7 conclusions

  1. In the first entrance in this blog I said my relationship with theory was not the best since I always have felt it cold and distant, and it did not gave me the warm sensation that literature gives me. Well, today, three months later, I think that some of these fast brushstrokes of theory are still cold. Some of them are also distant. But not all of them. I have found some authors really inspiring and warm: Lorde, Anzaldua, Fanon, Morrison, Barthes, Foucault, Thiong’o, Bakhtin, Schlovsky, inter alia. Also when I read Friedberg and Fiske I also noticed that television its a really interesting topic. Even thought in this very moment I will not able to remember all their definitions and terms, some of their ideas still resonates in my head.
  2. Lorde, Anzaldua and Thiong’o made me think about how a theory or theoretical reflection could be proposed from a personal perspective, with an emotional ingredient which remembers a little the sense of literature. When I read them I thought: “It is possible create and the same time theorize! There is an alternative and it not contradicts the academy!” I actually felt very excited. However, when I asked in class if is possible to write down a paper in this way, from the first person who elaborates academic reflections based on personal experiences, the answer was negative. I felt disappointed. Well, it was explained to me that it is possible to write some papers, perhaps for conferences where you can make performance-papers, but not for academic work, nor for a thesis. So, maybe is a contradiction that we read alternative models for creating theories but we are not able to apply those models in our work, right?
  3. In that order of ideas, I think, also, the alliance between arts and theory should be accepted in our programs. Is part of making real the interdisciplinary studies. When I watched “Blow Up” by Antonioni (I know this is not part of the readings, but we should watch it for our second writing assignment) I asked myself if a work of art, a film in this case, is also understandable as a analytical reading for a short story. I think the film is: Antonioni offers a point of view, and highlights what he thinks is the most important of the short story. However, I am not completely sure if a student of our programs would be allowed to present a film, a painting, a novel or a group of poems as a thesis. Maybe is possible if the student argues with a solid theoretical frame, but I am not sure if the academy will validate it. Maybe. Maybe not. I do not put much hope on that.
  4. The course more than answers, give me questions. One of them is how to put in practice these theories, not only in an article or essay but in the “real” world. If we are learning to deconstruct, an idea that for me is still ethereal, how can we teach or apply this concept to our societies; how to use deconstruction in a practical way, linked to the problems of our countries, to our works. I have to think more about this.
  5. I also asked myself which one of this theories could be useful for my thesis research. So far, I am not sure. Maybe a combination of concepts/authors could work: Said + Fanon + Thiong’o? Perhaps. I think I have to read them more profoundly and see how to use them. But I least I have an idea for where to begin with.
  6. Last, but not least, I think the blog is an useful idea. I understood better some concepts here than in the readings! When someone explains tricky ideas in a simple way it was really helpful. Thanks to everybody! Sometimes this blog was a space for dialogue, for thinking in different ideas, and it worth it. However, in several occasions I felt frustrated because the authors we talk about here in the blog were not discussed in class. Anyway, is a great space but it deserves a better connection to the class.
  7. Gracias. Merci. Thanks.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *