Why Skins Should be the Model for Characters on TV


Lately, I’ve been enjoying re-watching one of my favorite shows, the first generation of Skins. Unlike many of the other shows I watch, the draw of this show isn’t the drama or the storyline, but rather the kids themselves. I say kids instead of characters because the show blurs the two together as we follow each on on his or her journey. What I mean by this is that not only are the characters very real, raw, and gritty, but the actors themselves also embody these qualities and this is represented in the show. Unlike many shows today where a 16 year old is played by a 25 year old or a high schooler is portrayed wearing seamless makeup and 4 inch heels, the kids of Skins all actually look, act, and dress their age. Many of the female characters are shown without makeup, sometimes in ill-fitting or awkward clothing, and close-ups don’t try to hide the blemishes, braces, or flaws of these real life teens or their characters.

In addition to the physical blur between actor and character, the characters written for these actors also have a way of bringing out the real feelings and fears of anyone who has ever been through high school. In each character, Skins takes something that almost every young person has dealt with and hyperbolizes it. Take, for example, Cassie. Cassie is known by all her friends as an anorexic mental case, but the show allows us to see behind closed doors into her life where she is utterly ignored by everyone around her. Though not all viewers have experienced eating disorders, almost everyone has known what it’s like to feel completely alone and unnoticed. Each character personifies a challenge of youth in such an honest and complex way that by the end of the series the whole cast has become both a projection of your inner feelings and your best friends.

I’m not writing this solely to suggest you go watch Skins (though if you haven’t, you really should), but rather to demonstrate that having honest, flawed, non-glamorous, and real characters can be so much more powerful than those impossibly beautiful and glamorous creations of Disney and ABC Family. These characters fall into a dramatized plot rather than grappling with their own problems and insecurities over the course of the show as is the case with the characters of Skins. I’m not saying that there are no honest characters on TV, but I have yet to see anyone bring the realness that Skins delivered in 2007.

La Cucina Futurista

Discard the past. Consume the present. Thirst for the future.

These beliefs characterize Italian Futurism (Futurismo) in the early 1900s. The founder of the Futurist movement, Filippo Tommaso Marinetti, birthed the idea at the turn of the century when he drove his car off the road to avoid a pair of cyclists. When he emerged from the ditch, he was a changed man with a vision for the future. It was a future of speed, technology, violence, and youth. His vision gathered a following in Italy and honored the invention of machines. It challenged culture’s sedentary nature by destroying the old and accelerating the new. Seeking to shed the weight of the past, it had influence on multiple facets of the culture—industrial design, literature, fashion, and even gastronomy.

Futurist Food

La Cucina Futurista was a dining movement crafted in Marinetti’s Manifesto of Futurist Cooking (1930). Like many Futurismo manifestos, La Cucina Futurista was a radical idea that greatly disrupted the culture. This manifesto banned pasta from the cuisine. As one could guess, this idea was unpopular in Italian culture. But it was the mission of Futurismo. La Cucina Futurista declared war against starchy foods that embodied the people’s weaknesses, complacency, and nostalgia. Seeking to eradicate this neutrality and cultural laziness, the gastronomical movement went where no chef had gone before.

No Pasta!

It was revolutionary. The movement encouraged the mixture of foods previously deemed incompatible: mutton with shrimp, banana with cheese, and herring with strawberry jam. Political discussions were forbidden during dining, and the space was replaced with art. While eating, people indulged in sensory experiences. Perfumes were offered for one course to excite the nostrils. Certain foods were placed on the table and left untouched for the sake of smell and visual aesthetic. Some courses were be rushed, so food would be quickly consumed. Others were be drawn out so people could savor the intricacies of taste. Music was played to delight the ears while chemists concocted new flavors. It was a full sensory experience that promoted the joy of new things. Where the old food culture was a means to connecting with history, La Cucina Futurista was a means to connecting with the future.

Marinetti claimed that we must “eat with art to act with art.” It was a beautiful idea: Our diet influenced our thoughts and expression. By bringing art to the plate, we could paint our palette in manners that could spark breakthroughs in taste and even health. But like much of Futurismo, it was an eccentric idea that never seeped into mainstream culture.

The movement toted some great ideas and some awful ideas. Airplanes, automobiles, and robots were deemed great ideas by popular culture. As for futurist meals…here’s to hoping they find plates beyond the history books.

Concert Culture

Name: Jeannie Marie

Codename: “Blondie”

Mission: Your mission is to infiltrate the crowd gathered at the Fillmore, Detroit on 4/7/2015. You must get as close to the stage as possible. You must not fail.

Mission Results: FAILED

So, last night I got to see one of my favorite bands, Walk The Moon, live in concert. Not gonna lie, it was kind of a dream come true for me – I haven’t been to a concert in a really long time, and I haven’t really been to any while I’ve been in Michigan (Houston native, in case you’ve forgotten). So when I found out that someone from [arts]seen was driving to Detroit for the Walk The Moon concert, I knew I had to go.

Now, since she’s reviewing the concert on [arts]seen, I won’t do that here, but on my way to the concert and even during the concert, I started to think about live concerts and how they’ve shaped music history.

I’m sure everyone who reads these articles knows about the famous ones, Woodstock and the like, and the current resurgence of the music festival has it’s roots way back into the 60s. Concerts have been a staple in music practically as far back as music has been around. I mean how else would you get to listen to Beethoven in the 1800s if you didn’t go see him live? But rock concerts specifically have a really interesting place in music history.

I say this because rock concerts have a specific connotation to them. It was a lot harder back in the 60s and 70s to spread music; it was a slower process using the radio rather than the internet in order to garner popularity. In the same way, concerts were a lot different back then. You couldn’t just go to YouTube and look up your favorite band singing a Queen cover live. Thus, if you went to a show, you had bragging rights. I got to see the Rolling Stones live. Suck on that.

And I’d argue that it’s much the same today, perhaps even more so. Concerts lend an aura of authenticity to someone claiming that they like a band. They show dedication and love for a band; you aren’t a lukewarm fan that just listens to them on the radio, you actually go see them live. This might also come from the fact that concerts typically cost between $50-$100, and that’s for a cheap ticket, gas, parking, and a t-shirt. Your expenses can reach even higher if it’s a high-ticket act like Beyonce.

But even so, when I got to the venue in Detroit, and made my way towards the massive crowd of people, I realized something else. I in no way could make it anywhere near the front of the stage. And I was kind of annoyed.

Why did I even come? I spent (well, my dad spent, thanks daddy) $30 + fees to see the back of some tall dudes head for the duration of the concert? If I was in Houston, I probably would have done some slipping around, gave a couple of “excuse me”s, and pushed my way to at least the middle of the crowd, perhaps even in the front half of the crowd. But I’m unfamiliar with the concert culture in Detroit, and seeing how this was my first concert I really didn’t want to do anything stupid. So I stuck it out in the back.

But then, as time went on, the songs just got louder and louder, the people around me jumped higher and higher, and I jumped with them. I remember looking around me and seeing a guy completely drenched in sweat, grin plastered on his face, never faltering. People around me were dancing and screaming and clapping, and even though I could only see the singers face every other second when I jumped, I could hear him singing, I could hear the guitarist playing, and I would give anything to relive the memories I have.

So was I in the front? No. But did I have an amazing time? Of course. And to me, that’s where the true richness of going to a concert lies. It’s not whether you get the t-shirt or if you put on face paint (though I wish I had some, it was kind of epic looking). It’s about how you feel in the moment. And even if you’re not that big of a fan or you didn’t know every word to all the songs, you’re still welcome. Because a concert welcomes everyone. You don’t know anyone around you besides maybe your friends, and that’s okay. Because that means you’re all equal. For better or worse, you’re all in this hot, sweaty, probably dehydrated crowd together.

Concerts aren’t about authenticity. They’re about togetherness.

Random side note: This piece of writing doesn’t encompass even half of how I feel about concerts, so expect a part 2 sometime not soon. Concerts are crazy man. But I love them so much.

G.L/i~t\ch

Glitch refers to an electronic feedback, sonic or visual, created when a reciever misinterprets a signal. This can happen at three stages – compression of data into message, the reading of data, or a fault in the equipment receiving the data.

A glitch is more than an unwanted digital transmission, it’s a physical artifact of a less-than-perfect system of electronic communication, reminding us that our hardware and software architectures have not transcended the scope of error. Although glitches are generally unwanted or unplanned and therefore precipitous of negativity, movements within contemporary media practices have rallied around the aesthetic of the electronic accidental. What is so compelling about the glitch?

Electronic feedback is a rude awakening for an otherwise hypnotically smooth functioning system of information. Moreover, glitches expose how the machinery we take for granted thinks, and even more interestingly, by defying our expectations, force us to encounter the implicit paradigm of representation we impose upon technological artifice.

This might be considered an artistic impulse with traces of a modernist sensibility, questioning and problematizing the very medium upon which the artist practices. Furthermore, glitch artists question the model of transmitter, message, and receiver by rupturing the flow of communication with ambivalence.

Although seemingly unproductive, this rupture of information can be enlightening. What we consider a productive flow of information is a fetter on our imagination and conception of socioeconomic relationships. Reducing the possibility of electronic communication to a syntactic exchange of orderly commands not only limits the possible implementations of technology, but also possibilities for how humans can interact with each other and think about society.

The glitch smashes the code in order to blaze a trail for something new – meaning, symbolic, and otherwise.

Am I Still Korean?

I mean technically, I no longer have Korean citizenship.

I can never tell if I am going overboard when I exercise my reluctance to be “Korean”. Out of the many I have met with similar backgrounds, whilst living across the great Pacific, a great bulk have been very aware of their Korean backgrounds and yearned to return to a place that, to them, was far more familiar. However, at the same time, some of my Korean – or to expand this to a broader spectrum, Asian-Canadian – friends were more or less on my wavelength, dreading the thought of coming into contact, in Canada or elsewhere, with the Asian culture that they were no longer a part of.

My, conflict with myself derives from the realization that my rebellious nature towards accepting my Korean roots is essentially some sort of existential angst. But that is not to exclude the fact that my formative years were spent in the west, not the east. Insert snarky joke about the rising sun. Of course I naturally conform with western traditions…that is what I grew up with to a certain degree. But during my infancy, I also lived in Korea until I was five. I remember taking the subway in Seoul with my grandpa and enjoying the hell out of it.
But this conflict, despite not being resolved, leads to another problem. I find myself to be hypercritical of a great deal of Korean related, for lack of a better word at the moment, things. I find so many things to be ridiculous. The idea that kids go to tutors until 10PM is absolutely ridiculous; the fact that Koreans thought the solution to a horrendous appearance in the World Cup was to try harder is beyond insane (how about you change the system in which you coach the players? Oh no? You think trying harder is all you need to be concerned about? Ok, fine. Don’t make critical decisions); and it boggles my mind that plastic surgery is so deeply integrated into Korean culture.

Before, I didn’t think this level of criticism was problematic, but then I realized I was not being fair. A lot of these things are bad, but they are a result of years of cultural development. But that is as empathetic as I will get.

There is an article called About Face by the New Yorker. It covers the cultural importance of plastic surgery in Korea. It talks about the numerous ads in the Gangnam subway stations, showcasing before and after pictures of girls who went through plastic surgery. But it also introduces many other aspects that I did not know about plastic surgery or in a broader sense, Korea’s obsession with trends and the sense of a collective “I”. Apparently, in the midst of the Korean War, American surgeons offered plastic surgery operations to Korean civilians who were injured amidst the combat. Apparently this was how plastic surgery got introduced to South Korea. Do I resent America for bringing in something that I find absolutely disgusting now? No. Of course not. At that moment, although there were cosmetic benefits, it was to help an individual not suffer to exceptional degrees.

Nowadays, as the article mentions, there is a show in Korea that brings out individuals who suffer disfigurement or other ailments that cause their faces to be unpleasant. Surgeons then offer a free cosmetic makeover and they bring out the new and beautiful person out to the cheer and applause of the crowd.

Can I really be disgusted by something like that? I am not sure. Some of these people do deserve something like this, and plastic surgery certainly isn’t cheap. If it makes them happy, I guess there is nothing to really be disgusted by.

But then comes the scenario of an individual who looks fine to begin with, and gets plastic surgery to look more like a celebrity that either they admire, or is incredibly popular with the vast majority of the Korean population. That…is disgusting. That this is something that is encouraged, that there are parents in Korea who tell their daughters or sons that they would look more handsome if they got a nose job. What the fuck people. Seriously, what the fuck.

I think for the most the part, there is an inherent natural aesthetic beauty to a face, but once you start mucking around with the parts, the face becomes visibly alienated, even if the surgeon is Michelangelo with the knife. It really troubles me to see that. Or the numerous bandaged women who go walking around in broad daylight, stopping to get as many trendy shirts and shoes as possible, or the young couples that are entering shopping malls whose average price for a shirt is over $150. I am too judgmental, I know. I could pick apart myself and my family and friends could probably point out a hundred other flaws that I was too ashamed to admit. But Damn.

However, despite all this, a part of me still wants to be a part of Korea. I want to retain some semblance of a connection with the country I was born in. I can’t lose that part of me completely, but I am afraid I already have.

Here is a link to the article.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/03/23/about-face

 

We Know What’s Going to Happen, You Don’t

Do you ever watch your favorite show, read your favorite book, or start a great film and already know what is going to happen? The plot unfolds right at the beginning with you, the viewer/reader, as the initial confidant and the eye-witness to the madness. Then as the plot of the said show/book thickens, and the music starts racing in the background as the characters look at each other in worry, you sit back and realize that wait…you already know the big secret of the plot…the other characters don’t! This my friends is called dramatic irony, and I absolutely can’t stand it.

“Dramatic Irony – a literary device by which the audience’s or reader’s understanding of events or individuals in a work surpasses that of its characters.”

Yes it can be found in the classics like Shakespeare’s Macbeth, and even modern works like ABC’s Revenge (cough, cough..hint, hint). Dramatic irony can be the best thing that could ever happen to a plot, and the absolute worst thing that can happen to an audience.

I came to the realization that I detest dramatic irony whilst watching my favorite drama/mystery TV shows. Yeah it’s great that we know that there’s a murder and some form of deception by this person, but do we as viewers really need to sit through 5 seasons of watching characters build up the courage/knowledge to confront the people or entity holding them back? Now that’s just ridiculous.

Dramatic irony sets up a storyline that we know will run its course. Did you think if we knew who the mother was before Ted met her, we’d even care after 9 seasons? What really pushes viewers and readers to stay passionate about these creative works, is the perfected art of surprise. Not many writers have it in them to continuously draw its audience in without giving much away, but to be honest, that is what makes for great drama. It’s the constant need to know on the audience’s end that will always make the pages worth flipping through or the shows worth watching.

In giving the very juicy goods away as soon as audience becomes acquainted with the text, it becomes a game of what character do I care enough about to stay invested in this? What character will I wait to know what I know, and will they react how I want them to? Even with this criteria in mind, I find that character-pull is becoming more and more weak. Do I even care about this character’s reaction enough? Eh..not really.

I urge creators of dramas to consider dramatic irony’s effects, and if it really brings forth what you want it to. Consider practicing the art of surprise, and how keeping the audience in the dark might bring forth amazing stories.