BJTC Awards 2012 – from the gallery.

Today the BJTC Awards 2012 was held at the University of Winchester, presented by ITV’s Alastair Stewart. The University of Winchester had an impressive five finalists, all of which received a certificate from Alastair Stewart himself. Go Winchester!

But whilst all of this was happening, I had the pleasure of taking a look around the gallery. From there, I had an insight into the workings of the lighting, VT (Video tape), sound, cameras, and other small elements that all brought the show together successfully.

I talked to the Senior Theatre Technician who, as you can guess by the title, is in charge of these elements. So, I thought it would be a good idea to ask him about what happens in the gallery, as well as have a little nose around, myself, to get a clear understanding of the basic controls in the gallery.

Lighting   –    This was the first part of the production that caught my eye (funnily enough), as there was plenty to test and practice to make sure everything ran smoothly. There were only a few variations of lighting, but if one were to confuse them, then it could potentially ruin the production. The types that I saw were the lighting for the ‘voice of God’ (complete darkness), a spotlight on the main stand for the speakers, and general lighting for when the finalists collect their certificates. All was controlled by a board of switches and such, all of which I hope to become familiar with in the foreseeable future.

VT (Video Tape)   –   I had a peek at the set up for the VTs, and it was all run from one laptop, lined up and ready in order for each part of the ceremony. It was, of course, in synchronisation with the carefully planned script. Not too hard to grasp the concept of, but of course you need someone who has a great attention span to keep up with each word said.

Sound   –   Along with the lighting, the sound was also continually tested, each microphone spoken into to ensure that there was no audio feedback, especially screeching. There were a few occurrences, but these were quickly fixed by the frantic yet slight adjustments of the endless amount of switches and sliders.

Cameras   –   Now, the main focal point of the production was, of course, the cameras. There were many cameras placed in various positions: head-on to the stage, overlooking the stage, to the side of where the speaker would be standing, and a couple of hand-held cameras to capture the unpredictable action, such as the finalists collecting their awards. All of these cameras were set on record much before the show had commenced, so any rookie errors were avoided. Phew!

The other elements that really added to the professionalism of the set were the laptop-controlled prompts projected opposite the stage, photographers dotted around to capture individual moments, and the headsets that all operators were wearing for the floor director to keep everyone together. Also, having a presenter such as Alastair Stewart didn’t go amiss!

Have a look at what was taken today:

Alastair with the finalists

Also, why not check out these links:

University of Winchester BJTC Awards 2012 breakdown

Winchester Journalism

Alastair Stewart on Twitter

HCJ Seminar 1 (Introduction)

This was my first seminar, so not too much was really learnt apart from what was to expect from the coming weeks.

I will be studying four rather different topics and philosophers:

1. Descartes and the Renaissance.
2. Aristotle, Plato, and Plato’s ‘The Republic’.
3. Machiavelli and Hobbes.
4. Rousseau and the French Revolution.

Of these four topics, I will be leading the discussion of Plato and Aristotle. The reason of my choosing this is that I am already somewhat familiar with the two philosophers’ theories, and so I will be able to give an insightful start when leading the discussion.

Main points: Synthesis, bullet points, bring laptops.

History and Context of Western Philosophy: Hard Hitting Questions

I have been presented with a few questions to get the brain working on the topic of Western Philosophy. I studied A-Level Religious Studies, generally dubbed ‘Philosophy and Ethics’, which I believe gives me a somewhat strong foundation in understanding such an intellectually stimulating subject. Therefore, when I was asked to write my response to a few questions, I was dumb-founded for only a moment, until all past knowledge reassured me.

I understand that this blog may become a wall of monotonous text, so I shall try my best to make it as readable as physically possible!

I will cover two of the most controversial of the selection given.

Is it right to obey the law? Well, my initial thought was yes. Of course it is… It must be! We do have a democracy, right? Therefore, we have a government in which we want to follow, and thus laws that reflect our national values. We are punished for murder, rape, fraud, theft, and all things that are rightly unacceptable in any society, we have systems in which we should follow for order. It should be great!

But, alas, all is not as straight forward as what I initially thought. We do not all live under a democratic government, and even if we do, various injustices are being carried out every day all over the world: China, North Korea, Iraq, Sudan, Afghanistan, Somalia… United States of America, United Kingdom. Yes, there is corruption everywhere. There are unjustified wars, bureaucracy, dictatorships, and underhanded deals that are kept away from the public eye.

For example, in Nazi Germany, the government manipulated laws in such a way that controlled the population in very obvious ways. They were enforcing antisemitic laws (of course), gun control laws to disarm the public and keep any kind of uprising to a minimum, and they made the Nazi party the only legal party in Germany. In this situation, the natural reaction is to say “I would never follow those laws!” Well, when under such authority, or when brought up in such a corrupt government, one would have no choice in the matter whatsoever. More recent examples would be the cause for the Arab Spring. Many Middle Eastern countries are held under dictatorship for decades, and this is proof that not all countries have laws that are suitable to abide by.

So, this brings us back to the question: Is it right to obey the law?  Well, by the UK’s standards, not in these cases. We will all answer in unison: “We have our national values, and we don’t have a dictatorship – nothing like this would ever happen in our society! We should obey our modern Western laws!”

Picture taken from, and expanded on at                    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-19341722

Let’s think about a much more relevant problem as an example of injustice. Quite recently, Tony Nicklinson died on the 22nd August of this year after being denied – once again – the right to die. In this society, people do not have the right to end their own lives, we are potentially the property of the government – they choose to not allow those in great suffering to choose to end their lives. Although there are valid arguments for the choice of criminalising euthanasia, it doesn’t take from the reality of the situation. Therefore, some have chosen to break the law by either killing themselves or helping a loved one die, and thus displays why one would want to disobey the law.

However, this is not to say that the government are no-good-doers, and should be penalised for their lack of fairness. The government do their job, in this country at least, to a pretty good standard in that there isn’t a high number of murderers, most criminals are found and imprisoned, and the order in this country is generally fair.

 

 

But, the question that stole my attention from the others was: ‘Is there any point to life?’ How can one react to such a substantial question that questions our very being? Thoughts then suddenly flooded into my mind, how one could consider various religious beliefs or secular views. How one may perceive it from an empirical or theoretical stand point. How one may even have a whimsically neutral and philanthropic demeanor, which may not stir any real contemplation of the matter at hand. The answers to this question are endless.

In terms of Religious views, we may consider the Abrahamic religions: Judaism, Christianity and Islam. In a very broad sense, all three consider the point of living to correlate strongly with their monotheist belief. We all must do well in life by following either the Torah, Bible or Quran, and live free of sins in this life as it is a test for the following life. Therefore, the point of this life is to determine whether or not we go to Heaven or Hell, in a very round about way. But, when considering Secular views, it becomes much more philosophical as it is dependent on the empirical nature of our existence: the here and now. One scientist which swears by secularism is Richard Dawkins, the author of ‘The God Delusion’. He typically believes that the point of life is to further humankind, to evolve our species over the thousands and million years to come intellectually, and rejects any kind of higher/other power. We are who we are now, there is no eschatological possibility in terms of heaven and hell and another life after this one. We must live for the future of this world, for our species to survive.

These two viewpoints (Religious and Secular) are the two biggest opposing components to this argument, and in no shape or form has it been completely covered in this answer, only outlined. To make it a fuller argument, one may consider philosophers such as Aquinas, Kant, and Bentham in order to apply less main stream theories that incorporate some of the above ideas, but I shall have time to cover other philosophers throughout the year.

What I am concluding from it, however, is that there is no one true answer to the point of life, but what we can all settle on is this: the whimsically neutral and philanthropic demeanor, which is to be kind and loving to all species and to look after one another. After all, all you need is love.

And so, that concludes this introduction to Western Philosophy before I exhaust both myself and whoever read to this point. I congratulate both you and I. Expect more posts on Philosophical topics, and for them to be so much more in-depth.