Who Inspires You?

I personally am inspired by Brendon Urie, Dodie Clark, and Carrie Hope Fletcher. Both are people I aspire to be, both in talent and in personality. Dodie is a very soft singer, who can be powerful when necessary, she is very kind and shows that through both her singing and other vlog type videos. Brendon (the lead singer, and only current member, of Panic at the Disco) is a hyper, kind, accepting guy with a hell of a voice. His range stretches to four octaves, in a mainly tenor voice. Carrie is a musical theatre performer who recently came off of doing Heathers. She inspires me because of her resilience. An example of this is when she was freshly cast as Veronica, the main character of Heathers, she was hit with a ton of backlash because of her weight. As someone who struggles with my body image, her ability to bounce back after that is very inspiring.

I Don't Really Care 'Bout What They Say

Imma come back like a boomerang! That's right, 10Hh has been doing work surrounding boomerangs. It may sound kinda strange but it makes sense I swear. 
In class, we have been talking about Aboriginal culture and their history. A piece of that culture is their boomerangs. I did a whole project on them. You can see that here: Aboriginal Art!

Above is my own boomerang that I designed and painted. I didn't actually know what to do so I ended up creating small flower-like things using dots. In theory, I was meant to create a story with them, using symbols and icons. Buuut, with my poor painting and drawing skills, that really wasn't exactly an option. So instead I did this. Dots were a big part of their art, so it works anyway.

 Above and below are videos of us throwing the boomerangs. The whole point of this part of the topic was to apply what we had learnt to a physical object. I assume the throwing part was just for fun. And fun it was! I only threw mine once and I don't think there is a video of that but I got a ton of things of other people! Chyna ended throwing mine and losing it. Twice. But we found it so it was chill.

That Time That Place

Welcome back to drama 2019. Are you ready for another semester? No? Me either! Unlike last semester, our main goal is to create a film and a stage performance using the script of Ken Mizusawa's 'That Time. That Place.'

The story follows Mel, a young woman who refuses to live in the present and put the past behind her. We watch as the unexplained disappearance of a boy during highschool continues to preoccupy her. Unable to move on, she decides to investigate the case to find meaning in what has happened, only to find herself falling even further into the realm of memory and half-remembered moments.

To prepare for this, we have spent the last two lessons doing a script read and creating a painting that is very important to the story. Said painting isn't really described in much detail, leaving much for the reader/director to imagine. Mel described it in the script as "It was all abstract, big, with flying colours everywhere. Real amazing!" While chorus 2 says "In one corner of the painting, there was this figure in silhouette - a body - with this chalk outline around it like in a crime scene."


So, with that in mind, we got to work. We started with an idea in mind, a reference for our abstract art, pictures to the side. And let me tell you, creating an abstract piece of work isn't the easiest thing ever. Especially when no one in our 7 person Drama class is a Picasso level artist. Luckily, 'abstract' could be a bunch of lines on a canvas and called trees.
Before we even painted anything, we needed to talk colours. In the quotes mentioned above, Mel mentions flying colours. We, as actors, interpreted this as bright, bubbly colours. But we didn't have much paint. So we worked with what we got. We ended up with purple, a light green and blue, pink, yellow, white, and black. Cool. Now we gotta paint. We thought about how the painting was meant to be more uplifting than sad and said, hey, what if we did upwards strokes. While we strayed from that a little, it totally worked out. At the moment I'm writing this, the painting looks like a bus seat cover. But I guess that's what we're going for. Next step is to add the silhouette and start the process of... acting?

IMO

Diversity and what it means to me. Okay. Cool. To me, diversity is a state of difference. Where everyone is included and treated equally, no matter who they are or what they look like. This is important because regardless of our backgrounds or appearances, we are all just human, you know? I already knew that people were fighting for diversity but through the year I've learnt about what people are actually doing to fight and the different points of views of said people.

When Will My Reflection Show Who I Am Insiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiide

1. Where is your focal point? Why did you choose it and decide to put it where it is?

I would say my focal point is my title/titles. I chose this as it really tells the reader what they're getting themselves into and to put it at the top the way it is to create some asymmetrical balance.

2. How are your shapes and lines leading you to your focal point?

I'm not entirely sure how to describe it. I'd say with the way I've layered my shadows and my text boxes. With the shadows, I used contrasting colours to really make the title pop. Or at least I tried.

3. Why did you choose the colours you did?

They're our school colours! Blues and yellows are perfect to describe a Hornby High experience.

4. Does your text reflect the hierarchy rule? How?I believe it does. My main title (Auahatanga) is the biggest, in a pretty bold font, while my subheading (The "Logical" Side Of Creativity) is in a smaller, yet still large, font. Meanwhile, my body text is the smallest! If I remember correctly, that follows the hierarchy rule.
5. How does your page link with the other members in your group?
From what I know, our colour palettes are the same, hopefully linking them in a successful way.
6. Based on the start of the term, where would you now rate yourself on the solo levels? Why?
I would say I'm now at a 3 or a 4. This choice was based on the way I took what I knew and applied it as well as I could, creating my thumbnail sketches but considering I haven't been blogging my process unless instructed otherwise, I may fall back onto a 3.

This Essay Is A Bloody Mess!

Not really, I hope. But the essay below talks about ideas from Tomi Adeyemi's 'Children of Blood and Bone.' I hope you enjoy!

~~~~

Sometimes, when telling or hearing an idea or event, we are only exposed to one side of the story. You’ve probably experienced this yourself before, right?. Throughout Tomi Adeyemi’s ‘Children of Blood and Bone,’ characters are forced to see both sides of their stories. Whether they like it or not. From this “cake with asparagus” kind of novel, we are presented with many memorable ideas. These ideas are shown through the characters’ choices, actions, and dialogue. Throughout the story, they range from things like revenge is an endless cycle to duty over self. One idea that was very prevalent to me was the idea that there are always two sides to a story. Whether it be Binta’s, one of the royal maids, relationship to Amari, the credibility of the royal guards, or the overall opinion of Orisha’s ‘Maggots.’

When Amari was still at the palace, Binta was her best friend. Her world. Her everything. But Zelie doesn’t understand the idea that a royal maid could’ve been anything more than a slave to Amari. Zelie must’ve been raised with the idea that anyone related to King Saran has the same ideas and beliefs as him. The man who conducted the very demise of her mother, the Raid. All the while Amari, noble born, doesn’t have said beliefs and grew up befriending her maid. During chapter 13 of the book, Amari is trying to justify her reasoning behind her castle escape. She explains that her father had killed her best friend, Binta. Zelie, in her false wit, retorts with, “Your best friend or your slave?” Zelie knew that Binta was a diviner maid and immediately assumed she wasn’t paid or was indeed a slave. She shows this when she says, “Do your best friends press your clothes and make your food without pay?” in retaliation to Tzain, her brother, warning her she’s gone too far. In Amari’s defence, Binta was truly her best friend, maid or not. In the castle, Amari had no one. Her brother was forced to fight her, implying he’s her foe rather than a friend. Her mother believes she should be perfect and is almost ashamed of her. And her father is an extremist who believes violence is always an answer. During chapter 15, Amari thinks back to her friendship with Binta. She tells Zelie, “I laughed so hard that night I nearly wet myself.” She reminisces in the way Binta mocked her mother. This example alone proves that even though you may believe something is one way,  may be different for someone else. Like in real life, back when interracial relationships were looked down upon. People refused to believe that it was okay, or even possible, to like, have feelings for, or befriend someone if they "weren't like you". The relationships between two people were dictated by the colour of your skin. Or in our instance, the colour of your hair. This was kind of gatekeeping from the likes of Zelie, in my opinion, it’s not really her place to say that kind of stuff.

Stereotyping on lone experiences is very apparent throughout this book. Very early on in the book, in the first few chapters, Zelie’s opinion on the royal guards and the methods they used is shaped by their actions towards her. They don’t treat her, a "maggot," the same way as they would treat someone like Inan. Inan’s experiences with the guards are vastly different from Zelie’s. Inan was their leader, their captain, so it’s not surprising to the reader nor Zelie that he saw them with no error. Inan was raised with the memories of his father’s family’s downfall, a downfall at the hands of maji. His upraising causes him to see the guard’s methods as justified and reasonable. Zelie, on the other hand, was mistreated very early on. In the first few chapters, Mama Agba’s training is bombarded by the guards seeking diviner tax. Zelie, being Zelie, attempts to stand up for herself and the other diviners. Despite her best interest, she ends up in an uncomfortable situation with one of the guards. He digs his knee into her back after he threw her to ground by her hair, stating, “I’ll start with this one.” It’s a complete disregard to her humanity, labelling her as nothing but a maggot. It’s not until he grips her thigh with a rough hand that she truly feels defeated. His touch refined her to the little girl who was helpless, stuck watching men drag her mother away. This memory must’ve bubbled in Zelie during chapter 45. We can see this as after Inan tried to convince her to let him gather his guards, she breaks. Through her sobs, she explains that with the guards there everything would still be as hopeless and broken as it was before. No matter how hard Inan tried. When she settles down, she offers a chilling idea, saying “Your people, your guards. They’re nothing more than killers, rapists and thieves.” She states that the only difference between them and criminals is the uniforms they wear. This reminds me of how stereotypes work in real life. The way the colour of someone's skin means they always carry a gun, or that they’re automatically thieves. That when someone believes in something "abnormal," they’re greedy, a terrorist, or a scammer. To me, and a ton of other readers, it’s not fair. Almost as unfair as the generalisation of the maji and diviners.

For around eleven years, maji and diviners have been seen as lowlives, killers, greedy, and “maggots.” Noble children, such as Inan and Amari, have been told of the horrors Maji have committed. Diviners and children of Maji have seen, heard, and have even experienced the opposite. For example, Zelie remembers maji healing others. Her mother using her animations to hold her little Zel down as she combs through her hair. Meanwhile, Inan only knows of the death of his father’s family, destruction at the hands of maji. On the other hand, Amari knows of both stories. A prime example is while being told about the Grounders. Amari is warned, by her father, that the Grounders used “sand and rock as lethal weapons.” At the same time, Binta tells her that, “they are peaceful, and used their magic to make settlements from the sand." Both King Saran and Binta have been told two different sides of a story… See where I’m going here? Further proof is in chapter 59, Inan speaks of his father, “He’s misguided, but his fear is justified. All the monarchy’s ever seen is the destruction maji can bring. They’ve never experienced anything like this.” He then gestures to the surrounding camp and festival. He talks about Saran’s side of the story, about him never seeing Zelie’s and Maji's side. The two sides had never crossed, whether they existed or not. This example can reflect on our real life and history. Think back to when colonists first arrived in countries like New Zealand and America. They were scared of the native people. On the other hand, the native people were almost scared of the colonisers. I mean, who wouldn’t be? Neither of them had even heard of the other and, what it looks like to me is, people are scared of things they don’t know. Each party had seen and heard things out of context. They would spread this toxic idea that the other party is horrible and terrifying. While it seems unfair, it’s human nature to have two sides of a story. Nobody is really to blame.

Throughout Children of Blood And Bone, each story has two, or many, sides. Whether it be that Zelie can’t understand how Binta was indeed Amari’s friend. Or that the maji are more than terrorists. Or even whether or not the royal guards are “good.” There’s always a side of the story someone hasn’t seen. In fact, Amari and Inan are the only few characters who have seen both sides of the story in many cases. This further supports my idea. There is indeed two sides to one story.

Are You Worth Your Weight In Gold?

Aim: To attempt to turn a copper coin into a silver/gold one.





Equipment:
- Two small beakers, 50ml and 250ml
- Bunsen burner/other heating things
- Heat Mat
- Tweezers
- Zinc Sulfate,
- Zinc Metal
- Glass Stir Rod
- Tap Water
- Copper coins



Method:
*DISCLAIMER, Actually read these, carefully. We didn't the first time and it didn't work as well*

1. Set up the bunsen burner, be safe!
2. Fill the smaller of the two beakers 3/4 full with tap water, this is your cooling beaker, set it aside.
3. Dissolve 30 grams of zinc sulfate in a beaker with 100ml water. A little heat from the bunsen burner will speed this up.
4. Place the zinc metal in the beaker, enough to cover the bottom.
5. Using tweezers, place a couple of copper coins into the solution. Make sure the coins are touching the metal pieces but NOT each other.
6. Bring the solution to a slow boil for about ten minutes.
7. Carefully remove the pennies with tweezers, placing them in your cooling beaker then drying them with a paper towel. They should now be silver!
8. To turn them gold, carefully heat them over the bunsen burner until a brassy/gold colour.
9. Recool it and boom! Gold coin!

Results:
WE DID IT! It only took us two separate hours but we did it! Look at this! Look at our success!

"It look pwetty" - Chyna 2019

"I'm a wich(rich) kid" - Also Chyna 2019

 "Money Money Money" - Also Aldo Chyna 2019

Discussion:
When a "copper" coin is placed in a zinc solution, the formerly copper plated steel coin becomes zinc plated and appears silver to the human eye. When the coin is heated, the copper and the zinc form an alloy of brass and appears gold.
I say "copper" because the coins aren't technically made of copper. The coins we use are actually copper coated plated steel, giving them a copper colour. Now, steel is an alloy of iron and carbon. Speaking of alloys, we're going to talk about them now. Why? Because coins are made of alloys... and we used coins in our experiment... now I feel like this meme...

I've talked a lot about alloys but what are they? What are they useful for? Well, an alloy is a mixture of two or more elements, where one (or more) of which is a metal. Alloys are made and used because of the advantages they have compared to pure metals, like how some alloys are stronger/harder than the metals they contain. A commonly used alloy is steel. As mentioned before, steel is an alloy of iron and carbon, with stainless steel with additional nickel and chromium, and tungsten steel with additional tungsten and chromium. It is used in bridges, ships, building frames, and cars because of how it's stronger, harder, and more flexible than iron. It also doesn't corrode (eat away at) as fast as iron. Other common alloys include bronze, brass, and duraluminium (duralumin?)

Other than alloys, this experiment can be connected to electrochemical cells. What is an electrochemical cell? I'm not entirely sure how to explain it but this is what Google says...
"An electrochemical cell is a device capable of either generating electrical energy from chemical reactions or using electrical energy to cause chemical reactions."

In an electrochemical cell, the more reactive metal loses electrons, this is called oxidation, and the less reactive metal gains the lost electrons, this is called reduction. For example, let's say we take two beakers. When we put a piece of zinc metal in a Zn²⁺ solution and a piece of copper metal in a Cu²⁺ solution inside of these beakers, eventually, because of how reactive zinc is, it will become Zn²⁺ and 2 electrons. As stated before, the more reactive metal, Zinc, will lose these electrons. The less reactive metal, being copper in this example, gains the two electrons lost by the Zinc. The Cu²⁺ will turn into Cu. What Chyna and I did was basically this but in one beaker. Boom. Science. 
(*ANOTHER DISCLAIMER* please be aware, I'm a year 10 student and this is year 13 work. Don't crucify me)

Evaluation:
If I were to do this experiment again, I would use a different set of equipment, or at least swap the metal for a powder.
What we noticed was that because we used zinc metal, rather than zinc powder, the reaction occurred a lot slower than people who used zinc powder. In a short, simple, form, this is basically because of the surface levels of our materials. Because the metal had less contact with the coin, only parts of the coin were touching it, compared to the powder, which completely engulfed the coin, the reaction occurs a lot slower. Rates of reaction and such.

Instructions are taken from:

https://www.sciencecompany.com/Turn-Copper-Pennies-Into-Silver-and-Gold-Pennies.aspx
Thanks, guys!