Blog Post 6: Macbeth's Fall from Grace

Do you believe events in your life have been guided by fate or chance? Why or why not? Based on the text, what do you think Shakespeare's attitude was towards fate? Does Macbeth have any choice in his actions or was everything predetermined? Use examples from the text as your support.

This is such an interesting question that I have actually thought about before.  In my own life, I always like to believe that I make my own decisions and that fate doesn't truly control my life; however, I feel like fate is more of a guideline to people's lives.  Fate has the connotation that there is a higher being, such as God, who is controlling everything that happens because he has a plan for all of us.  Being Agnostic, I tend to lean away from this connotation and focus more of making my own pathway.  My decisions make me who I am, not someone else's choices.  
Based on the text, I think that Shakespeare's attitude towards fate shows a lot about what he believes.  I believe that Shakespeare makes a higher being control Macbeth's fate because after all of his evil actions, Macbeth shows signs of guilt.  "Thou canst not say I did it.  Never shake Thy gory locks at me" shows the intense guilt that Macbeth feels, as if he wasn't the one who actually did  the evil deed of killing his dear friend, Banquo (Macbeth, 3.4)  Macbeth almost seems like some sort of Holy Puppet that is controlled by something other than himself.  Starting around Scene 3 is when the audience can really see a change in Macbeth's character as he changes from being so content with his life, to going power crazy, to finally getting that guilt that has caught up to him.  
In the end, I think our decisions, for many, justify the idea that there is a god who is looking out for us.  The rest of us hope that we are making our own paths that won't come to bite us in the butt later.

Blog Post 5: Art Exhibit

In the 2011 work titled Topologies of Belief by Jose Davila, the audience is immediately drawn in.  Davila, who was born in Mexico in 1974, shows an intense absence in his work.  But what does it mean? 
For me personally, I had absolutely no idea what this series of photographs could be portraying, but I was drawn to this picture in particular.  I can see the outline of an architectural structure and what looks to be a man on top of it, but other than what is on the surface, the internal message wasn't present.  After walking around and seeing the other exhibits, it finally hit me. 
What I took this as, which can differ from the many other outlooks and perspectives, is that mankind makes too much of a big deal about architecture and material goods that we can make.  This almost has a stereotypical hippie feeling of "The best things in life are free and we shouldn't focus on the materialistic goods that can be manufactured."  What kills me is that this is actually true most of the time. 
In looking at only is at the surface, I think that the use of black and white portrays more emotion than that of color would.  The whites are lighter where they need to be, and the blacks are dark where they are appropriately needed. 
What I didn't notice until drawing the sketch, which was done very poorly I might add, was that the rock formations remind me of an almost rocky ocean terrain, in which the building happens to look smooth and wave-like.  I really focused more on the missing architecture than what was surrounding it, and after drawing the picture, I noticed that there were clouds and jagged terrain.

I think the work of Davila portrayed a photo that can be looked at differently by each viewer.  There is no right or wrong answer to what the series is about, and can be interpreted in any way.  That's the beauty of it, but also what can be difficult to analyze.  I think Davila's absence of structure showed how much we value the material goods throughout our life, when they will only be around for a limited amount of time.