We want authenticity, yet having it presented to us invalidates it.

1. The psychology of cosmetics is something that I will research more into. Society has created the "need" for women to wear makeup, so that is something engrained into their way of life.

1. Brundage is very upfront about how he views the problem of authenticity as it relates to marketing. His stance is very clear that using "authenticity" as a branding tactic is a poor idea. He instead suggests letting people create the brand's image.

A simple salad made of local ingredients, mainly in Nice, France.

I love the phrasing of this, because it so eloquently encapsulates that the food has no substance or value other than how it looks.

I think it's funny that putting a glaze on a food can be seen as a commentary on authenticity.

I wonder if the solitude is related to authenticity, in the sense that one can be pressured into inauthenticity by societal pressures.

I think this is so funny. I like that his "authenticity" can't necessarily be translated by someone who is not a part of this culture.

This absolutely came out of left field, and I think it is absolutely unfair of the author to do this. The author gave a brief history of wine and its importance in French society and how it is unique to France, and quickly, suddenly stated essentially "oh, by the way, wine production is awful and hurts tons of people." I think it unfairly characterizes French people as indifferent to injustices surrounding wine. I don't think he gave justice to the situation, although I'm sure he would disagree.

I would argue that the opposite argument has been made. Wine seems to be portrayed as the "water" (fundamental basis, necessary for survival) of the social scene of France.

This sentence annoyed me, frankly, because I've heard similar sentiments in sociology before, and I'm annoyed by those who consider every single choice we make to be coerced by larger society. I understand that the environment we grow up in shapes us to an extent, but I also believe that we are all individuals and have our own personalities, and are thus capable of being unique. All this is to ask, why can't we all just like wine without having larger society twisting our arm to do so?

I didn't see a footnote, so according to the dictionary entry Google pulled up, ex nihilo means "out of nothing." So wine creates "out of nothing."

I would argue that we aren't thoughtful about the consumption of any kinds of food. Fast food is absolutely everywhere, and there are companies (Blue Apron, as an example) that make cooking at home seem like a fad rather than the norm. The biggest reason we have a health problem (dare I say crisis) in this country is because we don't take half a second to talk ourselves out of a cheeseburger and fries and into a salad or slightly healthier option. Or take half of a second to plan our food for the day as to avoid the situation when a person is far from home or a healthy meal so they must settle for something fast and convenient.

This struck me as the first time in this article that the author(s) (the people having this conversation) said what they'd been meaning to say, without explicitly stating it. This, to me, is these people connecting the way Americans view the food of a country to how they view the people of the country.

The depth of authenticity is also an interesting thought. is something appearing authentic on the surface, and thus is accepted as authentic, enough to make the thing authentic?

Expectations factoring into authenticity is a new thought for me. The subjectivity of the word "authentic" always throws me for a loop, because I feel like there should be an "objective truth" to everything.

I like this rhetorical choice of using phrases like this in a scholarly article to shorten the distance between "scholars" and "rappers."

Although these feuds seem superficial and almost childish, I think it legitimizes rap as a forum.

Although I'm not super informed about the early years of rap, I know that more recently, African-American artists seem to have a lot of freedom to write and perform music that is true to themselves. I wonder if this perception is legitimate or if I am being influenced to feel this way. With this, I am referring to Lil Wayne's record label and artists that are more unconventional in their messages, like Tyler the Creator and Kendrick.

This reminds me directly of how we were considering the "whiteness" of country music. I believe that the lack of exclusivity of music makes it fair game to express oneself or one's culture freely.

Here it is established that rap is merely a medium for already existing sentiments to be shared. However, it is established elsewhere that this representation was made into more of a caricature that ended up being (and remaining) very harmful to the African-American community.

This is dancing around the idea that whether or not the image existed in the real world is irrelevant, because the fact that the police were taking real action in response to the image moves the problem from one of representation in a theoretical sense to one of weight and real-world importance.

The level of formality in the author's diction with the casual nature of the author's first person point of view makes me slightly uncomfortable. I do see that the author is attempting to create a connection with the reader while introducing his topic. That being said, that is a rhetorical choice I would not have made.

Another great parenthetical aside. I think this helps coach the reader through his argument with some reassurance. The author reveals himself as a fan, which I believe is his way of defending the criticisms he is making. I equate this to someone criticizing my favorite football team, the Patriots. I generally don't listen to anything negative people say about the Patriots unless they tell me they are a fan. That makes me think that they are criticizing out of a caring place, rather than a malicious one.

This parenthetical aside is a great choice, in my mind, because the author has been largely separated from his argument, but he breaks that by commenting that something is strange. It takes a slightly more familiar tone, which I think helps to get his readers to "buy into" his argument.

Questions, especially questions like these, involve the reader in the thought process.

It may not have intentionally been fiction. I wonder if he sang that with the intention of making it true.

This touches on something I really like here. It is not "free" to be authentic. It should be, but there is a high cost to pay to be the only one in the room willing to be honest about their own shortcomings.

This is kind of the same dilemma as Rousseau faced. Why is he telling us everything? What is his true motive?

This indirectly calls those who sing fictional songs inauthentic. I don't know if this is necessarily fair. If someone creates a story in an art form, is their character outside of their creation necessarily fake? I don't think we can say that.

I think it was a smart choice to not elaborate how exactly his audience knew it was genuine, but nonetheless, we are told that they knew it was genuine.

https://youtu.be/v-Dur3uXXCQ This is a link to "Praying" by Kesha. This is her first song back from a long hiatus. which she took after being sexually assaulted by her producer. Here, she shares with the world the new perspective she has found through self-reflection and a lot of praying (hence the name of this song). She also responds to her past producer with what she hopes for him.

I think the beginning and the end are very strong, and the middle is very strong, but I do not think they support each other well. There seems to be a disconnect, in my mind.

I think Taylor has been making logical steps throughout this process, which is great rhetorically, as I, his reader, have followed him on this "journey," but I think he jumps back into "recognition" too quickly without strong enough of a connection.

I am struggling to understand Taylor at this point. He says we find our identity from within, yet we are defining our identity based on what others see and want to see from us.

I find it strange that Taylor is suggesting that only we can define ourselves, yet that language must come from an exterior source.

I'm slightly irked by how separate these thoughts were until now.

He is bringing back a word from the beginning of this text; however, I don't know if he has completely connected these ideas yet.

Fun fact: My current phone wallpaper is a quote that says "Set your course by the stars, not by the light of every passing ship." I think there is a similar sentiment here.

It seems as though we've completely changed the subject from recognition from others to recognition of our "inner selves"

These are simple examples his readers experience in everyday life. Taylor does a remarkable job of using very familiar ideas to describe his views.

Taylor takes something that his audience would be familiar with to further explain how part of the honor of an award is the fact that not everyone is given it. This makes a direct connection with the readers familiar with this.

He waits until he has built up his argument before saying what is essentially a controversial statement. I think the main argument about recognition is whether or not it is absolutely vital, and he is here to argue that it is.

Context: Caliban is a character in The Tempest by William Shakespeare who "symbolized the Third World as imagined by Europe to justify colonization." (according to the essay linked below, which is actually a very interesting read)

http://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3492&context=gradschool_theses

Taylor leads us on a train of thought that quickly brings us to the same realization: that the lack of proper recognition given to some groups of people is actually creating real harm.

Taylor uses vivid, almost violent language when describing the harm caused by misrecognition or nonrecognition. He is making his point through strong diction.

Foucault describes confessions as sort of a "gritty" thing. Confessions are not necessarily pretty, but they do result in a kind of "burst" of truth

It's interesting to see how the idea of confession and the idea of science are so interwoven in this piece, which I had previously never connected.

All this to say that through confession, we were able to achieve science. We were able to "decipher" the truth by going about it in an honest, confessing way.

(2) It's interesting to continue to see the contrast between art and science that Western culture has developed.

Not a super helpful annotation, but I really like what he did here with this wording.

(3) I find this example funny because I know Foucault knows that this is not a perfect example of what he's talking about. He's basically saying that he is connecting together ideas that have previously been connected by Ancient Greeks, but they aren't connected in the way Foucault is connecting them.

(1) This immediately brings me to "Beowulf," because I remember it being described as kind of an archaic text from a time when glory and being remembered were the main goals and values of society. This contrasts with the more "modern" and "refined" writings of Rousseau and Foucault.

(3) Foucault does something important (in my mind) here, which is he addresses the negative connotations associated with the word "confession." Confessions are connotatively known as something that is derived of a shameful experience. He dispels some of that in the prior few sentences, but then he directly addresses it here.

(2) Foucault asserts this boldly. This might not necessarily be true, but he leads with evidence that is indisputable, so that causes the reader to go along with his claim as well.

(This is a summary rather than a comment type 1-3, which I think is valuable and valid because this piece says a LOT and it's difficult to keep track of every point he makes with his wording)

Foucault gives examples as to why he believes confession as we know it to be a Western idea that pervades all public and private life

I find this whole paragraph very effective at getting across that he is not attempting to write a style of poetry that has written before. He is not trying to get a pat on the back for extravagant diction. He is trying to express himself to other living and breathing humans in a way that everyone may relate to. Comment style #3

Wordsworth is warning his readers that they are about to read something that is "too real." He has unapologetically chosen to write from a place of true authenticity, which he contrasts with the "gaudiness and inane phraseology of modern writer" (Wordsworth). He is asserting the value of poetry with a real voice that portrays real emotion, because he knows that he is writing a kind of poetry that has never been written before.

Comment style #2

This preface is written just prior to the Victorian Era. People in this point in history are remembered for their refined tastes and manners, yet at the same time, Wordsworth is wondering how healthy or depraved the society he is a part of really is.

Comment style #1

It is interesting to see that the struggle for authenticy is universal yet personal. Ja Rule and Wordsworth were (I'm assuming) experiencing very different circumstances, yet they both were searching for "realness" around them.