Vote for Comment of the Week

Voting closes Friday noon...

Student #1 has left a new comment on your post "Why Are Native Roles Going to White Actors?":

One point that struck me in this article was the attribution of Warner Bros. lack of a comment to the fact that this sort of outrage is usually short lived. People rarely demand more from their entertainment providers and when they do, their voices usually die down when the topic is no longer popular. If the public was truly committed to making movies more racially diverse and making sure that traditionally minority character kept their race in reboots, they would boycott the studios, but past behavior proves that the public is not inclined to do that. As long as studios are comfortable with the knowledge that the only repercussions they are going to face are a few harsh articles and a number of protesters that doesn't rival their guaranteed customer base, they will continue to hire whomever they want.

Student #2 has left a new comment on your post "'House of Cards' crew could have equipment seized ...":

This just seems silly. If the state doesn't want the show to leave, they should use incentives to get them to stay, not childishly punish them. I'm not sure if this would be even legal under the rules of eminent domain- I don't know much about the legality of this stuff but I'm pretty sure that eminent domain only applies if the state is taking the property for civic/public use, such as taking land to build a highway that would benefit the citizens of the state in general. It shouldn't be used to take revenge on a company that is moving for economic reasons. Not only will this technique probably not work, it'll almost definitely drive away anyone who was planning to film in the state in the future. These politicians should grow up and address this problem in a constructive way.

Student #3 has left a new comment on your post "Lucas Verweij on the problem with design education...":

The challenge of trying to teach a field that is constantly innovating is definitely a tough one. It's exciting to see an article that addresses this, because it is something I have given a lot of thought to over the last year. I think that the key point in this article may be the idea that design is more of a mentality than a skill. You may not be able to teach people to be designers but you can train them to think like designers. If they can obtain this mindset, it won't matter what they actual object being designed is. Earlier this year, I did not understand much of the reasoning behind the curriculum of our Basic Design class, but I have since developed an understanding that its been helping us to think in a way that will allow us to become designers. This type of education seems like the right direction. An understanding of design technologies also seems valuable however, maybe like our new IDeATe program. 

Student #4 has left a new comment on your post "The Power of Partnerships in Placemaking":

As I have noted in a couple of my PTM comments from previous weeks, I am passionate about democratization of the arts; and I believe collaboration across organizations and communities plays a large part in reaching wider audiences/participants. In this article, The Power of Partnerships in Placemaking, Eric Rogers does a good job of giving the theoretical overview of his organization, Arts Place, of which he is Executive Director. While Rogers does give examples of partnerships/collaborations, these illustrate broad strokes, not the nitty gritty. For instance, when Rogers addresses the wide range of economic environments, he states, “differences in and of themselves require ironing out consistent policies that are both fair and appropriate to each community’s circumstance.” I would be very interested to learn a breakdown of exactly what “fair and appropriate” entailed in two or three specific examples. All in all, I applaud the work. I just want to know more!  

Student #5 has left a new comment on your post "What Does “Get ‘Em When They’re Young” Mean for Li...":

I'm really surprised that Disney wasn't further up on this list! I really, truly love this article. What I really connected with was making things for kids that weren't complete crap. I remember reading my first Harry Potter book. What really attracted me to them was their length, and later, how well they were written. JK Rowling could have created shallow characters and shorter books and kids still would have read them. But she didn't; she created a complex world with multi-dimensional characters at great volumes. This is the greatest example of "get them while they're young." At 5, I picked up my first Harry Potter book, and now, almost fifteen years later, I'm still obsessed with that magical wizarding world. I could go on and on on nostalgia and how Harry and his friends shaped my life, but it's not important right now. What is crucial to this discussion is that something great was made for the younger generation and hooked me on reading early, setting me up for a lifetime of literature. So, just because you're doing Dora the Explorer Live, doesn't mean you can skimp on quality. That show may inspire a 6 year old to start singing and foster a great growth in the arts.