Category Archives: Eng123

Can artist still sellout?

Roy Cook

“So Kendrick Lamar clearly sold out. But is there anything wrong with this? Well, sure: compromising one’s personal values or one’s musical integrity is an inherently bad thing.” – Compromising personal values and compromising music integrity.

Javier Gomez- Lavin

“Despite my own ossified musical tastes I do want to take a crack at this concept of selling out, which as Chris Richards points out in his original WaPo piece is a loaded but fuzzy concept, one that thrives off its dense links to the broader issues” –Consumerism, late capitalism, social and individual identities, and race.

Shen-yi Liao

“Our point is only about the two distinctive structures of different art concepts. It is an empirical question which art concepts are straightforwardly descriptive, and which art concepts include also defining values.”-

“What about Kendrick Lamar? By the time he did the Reebok advertisements, he already had two major label albums. In my view, he already crossed over to the pop side of hip hop. If we viewed him as a pop artist, then no, that wasn’t selling out—because Kendrick Lamar the pop artist cannot sell out.”

Erich Hatala Matthes

“Mills repeatedly emphasizes that it is violation of the artist’s own standards that should serve as the relevant benchmark when it comes to judging whether they have sold out: her paradigmatic case concerns an artist who themself believes they have intentionally made their work worse due to non-artistic motivations, such as fame or fortune.”

“Often, judgments about whether an artist has sold out are made from the third-person (or, more accurately, second-person) perspective, rather than the first-person perspective. While an artist could very well reflect on whether they themselves have sold out, selling out is paradigmatically a charge or accusation made against someone else.”

Claudia Mills

“Did Kendrick Lamar sell out when he used his artistry to sell Reebok shoes? If he prioritized realizing his own artistic vision in the making of his central body of musical work, he did not sell out there. But what about using his artistic gifts, in addition, to market shoes? There does not seem to me to be anything in itself problematic about working in advertising; indeed, advertising jingles are some of the most memorable and beloved tunes of my own childhood.”

Mary Beth Millard

“Kendrick Lamar didn’t sell out to Reebok. He’s collaborating to make shoes that signify equality. The human connection stays intact also because the artists can directly speak to fans without appearing to go through a publicist or journalist or PR firm.”

Eng123 essay

If the athletes at University of New England were to speak out against the national anthem how do you think people are going to react to that? There will be all the news places from around the area on this campus so fast, it will be in the headlines of just about almost all the newspapers, and would be talked about on the radio. Just like when Kaepernick sat down for the anthem but then took a knee to not mean harm to anyone.The press was going crazy for that because it was such a big deal to the point where he had lost his job. But what people don’t get is just because you are a college athlete you are not speaking out with a purpose. College athletes will always have a chip on their shoulder just because of other people’s persauna on them. People’s point of view of the situation is different because the presidents aspect compared to the athletes are different.The presidents point of view could be different things like he could be pissed and punish them or he might understand the reasoning behind and wouldn’t be mad. But he’s the type to come to some sort of fair agreement because it’s not fair for the athletes to not stand up for what they believe in.In the athletes mind they think that they’re doing something good just because they are standing up for what they believe in. Speaking from an athletes perspective we do have a say too just because we’re athletes doesn’t make us dumb. Athletes could’ve been speaking out on many things like white on black crime, police brutality, and etc. When they take a knee though people around them make it such a bigger deal than it actually needs to be even though they don’t want any harm they just strong believers. An analysis of the situation is that if the athletes actually have a valid reason to take a knee the president is willing to make a deal with them. Parents’ point of view may be different as well because there will be some parents who will hate that and start talking about how that group or individual is disrespecting the flag and the anthem. But in the anthem it says “One nation under God” you can’t be one nation when you have people killing each other for many reasons.

David Leonhardt

David Leonhardt critique of the national anthem was that “From a moral standpoint, this issue is clear. The athletes are right — and have every right to protest as they have. Trump is wrong, about the scourge of police violence and about freedom of speech.” That had meant from an outside perspective of the situation, it is clear that the athletes are right in the situation but the president doesn’t understand because he is wrong. David was giving advice to the athletes who were standing up for something. He said in the article that “But the smart move now is not to expand a tactic that Trump loves as a foil. It’s to shift toward protests that don’t need a counterintuitive and distracting defense, while he gets to bleat on about America first.” Another piece of advice that he said in the passage was, “The protests can still be aggressive — like the “I can’t breathe” shirts in the N.B.A., and much more. Trump, of course, will blast any protest as some version of uppity. But so what? The target audience are the many Americans open to opposing police violence and a bullying president — but uncomfortable with a gesture that seems to oppose America itself.” I thought after reading the article that his critiques and advice to the athletes were all valid points.

Ta-Nashi Coates

Coates stated in the article that ” Leonhardt is sympathetic to the aims of Kaepernick’s protest but he contrasts this “angry” approach with the “smart” approach of the civil-rights movement.” He thought he was sympathetic towards Kaepernick but he will come at you aggressively and be smart about how he’s doing it. An alternative explanation when for when Coates had said “meaningful change” is when right after that he stated, “Perhaps most importantly they affected the attitudes of the children of those white Americans who scorned them. This points to the true target, in terms of white people, of Kaepernick’s protest. The point is not to convince people who boo even when a team kneels before the anthem is sung. The point is to reach the children of those people. The point is the future.” Some hope that he offered in the article was when he said “If young people attempting to board a bus are unacceptable, if gathering on the National Mall is verboten, if preaching nonviolence gets you harassed by your own government and then killed, if a protest founded in consultation with military veterans is offensive, then what specific manner of protest is white America willing to endure? It’s almost as if the manner of protest isn’t the real problem.” Coates point of view is with the athletes because he was giving them advice and really wasn’t criticizing the athletes.

Homework 1/22/19

1. Athletes speak on many different problems around the United States. When I was reading the KAT article it said in paragraph 3 how his driver who was around his 60s or 70s was saying how he feels nowadays society brings back memories from the past with segregation. Towns then went into detail about how there was a guy killed in his home city where he was from in broad daylight for no reason. But America does also have it’s good moments as Towns was stating. He also had made a remark about Trump which was true because he doesn’t know the tremendous outcomes of what his words can do now that he is president. Then he made a point saying ” I know that some people will downplay what I’m saying because I play in the NBA. They’ll say (stick to sports) and woo-woo-woo. But I believe the culture is changing when it comes to athletes speaking out on the things that really matter.” Reading that he was basically stating that he and all his fellow athletes who speak out on something they stand up for. They’re not only doing it for themselves they’re doing it for everyone around them not just there family.

2. I do think that there critiques are invalid just because why are they criticizing someone that is just speaking on there opinion. But since the athletes are nationally known and you hear them speak out for others who are just too scared to say something that agree with what the athletes are saying will hopefully encourage one of them to speak out for themselves one day.People like Ingraham and Travis oppose athletes speaking out because there intimidated. They know in the back of there heads how much impact athletes have on America especially big ones like Jordan, Bron, Kaepernick, and Etc. With a lot of power that athletes have by impacting society becomes great responsibility which I think they have been living up to. Unlike other people for example Donald Trump.

3. When athletes speak out on something it means that it is personal and that they care about it. They don’t try to speak out and behave in a way that would offend anyone or getting anyone hurt. They just want to make an impact on this society and environment that they see slowly crumbling. But in others eyes they see it as something different just because there not the same gender or race as them.

Colin Kaepernick

The article I chose talked mainly about Kaepernick and how he was protesting by taking a knee during the national anthem. He was protesting against police brutality. Then it was giving examples of other athletes that protested before like at the 1968 Olympic Games when Tommy Smith and John Carlos who were 2 African-American medalists who dressed against the dress code. They raised there black gloved fists to protest against how black people were being treated during that time. The Arthur gave a stance from the other side as well saying people like Trump and Jerry Jones think sports and politics should never mix. In the article it stated some facts saying ” Athletes who have used their platform to make political statements faced serve consequences from the power that be.” Afterwards, it started to talk about Muhammed Ali and how he stripped of his championship title because he refused to go into the military from religious reasoning. Then they banned him from boxing in the United States 3 years later. But it also talked about how other entertains besides athletes when they were protesting against something there consequences weren’t nearly as server as when the athletes were protesting. Tommy Smith and John Carlos eventually got memorialized a statue at the Smithsonian museum of African- American history. In 2008 they got awarded the Arthur Ashe Courage Award. I thought the Arthur of the article had good points talking about all the events of athletes standing up for what they believe in and risking it all just so there kind of people in the world will stop being treated with inequality and treated more with equality. When the Arthur said ” Kaepernick and his fellow NFL players who risk condemnation or worse for participating in protests on the field, should be proud to be a part of the rich legacy of bravery and activism reserved for outspoken American athletes.” That meant something because he is not only standing up for himself, he is standing up for a bunch of others who are too scared to speak up for themselves.