connect to him.
Kennedy proposed “nature is the infrastructure of our nation, the basis of our economy, and the unifying agent of humanity.” He helped the audience relate to this concept personally by addressing specific situations where lifestyle choices are greatly influenced by our surroundings. He appealed to his listeners by acknowledging the strong ties that Colorado has to nature and our environment, especially through recreational activities such as skiing and hiking. Kennedy spoke of the American responsibility that we as a nation share; we must conserve our resources as well as the natural beauty of our planet for the generations to come. After all, other countries like England, Sweden, and Iceland have already reduced their carbon emissions and have begun to build a sustainable and balanced lifestyle. Israelis have begun converting cars off of conventional, inefficient gas. Kennedy addresses that if America followed the initiative of these innovative countries, our great nation could restore its prestige, economy, and health in merely three years.
At one point, he also compared sustainability to slavery; our country was initially skeptical of the abolishment of slavery because it was such a significant force on the antebellum American economy. It took a long time, but our country slowly worked toward abolishment and implemented the process in ways that wouldn’t overwhelm the nation. Eventually, slavery was completely eliminated and the country once again thrived as the industrial revolution began. This can be a model for today’s energy crisis. Kennedy proposes that if our nation begins to slowly instigate non-carbon energy into our economy, it will eventually become universal and stimulate the economy.
He shared with us his well-developed positions concerning the ever-diminishing state of our environment and its disastrous consequences, speaking with enormous passion and genuine concern. Kennedy recounted the pride that he had as a young boy for his country; he wants America to once again be looked upon as a world power instead of a shameful country that merely depletes the world’s resources and pollutes the atmosphere. He was earnest in encouraging the people sitting before him to take action against the “greedy” coal and oil industries. In order to work towards sustainability, Americans must deny the “energy from hell” that the corporate oil and coal companies produce. Instead, he challenges us to look towards “energy from heaven” such as geothermal energy that is cheaper and cleaner. Kennedy’s enthusiasm was successfully contagious, as was apparent when at the closing of his lecture he received a spirited standing ovation from the persuaded crowd.
When Kennedy completed his final words of gratitude and returned to the shadows of the far stage, the auditorium emptied as the lobby quickly filled with students, faculty, and community members of all ages. Groups quickly converged throughout the spacious hall, each excitedly discussing the different methods and innovative ideas that Kennedy had just fervently proposed. Some, emboldened by the lecture, even proposed ideas of their own to help increase sustainability within their own communities and homes. Kennedy’s development of ethos was extremely successful for his rhetorical presentation of sustainability. There was a noticeable sensation of hope and pride encompassing the crowd. This was an indication that Kennedy had successfully conveyed his own ideas to the majority of his audience.
Kennedy’s speech on sustainability wasn’t so much a lecture as it was a relaxed conversation. He addressed the hundreds in the audience as comfortably as if he were speaking to old friends, using everyday diction and throwing in jokes to balance out the heavy arguments he was presenting to the auditorium. He even good-naturedly mentioned that he had to “make this short” because he had plans to go skiing with his family shortly afterwards. His easygoing personality created a comfortable atmosphere and as I let my mind wander, I could have sworn I was in a familiar living room listening to him instead of a crowded auditorium. This down to earth approach to his speech gave his rhetorical presentation a sense of pathos, which helped his audience immediately connect to him.
Kennedy proposed “nature is the infrastructure of our nation, the basis of our economy, and the unifying agent of humanity.” He helped the audience relate to this concept personally by addressing specific situations where lifestyle choices are greatly influenced by our surroundings. He appealed to his listeners by acknowledging the strong ties that Colorado has to nature and our environment, especially through recreational activities such as skiing and hiking. Kennedy spoke of the American responsibility that we as a nation share; we must conserve our resources as well as the natural beauty of our planet for the generations to come. After all, other countries like England, Sweden, and Iceland have already reduced their carbon emissions and have begun to build a sustainable and balanced lifestyle. Israelis have begun converting cars off of conventional, inefficient gas. Kennedy addresses that if America followed the initiative of these innovative countries, our great nation could restore its prestige, economy, and health in merely three years.
At one point, he also compared sustainability to slavery; our country was initially skeptical of the abolishment of slavery because it was such a significant force on the antebellum American economy. It took a long time, but our country slowly worked toward abolishment and implemented the process in ways that wouldn’t overwhelm the nation. Eventually, slavery was completely eliminated and the country once again thrived as the industrial revolution began. This can be a model for today’s energy crisis. Kennedy proposes that if our nation begins to slowly instigate non-carbon energy into our economy, it will eventually become universal and stimulate the economy.
He shared with us his well-developed positions concerning the ever-diminishing state of our environment and its disastrous consequences, speaking with enormous passion and genuine concern. Kennedy recounted the pride that he had as a young boy for his country; he wants America to once again be looked upon as a world power instead of a shameful country that merely depletes the world’s resources and pollutes the atmosphere. He was earnest in encouraging the people sitting before him to take action against the “greedy” coal and oil industries. In order to work towards sustainability, Americans must deny the “energy from hell” that the corporate oil and coal companies produce. Instead, he challenges us to look towards “energy from heaven” such as geothermal energy that is cheaper and cleaner. Kennedy’s enthusiasm was successfully contagious, as was apparent when at the closing of his lecture he received a spirited standing ovation from the persuaded crowd.
When Kennedy completed his final words of gratitude and returned to the shadows of the far stage, the auditorium emptied as the lobby quickly filled with students, faculty, and community members of all ages. Groups quickly converged throughout the spacious hall, each excitedly discussing the different methods and innovative ideas that Kennedy had just fervently proposed. Some, emboldened by the lecture, even proposed ideas of their own to help increase sustainability within their own communities and homes. Kennedy’s development of ethos was extremely successful for his rhetorical presentation of sustainability. There was a noticeable sensation of hope and pride encompassing the crowd. This was an indication that Kennedy had successfully conveyed his own ideas to the majority of his audience.
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.'s Message of Hope, by Marysia Watson
A beacon of hope spread as Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., entered the stage to a polite round of applause in the lecture hall in the Newman Center. The audience felt the effect of the economic crisis and the demise of the environment. We were all in dire need of a new plan, one that can bring us both prosperity and health. The seats were full of people, young and old, ready to hear the reaffirmation that it is possible to live in a country that is energy-independent and still admired by other countries. Kennedy started off by appealing to the Colorado pastime – going skiing with his children this weekend. This fact created a bond within the whole room – he understood our crazy fixation with skiing and the outdoors – he’s one of us. I imagined him on the slopes with the sea of people in this room, and a comforting feeling resounded throughout the crowd. All of us felt as if we were sitting at a dinner table listening to our optimistic, intelligent brother or uncle talk about the future of our country.
Being in a wilderness state, he understood that the audience did not need to be persuaded to love the wilderness, but rather needed to be educated about what the company he works for is doing right now to help the environment, and what the future of our country will look like with the right leadership and commitment. He emphasized that the environment and economy are interconnected; when one is being hurt, the other decreases, and when one is thriving, the other is prosperous as well. He stated “Nature is the infrastructure of our nation, the basis of our economy, and the unifying agent of humanity.”
By taking a look at other countries that are moving towards a carbon-free existence, he was able to reinstall hope in the minds of Americans that we will be able to create a nation with what he called “energy from heaven” – which is clean, safe, reusable, cheap and effective – and repair the tragedy of a century or more of using the “energies from hell” – which are dirty, expensive, dangerous, and support countries that have different values from the USA. He states that we could do all this in three years. Kennedy related America to Iceland and Sweden, who changed to a non-carbon economy and are now the some of the richest countries in the world. America has more geothermal power than Iceland and the best solar and wind resources, therefore it also has the potential to rise again to the top, economically.
Not only did he point out that we have the greatest energy sources to replace these sources from hell, but he also stated how America is being torn away from its origins of democracy and what it means to be American by using such hurtful and inefficient energy sources. He stated that democracy came out of the wilderness; therefore we are hurting our democracy and going against it by polluting. Kennedy insisted that if the government would be committed and would help create a smart grid that would supply Americans with alternative energy, we could have free energy in the next three years. He stated that one year without oil would equal a future with free energy. One could tell that the audience was excited about this idea, but also wondering why we haven’t done this sooner. When Kennedy mentioned how the view of America has changed in the last eight years, there was a common consensus in the crowd - sighs and shaking of heads. He explained how when he was a little boy and visited Europe, Europeans rushed up to him to grasp a little bit of the American ideals and dream. Now, the whole world looks at us in disgust and blames us for the problems we face today. He wanted us to reclaim our ideals and live up to who Americans ought to be.
By constantly making fun of and pointing out the impracticalities and inefficiencies of the energy we use today, he showed that Americans, once again, are moving away from the good stereotypes, efficiency and practicality, and embracing the opposite of what we preach. He conveyed that Americans have been ignoring an open door full of energy and prosperity. We are trying to squeeze our way into a door that is closing faster and faster, and hurting us more and more. The humor used showed that the audience does understand the absurdity of our situation, and their hope that it will be fixed soon.
Our disastrous situation can be fixed quickly according to Kennedy, but he told us to act like we are at war in order to make this plan for a smart grid and a better future to come true. We need to fight to get the leadership and commitment we need to recreate the America he knew and the whole world admired when he was a small boy. This time the outcome of the war can only be positive, at least through his eyes. The audience nodded with inspiration and agreement when he spoke of his ideas. At the end, after saying that he’s talked too much and it is time for him to shut up, much like the kind uncle or brother would do, the crowd laughed and began to stand and applaud him. He stood to talk a little longer to answer some questions. As I left the room, I felt Kennedy’s excitement and optimism for the future of America attach to me and the rest of the audience, giving us hope for a return to the basis of our democracy and economy, nature.
Being in a wilderness state, he understood that the audience did not need to be persuaded to love the wilderness, but rather needed to be educated about what the company he works for is doing right now to help the environment, and what the future of our country will look like with the right leadership and commitment. He emphasized that the environment and economy are interconnected; when one is being hurt, the other decreases, and when one is thriving, the other is prosperous as well. He stated “Nature is the infrastructure of our nation, the basis of our economy, and the unifying agent of humanity.”
By taking a look at other countries that are moving towards a carbon-free existence, he was able to reinstall hope in the minds of Americans that we will be able to create a nation with what he called “energy from heaven” – which is clean, safe, reusable, cheap and effective – and repair the tragedy of a century or more of using the “energies from hell” – which are dirty, expensive, dangerous, and support countries that have different values from the USA. He states that we could do all this in three years. Kennedy related America to Iceland and Sweden, who changed to a non-carbon economy and are now the some of the richest countries in the world. America has more geothermal power than Iceland and the best solar and wind resources, therefore it also has the potential to rise again to the top, economically.
Not only did he point out that we have the greatest energy sources to replace these sources from hell, but he also stated how America is being torn away from its origins of democracy and what it means to be American by using such hurtful and inefficient energy sources. He stated that democracy came out of the wilderness; therefore we are hurting our democracy and going against it by polluting. Kennedy insisted that if the government would be committed and would help create a smart grid that would supply Americans with alternative energy, we could have free energy in the next three years. He stated that one year without oil would equal a future with free energy. One could tell that the audience was excited about this idea, but also wondering why we haven’t done this sooner. When Kennedy mentioned how the view of America has changed in the last eight years, there was a common consensus in the crowd - sighs and shaking of heads. He explained how when he was a little boy and visited Europe, Europeans rushed up to him to grasp a little bit of the American ideals and dream. Now, the whole world looks at us in disgust and blames us for the problems we face today. He wanted us to reclaim our ideals and live up to who Americans ought to be.
By constantly making fun of and pointing out the impracticalities and inefficiencies of the energy we use today, he showed that Americans, once again, are moving away from the good stereotypes, efficiency and practicality, and embracing the opposite of what we preach. He conveyed that Americans have been ignoring an open door full of energy and prosperity. We are trying to squeeze our way into a door that is closing faster and faster, and hurting us more and more. The humor used showed that the audience does understand the absurdity of our situation, and their hope that it will be fixed soon.
Our disastrous situation can be fixed quickly according to Kennedy, but he told us to act like we are at war in order to make this plan for a smart grid and a better future to come true. We need to fight to get the leadership and commitment we need to recreate the America he knew and the whole world admired when he was a small boy. This time the outcome of the war can only be positive, at least through his eyes. The audience nodded with inspiration and agreement when he spoke of his ideas. At the end, after saying that he’s talked too much and it is time for him to shut up, much like the kind uncle or brother would do, the crowd laughed and began to stand and applaud him. He stood to talk a little longer to answer some questions. As I left the room, I felt Kennedy’s excitement and optimism for the future of America attach to me and the rest of the audience, giving us hope for a return to the basis of our democracy and economy, nature.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)