Hands On Societies: ArtSoc

Approaching the middle of term, Lina Katwala tells us about her experiences with ArtSoc…

I recently joined Art Soc because I wanted to try an extra-curricular activity that I enjoy, so that once in a while I can relax and forget about the stresses of final year. I have always loved art but I am by no means a budding young artist nor do I have any kind of fine art talent, so naturally I was slightly apprehensive about joining. My level of ability was not an issue at all. The society welcomes everyone, whether you’re the next Picasso, like some of the other members of Art Soc whose work I’ve seen over the last couple of weeks, or just doing it for a bit of fun, like me.

Just a bit of fun? Image Credit: woodleywonderworks

There are two weekly sessions, Life Drawing, and Textiles, which consists of making loads of cool stuff with a different theme each week (over the last few weeks we’ve designed notebooks and diaries, dry-clay modelled and made garlands and buntings), which can be used as house-decoration, whether your housemates like it or not! Art Soc is also starting a new open studio session, where you can work on your own projects, and ultimately collectively work towards an exhibition. I’ve really enjoyed every session I’ve been to so far: I’ve been able to create some delightful things, meet like-minded students and just kick back and relax and chat to new people. The committee members also make the sessions incredibly enjoyable – they’re all very friendly, encouraging and clearly experienced, who so far have inspired many to create great art with their creative ideas. I would definitely recommend the society to anyone who has an interest in getting creative and only regret not having joined it before!

Getting involved in any society here is so important. University is the only place where you can pursue your interests or even try something new so easily, with people your own age and normally at such a low cost. We are so fortunate to have such a vast range of societies at the university, from knitting to netball and chess to chocolate, so any student will be able to find something they want to be a part of. By joining a society you can develop your interests, meet loads of new people, escape the pressures of studying and let’s not forget that it looks great on your CV. So what are you waiting for? Get involved!

Image Credit: karindalziel

 

Lina Katwala

Islamic Society heralded as 'most outstanding' in the South

Image credit: Students’ Guild

Exeter’s Islamic Society has been named the most outstanding Islamic society in the South, by the Federation of Student Islamic Societies (FOSIS).

The group have achieved incredible success this year and are nominated for three Students’ Guild awards, in broadening student engagement, cultural & community contribution and student group of the year.

Mo Mohamed, Isoc’s President, attributes their success to interesting events which entice people to join – including the society’s signature event ‘Poetry Night’, Discover Islam Month and various guest speakers. One such figure, Abdel Rahman Murphy – an international speaker – attracted Muslims from as far away as Plymouth earlier this year, later tweeting “don’t sleep on @UniExeterISoc. They are legit Masha Allah!”

The society, which has six non-Muslim members, was also keen to explain it always attempts to be as welcoming and tolerant as possible, encouraging all students to come along even if they are not religious and stresses one of its main goals is to simply educate people about Islam.

The group are looking to build on this year’s success next term by improving the consistency of events and attracting more people to the society.

There has also been speculation of a FOSIS national ranking (thus far it has only be regional), which Mohamed jokingly suggests that the group would easily top  – since many other Islamic societies have far more resources.

The society also wants to build on this year’s socials, which included laser quest for female members, and offer even more community building activities.

The group appear to be a relaxed and inclusive society and will be looking to replicate this year’s success by becoming more prominent in University life in years to come.

James Beaney

Students prime targets for homeless

Photo credits to Ginger Tuesday

It’s recently been announced by Exeter City Council that the majority of homeless people in the city of Exeter are not ‘homeless’ but are in fact accommodated and ask unsuspecting students for money solely in order to finance their desire for drink and drugs. This is a shocking revelation which must disturb caring, sensitive people who see the situation of homelessness in the UK as a very pressing concern. But it’s clear that, in fact, it’s actually being exploited by ruthless and selfish individuals. Harsh words, perhaps. But that’s what it is, right?

The research undertaken by the City Council is revealing, particularly for students who are often asked for money by ‘homeless’ people when in the town centre. This has happened to me countless times, and let me tell you, as I’m sure you all know, it’s often a very difficult experience. I really do feel sorry for people who are genuinely homeless, particularly in the freezing winter conditions, and I think it’d be great if society did more to help them. I’ve given money to them before out of pity, hoping that they can do something to remedy their situation and make something of their life. But is the view that ‘giving money is just perpetuating the problem’ true?

Well, if the people aren’t homeless in the first place, then yes, and it’s, frankly, disgusting that they voluntarily take money from students to buy things such as drink and drugs when they know students have a very difficult financial situation as it is – in fact, it’s a form of exploitation, and should be punished. But this begs the obvious question: how do you tell if a person is genuinely homeless or not? It’s often impossible to tell, and it’s surely unfair if people are really homeless are penalised and made to suffer further because some dishonest individuals are giving their situation a bad name.

So what I think is best: I think it’s personal choice really, give some money if you want (I never give too much), but be wary, and that’s why I’d advise not giving too much just to be sure. Being cynical is never good, but at the end of the day, we students need our money, and dishonest crooks shouldn’t be allowed to take it from us.

Conor Byrne

Celebrity: the new oracle of reason?

Unhealthy obsession? Picture credits: markhillary

Meg Lawrence asks whether the views of celebrities really matter in our society.

Celebrity is the new religion. But did you realise it’s also the new oracle of reason? It’s nothing new, since the golden age of cinema celebrities have used their fame and public position to voice ideas about politics and society. But in this modern age, where social media is at its height, celebrities have an unparalleled opportunity to share their opinions with the world. How thoughtful.

Don’t believe me? On Twitter, the most followed people are Justin Bieber, Lady Gaga and Katy Perry, whose followers amount to over 100M. If you have an interest in politics, you might like to know that Barack Obama takes fifth place on this list, with 26M followers. Clearly there are many who want to hear what Justin had for breakfast, but when do the opinions of celebrities become overbearing? We all have the right to exercise our freedom of speech, but when does this cross the line?

I’d hazard a guess that the answer is when they have absolutely nothing to add to intellectual debate. For example, in a recent interview surrounding his new Die Hard movie, Bruce Willis condemned any gun laws that could infringe rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the US Constitution. Whilst Willis dismissed links between his new gun-filled movie and his protests against the proposed legislation, it is rather coincidental that he chose to promote both at the same time. Bruce Willis is an action movie star. The debate should be confined to how good an actor he is, not his views on gun legislation. The day Barack Obama appears in the latest Die Hard movie we can perhaps spare some time to listen to Willis’ political ramblings.

Dame Helen Mirren recently announced that she believed victims of date rape shouldn’t expect the issue to go to court. Mirren stated that she had been a victim ‘a couple of times,’ but believed it was a matter that should be sorted between those involved. This relates back to the dated ‘she was asking for it’ defence, which shows complete disregard for the safety and respect of women. Even politicians should think twice before sharing their bigoted views with the world.

Justin Bieber, whose followers on Twitter now amount to over 100 million. Picture credits: ShowbizReporter

Former Conservative MP Ann Widdecombe backed Mirren’s statement, saying, ‘(a woman) should accept that she has got herself into that position. What’s she asking for? A cup of tea?’ It’s particularly frightening when a member of the party that leads our country holds such backward, harmful views. According to the Home Office, 60,000 women are raped every year, but of these cases only ten per cent are known to the police, and of those known only six per cent result in a conviction. No wonder more women don’t come forward.

Despite this, there are times, although I hate to admit it, when celebrity expression is invaluable. Barack Obama’s 2012 election campaign was endorsed by celebrities such as Jay-Z, Stephen Spielberg and George Clooney, each of whom will have induced some public opinion into voting for Obama. Am I guilty of only wanting celebrity endorsement when I happen to agree with the individual’s opinions? Maybe. But I satisfy myself that my opinions aren’t to the detriment of others.

Celebrities need to remember why they’re famous. While it may be great that Hilary Duff supported Obama, who really cares? We wouldn’t ask a chef to express their view on the latest medical advancements, so why should celebrities be able to express their opinions about areas which they have no expertise in?

If a famous person can use their status to motivate others to take action, it is to be applauded. But I would hope that they would think long and hard about the power of their influence. It’s easy to lose count of the number of celebrities who complain about intrusion into their private lives – I believe the greatest travesty is how they manage to intrude into ours.

Cinema unchained: should violent films be censored?

William Cafferky explains why he believes that the censorship of violent films is not the solution.

In the wake of his new release, Django Unchained, director Quentin Tarantino hit the headlines after refusing to respond to a question from Channel 4 news anchor Krishnan Guru-Murthy regarding the effect of violent movies on the human psyche. Having been to the opening night of the film, it’s not hard to see why it has raised a few eyebrows. Its depiction of the brutality shown towards slaves, and the subsequent backlash certainly accounts for the film’s certificate – 18. However, it is equally obvious to see why the question was met with such cold distain by Tarantino. He’s frequently been quizzed on the issue before, especially surrounding the slash-fest classics that are the Kill Bill films. He highlights a separation between cinema and the real world. We go to the pictures, in many cases, to escape reality, to allow ourselves to be immersed in unfamiliar worlds, characters and cultures. It is almost impossible to ascertain the affect this experience is going to have; it’s too subjective and case-specific.

All photo credits to Gideon Tsang.

Furthermore, if a film is found to have influenced a violent act, it is almost impossible to propose a sensible solution. In the short-run, you could ban the film, but from then we begin to blur the lines of free-speech. Especially in the case of Django Unchained which, whilst considerably brutal at times, is not the most violent film I’ve seen, by some way. If we were to ban Django, there would be little argument against banning all films either more violent, or equally so. And why should we stop there? Why not censor music whose tone is angry or even violent in nature, or art work, which portrays acts of violence or war? Books too, arguably the most influential art form to date, shouldn’t we shield people’s eyes from the ‘horrors’ of potentially dangerous opinion? Now clearly I exaggerate, but there’s no denying that the censorship of film is a slippery slope. Equally the aim is somewhat futile. By attempting to eradicate seemingly unprovoked acts of violence we are essentially attempting to avoid something which has been at the heart of human behaviour and society for some time. Throughout history we have seen people act in an apparently unpredictable and unprovoked way.

It has seemingly always been the desire of people, and notably news corporations, to point the finger. It seems this week’s victim has been the film industry. Tarantino’s film was released in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in America – a clear example of a senseless act of violence without clear reason or explanation. Unsurprisingly, the killings left people horrified and scared. The fear ultimately arises because we can’t comprehend why this would ever happen. Whilst no one has gone so far as to point to cinema as the key influence, Krishnan Guru-Murthy’s question highlights society’s need to explain the unexplainable. If you find the cause of a problem, then you can go about fixing it; but in truth there is no single cause. Whilst loose gun control laws and the alleged poor quality of mental healthcare in the US may increase the frequency of events like Sandy Hook, to eradicate them entirely is impossible. Art may shock, offend, scare or even corrupt, but that is the price we pay as in return it is equally capable of delighting, inspiring and fulfilling us to be better people. Cinema is a beautiful and powerful art form, one which we would be foolish to sacrifice in an attempt to prevent unpredictable and anomalous human behaviour.

Judging Women is the Real Walk of Shame

In light of the ‘slut-shaming’ phenomenon sweeping the web, Madeleine Berry looks at what it says about how we perceive women in our society and asks whether our perspective needs to change.

Around 50 per cent of the people reading this will have experienced the feeling of being named a ‘slut’, or worried that it would happen perhaps because of their clothing or casual relationships. The phenomenon of ‘slut-shaming’ which has cascaded its way into our culture has perhaps got much to answer for this constant fear. Girls in particular are pressured to behave in a certain way and express a certain sexuality that society and those around them deems acceptable. ‘Slut-shaming’ is defined as the act of making an individual feel inferior or guilty for engaging in certain sexual behaviours that deviate from traditional gender expectations. These can include using sex as a form of power control, having casual sex outside of marriage, or even dressing in a way that is deemed to be provocative in its overly sexual nature.

Throughout the social-networking and blogosphere this has escalated to worrying highs, with memes existing to dictate the acceptability of revealing female dress. We all know what I’m talking about; stalking through photos of friends of friends, or maybe that hottie you’ve seen in the library, and deeming that the girls in them look ‘slutty’ or ‘slaggy’. But why do we do this? As women especially, should we really be encouraging the cultural norm that girls who act in a hypersexual way have something to answer for? It’s not dissimilar to buying into the idea that dressing provocatively leads inevitably to rape, and the surrounding tendency of victim blaming. Women are ultimately blamed for being the bearers of attack, because of their audacity to choose to wear a low-cut top or short skirt. But why shouldn’t we choose? By admitting that behaving in such a way that could conjure up the label of ‘slut’, we are consequently pandering to society’s call for a woman that is both sexually experienced and innocent at the same time. And surely, they can’t have it all. Covering up and denying sexual activity outside of the accepted norms throws off the threat of being slut-shamed, but returns the individual to the so-called ‘fantasy’ of innocence and virginity. And if this is the case, once again women are behaving in a way which panders to the desires of men, rather than taking control of their own bodies.

Photo credits to Anton Bieslousov

This attitude is what prompted the international SlutWalks in the last five years. Following an event in Canada in which a policeman told female students of a local university to “avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimised”, scores of women have taken to the streets to demonstrate that those who experience sexual assault are not the ones at fault. The dress in tight clothes, shorts, backless dresses or underwear and ask ‘do our clothing choices perpetuate a cycle of violence and assault? Are we to blame?’ And the same can perhaps be said for slut-shaming. Should the way that girls dress and their chosen sexual behaviour, provided that it is safe, be to blame for their humiliation? Surely we should be fighting for the right for them to make that choice themselves. Especially when you consider that the male counterparts for slut, are almost exclusively positive, including ‘player’, ‘stud’ or ‘pimp’. Imposing the negative label of slut upon girls who behave in a sexualised way damages the reputation of all females within society; we must all be both chaste and sexy at the same time. And what is worse is that it is overwhelmingly other women who do the labelling. And of the females reading this, you will almost definitely be forced to admit that this is true.

So, maybe we should begin by avoiding the inevitable trawl through Facebook pictures after nights out to scrutinize the girls wearing skimpy skirts and boob tubes, and instead think ‘good for them’ for throwing off the regulations that are placed on them. Now I’m not saying that everyone should start wearing their underwear to the library, but if that’s what it takes to show that behaviour and dress doesn’t denote being a ‘slut’, then bring it on.

What will patriotism look like in 2013?

Imogen Watson discusses what it means to be patriotic in Britain today and shares her predictions for 2013.

After one or two false starts, 2012 was very much a year of flag-waving, national self-confidence and, dare it be said, patriotism here in the United Kingdom. Permit me if you will to put the state of the economy temporarily to one side. If you missed the coverage of the Thirtieth Olympiad and the Diamond Jubilee, you can only have been hiding under a rock; even being on the other side of the world does not constitute an excuse in this day and age with the global interest in these events being quite as it was. So with just under twelve months ahead of us, how can this year match the last? Should it? As a country viewed as somewhat self-deprecating and reserved, does this kind of national recognition even have a place in our everyday society or does it in fact turn us into something we are not?

The Brits are a cool, guarded, polite people; stoicism is our middle name. Everyone personally knows the Queen, perfect tea comes out of the taps, and we spend whole afternoons and evenings down in the pub drinking pints or out on the green playing cricket. This is all true of course only if you were to pay any attention to the rest of the world and, let us be honest here, that is not exactly a key British trait.

Our true eccentricities abounded during the summer months as we floated boats galore down the Thames and scared small children in hospital beds with giant versions of Lord Voldemort and the Child Catcher in the middle of a sports stadium. Someone even let Mr Bean play the piano. The humour and happiness of the London 2012 Games Makers have gone viral, and it seems that even if no one quite understands us, the vast majority of the international community enjoyed the spectacles, at least enough to broadcast them in all types of news coverage.

Photo credits to SouthEastern Star

Moreover, the Union Flag is popular again. In Britain, the British National Party has used it as their logo for years now, yet abroad it is fashionable to wear it on every item of clothing: bags, shoes, earrings, scarves, t-shirts. You name it, and it is out there. It may come as a surprise to know that it is even popular in France, that country which supposedly hates us. So if the rest of the world can love it, it is surely time to continue the trend of 2012 and take it back completely from the hands of the likes of the BNP. It has been a statement of being a racist, but no more. It must become again a statement of tolerance. The flag is ours if we want to use it and certainly not the property of a tiny minority that the majority cannot stand.

 

It is not that we ought to join the ranks of the countries which demonstrate their patriotic tendencies for everyone to see – after all there is only just about room for one United States of America on this planet – as flags around all our public buildings, for example, has simply never been, and never will be, our style. However we ought to lose our fear and embarrassment of proclaiming our national pride when appropriate, now we know our abilities in overcoming last-minute difficulties to put on a show. 

2013 lacks the major national festivities of last year, and therefore opportunities for us to all unite and complain outwardly about everything that we secretly rather enjoy. But perhaps our patriotism is in fact best as it is: subtle and infrequent. It exists in everyday actions and helps make us what we are but big displays are just unnecessary (except the obligatory Last Night of the Proms).  When the British come together in our own slightly bizarre way on an international scale, the surprise and puzzlement of the rest of the world is frankly one of the best bits.  Now we are thoroughly aware of our successes in 2012 and will be able to repeat them when the time comes, without blowing our own trumpets. Instead we just accept it, and move on. So on reflection, then, maybe this article was badly thought-out. Maybe none of this should have ever been said. I apologise – I temporarily forgot how to be British. Please, forget that you ever read this.