Your Artistry (renewed)

They say that some people make art, whilst other individuals are, as themselves, works of art. That "Art should comfort the disturbed and disturb the comfortable." [Cesar Cruz/Banksy]. "To restrict the artist is a crime. It is to murder germinating life." [Egon Schiele].  "The idea is not to live forever, it is to create something that will." [Andy Warhol]

My boyfriend, categorically, is an artist. The inability to see the world just as it is, comes alongside the passion and appreciation he has for everything art. To pick up a pen and see the universe differently to everybody else is his gift. More often than not, he creates unique and individually stunning pieces on a day to day basis without the need of force from others. The line in which he carries across every page makes no sense to those who can't see what he is seeing at the given time, but is visually appealing with every aspect of the phrase. The acknowledgement for the way a medium can create such different lines depending on the speed of the hand or the mind-set of a person is undeniably extraordinary. What saddens him most is for others, who can't seem to grasp the beauty of the topic, to shun a piece that has been delicately crafted throughout a number of days without a second thought. Whether it's a simple cinematographic composition, an undemanding illustration that requires minimum effort but a great understanding or a life drawing that has been composed using every visual shape exposed or a sculpture which gleams elegance from a single, certain angle, his passion never fluctuates but stands alone with a somewhat proud stance and screams picturesqueness without too much boastfulness to be off putting. He is an artist- without a shadow of a doubt- and his heart is his greatest masterpiece. They say that "A work of art which did not begin in emotion is not art."[Paul Cezanne] Here's an illustrator that makes drawing feel as easy as appreciating a good view.

 His favourite sketchbook is a navy-blue Royal Langnickel. With its textured covering and lightly waxed, off white paper and its hardback, ink-stained shell it's hard not to fall for such an item-even if you know you'll never use it. One charming book in particular was given to me as a 17th birthday gift from him, with its battered corners from its adventures and pages full with ideas and pictures, it will forever sit as one of my most cherished items on my shelf. These sketchbooks line his walls in his 20x10 bedroom. Open one up and suddenly you're looking into his whole life. Portraiture, landscapes, typeface, patterns, doodles and people picked out from a crowd. These are his fast and deliberate sketches executed in humble Biro and pencil. A simple toolbox, not known by many who try their hand at art. For as long as I've known him, elaborate has never been his forte.

Or so he says.

Burning passions never usually come without elaborate-ness.

If there's one thing that I've learnt from him is that patience is a virtue. But also that some things don't require plans or charts or mappings out step by step. You are able to create and learn as the day passes and that is not something to be afraid of. Ideas come and go and in the words of one of his favourite artists: "There is nothing (...) then there is something for a brief moment, then there is nothing again." (David Shrigley) There is something about art. In passionate hands, crafted and manipulated deftly, the piece can and will take you prisoner. It will catch your eye and wind itself around your sockets like spider silk and when you're so enthralled that you cannot move, it'll pierce your skin. Something will click and numb any other thoughts. For many people, art will never be an important part of everyday life and for some it'll be the very soul of theirs but I believe that the universal agreement on what is gorgeously and undoubtedly artistic, although tainted, is still true to its form. And it's art created by such individuals as Romare Bearden, Pablo Picasso, Leonardo da Vinci, Frida Kahlo, J.M.W Turner, Donatello and other 'right brained' souls who's timeless pieces prove this theory and most likely always will.

Language and Gender (Unfinished) Notes for revision 2015

General overview revision studies (condensed and combined)

Research into the many possible relationships between language and gender is diverse. Most studies could be said to encompass work notionally housed within applied linguistics, conversational analysis, feminist media studies, gender studies, interactional sociolinguistics, and media studies. Methodologically, there is no single approach that could be said to give a definite explanation in relation to generalising gender specific language. This is mostly because socially, standards towards each gender worldwide are constantly shifting- for example: the rise in feminism/feminists. Discursive, post structural, experimental approaches, difference, deficient and dominant theories can all be seen to have actively contributed to the study of language and gender-producing and reproducing different and competing, political and theoretical assumptions about the way gender contributes towards language. Research in this area could be divided into several main areas of study: firstly, there is a sustained and wide interest in the many varieties of speech associated with a particular gender; secondly, there are many studies that focus on the locally situated and contextually specific ways in which gender can be bought into being/invoked/made accountable (etc.) to and for peoples everyday talk/textual interaction; and thirdly,  there is an interest in the 'social norms' and conventions that produced gendered language- A sociolect associated with a particular gender is sometimes called 'genderlect'. The study of language and gender has greatly developed since the 1970s. Prominent  theorists include Dale Spender, Pamela Fishman, Deborah Tannen, Zimmerman and West, Deborah Cameron, Robin Lakoff and others.

In 1975, Robin Lakoff identified a 'woman's register' which she argued served to maintain women's inferior role in society. Lakoff also stated that women tend to use linguistic forms that reflect and reinforce the subordinate role. These include tag questions, "weak" directives and question intonation, among others. However, theorists such as Pamela Fishman argue against Lakoff's theory and suggests that women frequently use tag questions as they are an effective method of beginning and maintaining conversations with males. Fishman also states that females use questions-primarily in the form of "isn't it?" and "could've been?"- to gain conversational power rather than lack conversational awareness. She claims that "questioning is required for when females are speaking with males as men do not often respond to a declarative statement or will respond minimally." By asking these tag questions, Fishman states that they are used mostly as an 'attention getting device.' And to discover if the conversational partner is listening. Therefore, by adding a question she realised that the speaker is inviting the listener to respond. Tag questions are frequently used to verify or confirm information- and not just by females. Although in a woman's language they may also be used to avoid strong statements which, in effect, may lead to conflict or misunderstanding with the conversational partner. With collective information from various studies, it's clear that men and women differ in their use of questions within conversations. For men, a question is usually a genuine request for information whilst for a woman, it can often be a rhetorical means of engaging the other's conversational contribution or of acquiring attention from other participants or peers who are conversationally involved, techniques associated with a collaborative approach to language use. Therefore, women use questions more frequently than men and for different purposes.

Deborah Tannen supports this via her theories which suggest that women use language primarily to make connections and reinforce intimacy and understanding, whilst males use it to preserve their independence and negotiate status. A primary example of this in close relation to questions/questioning would be Tannen's "information vs. feeling." Tannen suggests that men use speech to exchange information, whilst women use language to express and share feelings. Additionally, she suggests that whilst women tend to be indirect when seeking cooperation, and make suggestions rather than commands, men tend to use and are more comfortable dealing with explicit orders-(Orders vs. Proposals). Tannen's other theories include Independence vs. Intimacy; Conflict vs. Compromise; Status vs. Support and Advice vs. Understanding. All of these theories suggest the ways in which both genders communicate, think and behave differently linguistically. However, the trend within Tannen's theories suggest the primarily more dominant and 'strong' characteristics come through from the male gender. Within all her suggestions, women are perceived to be personally interrupted  by their emotions and men to 'push them to one side.' The idea that emotions in language and communication are so one sided suggests a shift in power within the genders; strongly towards men-resulting in an overall impression that because women are "more in touch with emotion" that they're susceptible to hurt, being labelled as the "nagging gender" because they're less likely to answer back and therefore are easily dominated. The dominant perception that is heavily shown throughout her theories may be supported by theorist and speaker Dale Spender. Spender suggests that "women are seen in society as 'weak' if they don't play their gender." Spender highlights that in patriarchal societies men control language and it works in their favour. And that this has an affect on the 'disobedient' women who fail to conform to their given inferior role and are labelled by society as abnormal, promiscuous or frigid if they stray from the female stereotype (linguistically).