Wednesday, January 29, 2020

Job opportunities in performing arts Essay Example for Free

Job opportunities in performing arts Essay The below information is a rough guide based on the information from the jobs4you website. There are over 500,000 people that work in the creative and cultural skills area of work, there are over 62,000 creative businesses in the UK, and 94% of the businesses only employ 10 people a year, so being an arts administrator is a very competitive area of work to get into. There are opportunities throughout the whole of the UK, in public and private organisations. You can get a job in theatre, concert halls, galleries, museums, exhibitions and festivals, etc. Jobs for admin are advertised in the local and national press, and through magazines such as the Arts Professional and The Stage. Qualifications Most of the employers ask for GCSEs at A-C in English and Maths, also it helps to have some relevant work experience. Some arts administrators have gone on to complete a degree, there are many degrees that offer relevant experience, for example business studies, arts management, music, drama or visual arts. The degrees normally last for 3 years, entry for a degree is normally at least two A levels. Entry for adults is a bit harder, so relevant work experience is required, for example: Administration or secretarial work, marketing or public relations, finance, performing arts, for example as a dancer or performer. Access courses are available for people that dont have the relevant qualifications, and who would like to study a degree. In this job, many people train on the job, but they can take short courses to help develop or to produce new skills. There are many NVQs and SVQs that are relevant, these include: * NVQ/SVQ levels 3 and 4 in business and administration * NVQ/SVQ levels 2,3,4 and 5 in cultural heritage. A promotions manager in the music industry is specialised in finding any opportunities in publicity, this can be for all types of artists, for example a singer or instrumentalist. promotions managers may work with record labels and individual musicians or bands.

Tuesday, January 21, 2020

In Pride and Prejudice, Jane Austen’s usage of letters allows the reade

In Pride and Prejudice, Jane Austen’s usage of letters allows the reader to fully comprehend the situation and certain feelings of the characters. The Usage of Jane’s Letters in Pride and Prejudice In Pride and Prejudice, Jane Austen’s usage of letters allows the reader to fully comprehend the situation and certain feelings of the characters. For example, the two letters sent by Jane Bennet to Elizabeth Bennet in Chapter 46 allow the novel to arrive at a turning point in many different aspects. The obvious purpose of the written letters is to inform the reader of the events at hand regarding Lydia Bennet and Mr. Wickham. However, these letters allow changes to take place in other relationships as well. Jane Bennet illustrates herself much in the letters that she composes. She is constantly optimistic and trusts people immensely, shown in the lines â€Å"But I am willing to hope the best, and that his character has been misunderstood.† Jane is constantly considering the feelings of other people and she conveys that she does not like to impose on others. She states in the second letter, â€Å"Now as the first shock is over, shall I own that I long for your return? I am not so selfish, however, as to press for it, if inconvenient.† Even in her opening statement in the first distressed letter Jane states, â€Å"I am afraid of alarming you-be assured that we are all well.† These statements easily show her compassion and consideration for others. When describing the state of the rest of the family because of Lydia’s actions, Jane precedes each of their names with the word â€Å"poor.† For example, she writes â€Å"my poor mother is really ill and keeps to her room,† and â€Å"Poor Kitty has anger for having concealed their attachmen... ...y because of the incorrect address is vital in conveying Jane’s emotions to the reader. It is apparent that Jane Austen intended these two solitary letters to play a vital role in the novel. These letters single-handedly brought on the climax of the novel and allowed many different relationships to develop. If the letters were not available to the reader or even simply mentioned, the novel would be lacking in a connection with the reader. These letters convey emotions and worries that otherwise might not be discussed in person, such as the negative comments about Mr. Wickham and his supposed intentions for Lydia Bennet. The letters also allow the reader to personally imitate the internal reactions of the original receiver in the novel. Jane Bennet’s two letters to Elizabeth certainly fulfill these literary functions and are quite essential to the novel.

Monday, January 13, 2020

Is Morality a Talent? Essay

One typically wouldn’t think of morality when it comes to the nature versus nurture debate about the origin of personality, but after being faced with this issue I have realized that the origin of morality can be debated about all the same. With the classic nature versus nurture debate I myself have come to a conclusion that we are composed of a little bit of both nature and nurture, and I am still finding myself coming to that same conclusion with morality. I believe that morality is not only a talent, but is a learned skill as well. Just like personality, certain environments or events can lead to a manifestation of certain traits within us. I think that morality can exist at different levels amongst different people based on their genetic traits as well as their environmental or cultural experiences. Based on what I learned after reading Sam Harris’ â€Å"The Moral Landscape,† I have gathered an understanding of moral truth, and how that can apply to morality as being a talent and learned. His disagreement with moral relativism, analysis of psychopaths and the theories behind the nature versus nurture debate have lead me to my conclusions. Moral truth is the belief that there is a universal code of ethics that has lead us through the ages and has impacted our society’s understanding of morals today. I agree with Harris on the subject of moral truth. I think moral truth supports both the nature side and the nurture side because it exposes the universal aspect of morals, which is learned, and shows the natural desire in humans to want to exceed primitive standards through morals in order to promote survival. Many ethical codes truly are universal, such as â€Å"don’t kill. † If we don’t run around killing each other in our day to day lives, we will survive and thrive. That is an example of a known moral truth. By comparing first world civilizations to Western civilizations you will find that yes, we have all survived, but it is quite clear that one civilization is thriving more than the other; Westernized civilizations. They are less primitive, more technologically advanced, have better medicine and are as a whole wealthier. Why are these third world cultures not advancing? Out of many reasons, I think that one could possibly be that their ethical codes are far less developed than those of modern Western culture. This observation has led me to believe that there are cultures that are superior to others. Although moral relativism is a widely accepted theory, it is clearly incorrect. Moral relativism would seem like a pleasant theory to believe wouldn’t it? It removes intolerance of other cultures, religions etc. and allows us to â€Å"justify† or â€Å"understand† certain events based on specific, or relative, codes of ethics. While certain events or behaviors may not be right to one culture, they may be considered normal in another and everyone can go about their lives as if nothing wrong had happened. These assumptions are terrible flaws in the thinking of our society and of the world. Harris uses an example of moral relativism that he encountered in a conversation with a woman after an academic conference. He provided her the scenario of a culture that would pluck the eyes out of every third born child based on their religious beliefs. The woman stuck to her moral relativism, and said that this culture was not wrong since they were doing this for religious reasons (Harris, 33-34). How can this possibly make any sense? Morality and ethics lose all meaning if they are merely â€Å"relative† to every culture where horrendous rituals are practiced. If things like ritual murders were allowed in our society, we would not survive, we would not thrive and we would degenerate the human race intellectually, morally and psychologically. This brings meaning back to morality and ethics. There are universal codes that exist in order to promote our survival and happiness, or well being. Based on this understanding of moral truth, I believe that morality is both learned and genetic because moral truth and its implications show the experiences in which we have learned moral codes, and the promotion of survival that is instilled within the human race. If morality was solely genetic, or a talent, then the research on psychopathic brains would be highly disturbing. In an NPR articled called A Neuroscientist Discovers a Dark Secret by Barbara Bradley Hagerty I learned about the actual discoveries that neurology has made about the psychopathic brain. In an abnormal brain found in serial killers by research conducted by James Fallon, a neuroscientist of the University of California-Irvine, the orbital cortex exhibits a major lack of functioning or is completely non-functioning. While describing the abnormality of the orbital cortex Hagerty said that it is â€Å"the area that Fallon and other scientists believe is involved with ethical behavior, moral decision-making and impulse control. † The orbital cortex also controls the amygdala which controls aggression and appetite (Hagerty). Fallon ended up discovering that he also had the same error in his brain. He even specified a gene that he had found in all but one of his family members, descendents of multiple murderers. However, none of these people had become serial killers, but could they? â€Å"He doesn’t believe his fate or anyone else’s is entirely determined by genes. They merely tip you in one direction or another. † (Hagerty). This research goes to show that genes are not entirely responsible for your predispositions to act violently or otherwise abnormally. These results are showing that it is possible that the orbital cortex controls our ethic and moral actions, but abnormality or damage to this process does not ultimately control our actual thoughts and actions. These conclusions provide actual evidence to support my claim that morality is both talent and learned. If our moral impulses are regulated by the orbital cortex, but our actions are not determined, this is leading me to believe that our genes are not fully responsible for our personality, morality, beliefs, talents, etc. but they do have the ability to gear someone towards one side or the other. Morality is partially genetic, however our environments have the ultimate responsibility. If we have an experience that manifests within our psyche, it can ultimately ignite something within us that turns on or turns off certain physiological processes in the brain. Therefore, the classic nature versus nurture debate can and will never be resolved. Simply because there is no resolution. Neither nature or nurture can be held fully responsible for our actions or who we become throughout the effects of our daily experiences in life. Harris, however, disagrees with me. He believes that morality is purely a talent. He mentions this evidence from the neuroscientist James Blair who â€Å"suggests that psychopathy results from a failure of emotional learning due to genetic impairments of the amygdala and orbitofrontal cortex, regions vital to the processing of emotion. † (Harris, 99). Sounds familiar, doesn’t it? However, he doesn’t mention that there are plenty of people with the same genetic predispositions as psychopaths, who aren’t considered psychopaths and aren’t even aware that they have these genes. He’s giving nature full responsibility in this case, and states that people can exhibit moral talent. (Harris, 99). Although this is possible, that people can have moral talent, it is not the sole cause for our morality. Our society is governed by morals. Social norms and constructs have developed and evolved throughout history that have lead to the health and growth of our society. These rules we live by are instilled in our culture, and regulated through our judicial system. But they did not just appear there over night. There were millions of events included in diverse human experiences that lead us to live by our guidelines, which are continually evolving as time progresses. Generally, some people are more predisposed to be more caring in their demeanor as well as more cautious and aware of the moral outcomes of their actions. And then, there are those who are the opposite. However, for the most part those who are morally â€Å"challenged† genetically do not act out in immoral ways. Harris points out the biological aspect of this, â€Å"While it may be difficult to accept, the research strongly suggests that some people cannot learn to care about others. † (Harris, 99). Well sure there are people like this. Of course there are! We aren’t all going to be cookie cut copies of one another. We are all unique. But if we are apparently so scared to accept this, I would like to know why? Just because some people don’t have the compassion for other people doesn’t mean that they have a compassion for negatively impacting other people. Does a lack of concern fully constitute immorality? In some cases, yes it does. For instance if someone had a thought that would lead to actions that injured other people and they chose to partake in this action anyways, then that would be immoral. But if someone is just traveling through life alone and lacking of a concern for others deep down but just keeping to themselves, this does not constitute immorality at all. We are afraid of something that is inevitable: diversity. Not to suggest that this diversity requires relativism, but to suggest that diversity is part of humanity and there will be negative or harmful people in the world. No matter what we discover about the neurology or origin behind morality, immorality will always exist and persist throughout humanity. With this being said, I agree with Harris’ statement that there are people who are less morally â€Å"talented† than others. Research suggests this, but it also suggests that environmental experiences also have their hand in our morality. I also think that if morality was solely genetic, there would be grounds for moral relativism. If our brains made us do it, who can say that one thing is wrong or right? It does not match up. The effects on society would be detrimental, our moral responsibility would be diminished. Harris’ evaluation of the possibility of a moral talent continues to lead me to believe that morality is both a talent and learned. In conclusion, there are many different theories to explain why we are the way we are. We may be who we are strictly because of physiological brain processes and genetic hardwiring. We may be who we are strictly because of our environments and experiences. But how can we decide which it is when there is so much evidence pointing to both nature and nurture? Well, like I said, we can’t. What we can realize is that both nature and nurture have major effects on our morality and ethics. Through the arguments of moral truth, we can see that there are learned moral concepts that we have acquired and have incorporated them into our societies. However, there is also the drive for survival within us that provides us with instincts to distinguish right from wrong. Through the research of criminal brains, we can isolate parts of the brain, their processes, and even genes to confirm that morality may be fully genetic. However, we can also see that the brain’s functioning doesn’t completely determine our personalities, moralities or actions. Instead, our environments or experiences that we have learned from can shape who we are for the better. Harris’ evaluation of moral talents can show us that there is diversity amongst us, moral diversity. But we are not doomed to be what our brain may want us to be. In fact, we may not even be conscious of what our brain â€Å"wants† us to be. We incorporate our experiences into our being, which can make or break our genetic dispositions. Based on my conclusions that I’ve come too after reading â€Å"The Moral Landscape,† I believe that morality is not only caused by nature, but that it is both a talent and a learned skill that we acquire through our lives. Works Cited â€Å"A Neuroscientist Discovers a Dark Secret. † www. npr. org, Barbara Bradley Hagerty, 29 June 2010. Web. 20 Nov. 2011. Harris, Sam. The Moral Landscape. New York: Free Press, 2010. Print.

Sunday, January 5, 2020

Mindfulness Meditation A Natural Practice with Superhuman...

Have you ever wondered if your brain could process quicker, come to conclusions easier, stay focused longer, make decisions swifter, be healthier, or even live longer? If you answered yes, there is indeed a way to do so; you two just haven’t been introduced yet. If you’re thinking of some breakthrough technology, a revolutionary medicine, or perhaps that someone has finally discovered the fountain of youth, think again. Not a breakthrough technology, but rather one of the oldest practices in human history, mindfulness meditation. Regular practice of mindfulness meditation is capable of increasing an individual’s mental efficiency and physical well-being, which allows for an increase in productivity among individuals in the workplace,†¦show more content†¦Driven from this simple practice, various complex results are inhabited in the body and mind. The practice of mindfulness meditation, even for twenty minutes per day, has been proven to increase working memory, strengthen focus, and decrease stress levels. The recent increase in popularity of this practice has led to significant findings achieved through numerous empirical studies pertaining to the effect of meditation upon the various aspects of the mind. Stress seems to present itself quite frequently to the individuals that make up our fast paced society. â€Å"One definition of stress is the relationship between an individual and the environment that the individual appraises as potentially endangering to their well- being (Geary, and Rosenthal).† Associate Professor of Pediatrics at the University of Texas Medical Branch , Cara Geary, M.D., PhD., and Susan L. Rosenthal, PhD., a Professor of Behavioral Medicine at Columbia University organized a study to evaluate self-reported stress levels in academic health care employees before, immediately after, and one year after enrolling in a mindfulness-based stress reduction course (MBSR). Fifty-nine participants enrolled in the MBSR course offered to the employees at the University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB) made up theShow MoreRelatedWhy Is The Supreme Being?5039 Words   |  21 Pagesperson may have their atheistic belief strengthened that there is no such thing as a Supreme Being, for if there were a God, they would never allow this to happen to their Earthly children. Either way, your faith is about to be tested way beyond your capability to understand. At this point, the emotional destruction of Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome (PTSD) is settling down in your soul; it is wreaking havoc upon what is left of your every emotional stability. Unless, you have an unshaking, unswerving belief