BEAUTY IS AN ART

PRO

- You can change your body in a way you like it
- The body has special attraction to produce art – because the body is like a special canvas
- You can improve yourself (ugly into beautiful)
- It’s art which you can show everybody and anytime you want
- The whole body is an art object
- Plastic surgeon is accepted, because it’s seen as a kind of art

CON

- A real body can’t be art – because it’s not an object
- You destroy your body because art shouldn’t damage your body
- Temporary permanent – because you can delete a picture, but not a body
- Everybody is an unique, there must be a reason why you look ugly / beautiful
- Maybe you loose your personality, your identity, when you want a nose like Da Vinci’s Mona Lisa or eyes like Julia Roberts.
- Can be dangerous or harmful (e.g. with plastic surgery)

ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS

- Decision of your own - (to change one’s body)
- Accept your body
- Natural beauty to a body which you should accept
- It’s not a problem if you change your body in a slight way – don’t exaggerate it!because it’s unhealthy in most cases
- You can’t turn back time to look like before
- It’s your own opinion if you want to change your body or not
- You shouldn’t be too young


Magdalena B. - Alban - Marina

Essay : CITY OR COUNTRY LIFE

Some people prefer a fast-paced city life compared to the more relaxed pace in the country. However there are always advantages and disadvantages in living in a city or in a country.
Let's look at the arguments of city life first.
Living in a city surely brings lots of advantages. A city is bigger not only by their area, also by the number of inhabitants. You have more opportunities to go out, a city offers night clubs, theatres, sports centres, cinemas, and shopping centres and also other cultural centres really fill up your free time. Another advantage of city life is the chance to get a good education and knowledge. In cities you can find most of high schools and universities and it is easier to find and get work, because a town appears a great supply of vacancies. One advantage is also the higher standard of health service, including hospitals, doctors and first aid stations in a city. As can be expected, there are also disadvantages of city life. In a city dominate a high level of criminality. You always have to be careful when you are on the streets especially of pickpockets, murders and drug dealers. Another disadvantage is the air pollution and exhaust fumes. Everyday hundred of cars drive on the streets and this argument takes me to my next disadvantage. Too many people in the streets of a city make too much noise and everything is loud and everything is very fast-paced, it really dominates a hectic atmosphere.

In addition to the arguments of city life there are also advantages and disadvantages of country life. One advantage is that there isn’t much pollution and traffic, so the air is clean and fresh. Beside this, living in a country area is much safer, because there aren’t many burglars like in the city and when something happens people know each other and they really recognize that something is strange. Another advantage is that the people aren’t stressed. Country life is a more relaxed pace and everybody knows each other and the people always have time to stop and chat. What about the disadvantages? In country life there is no entertainment and there aren’t many interesting things to do and sometimes you really feel bored. Besides, the way to school or work is far and for everything you do you need a car, because there isn’t any public transport.

I must say that I prefer living in a city, because almost all friends live in the city and you will never get bored. You can go out, you can go shopping, at night you can go into clubs or whatever you want, because you just have more opportunities to go out and having fun.

To conclude, all things considered, I think everyone should decide for themselves where and how he would like to live. However many people like to stay in the city, because living there seems to be easier, but in the end you just should follow your feelings and dreams.

MY STYLE

In my article I will write about my about my style and my clothes, things which influence me, my favourite music and also about my outlook on life.

First of all I want to say that I don’t belong to any youth group and I really have my own style. I love fashion and new trends and I really pay attention to what my clothes look like. But I don’t really set value on designer clothes. When I describe my style, I really would say that I wear very different clothes. At home I wear jogging trousers and t-shirts or comfortable sweaters and in school I wear jeans and also normal t-shirts and simple pullovers and sneakers, but I always really pay attention that the colours match together, that is very important for me. When I go out I always put on some make-up and I attach great importance that my clothes go out of style, and sometimes I also wear high–heels, but I always wear clothes which I feel good. My hairstyle is very normal; I have long blond hair and a “pony”.

I must admit that sometimes I get influenced by successful artists, who are always well dressed and good - looking. I get influenced by their fashion, but there are so many clothes which I can’t wear, because they are so expensive or they even don’t fit.

Now I will write about my favourite music. It’s very difficult to say which kind of music I like the most. I listen to every kind of music, but I prefer R’n’B, house music, electronic music and music of Yugoslavian groups, but I also listen to radio, without music I would be lost, I get up in the morning and the first thing I do is turning on the radio.

At last my outlook on life. I’m looking forward to my graduation and I want to come true my dream of being a policewoman. It is very important for me that my family, my friends and I keep well and fit and I hope that I will be always strong in difficult situations and never give up hope and never lose my smile.

THE PERKS OF BEING A WALLFLOWER

BOOK REVIEW

The Perks of Being a Wallflower remains one of the most poignant and popular coming-of-age stories from the 1990s. The author of this book is Stephen Chbosky born in 1970. To date The Perks of Being a Wallflower is his only novel.

Charlie, the main character of the book writes for the duration of one year letters about him and his life to a person who is unknown for him. In doing this Charlie, who characterizes by friends as a "wallflower" get the role of an observer.
The book discusses a variety of serious themes such as teenage suicide, drug usage, mistreatment and abuse of children in the family, concealed, because forbidden homosexuality and also the loneliness of teenagers in general. The book deal with problems of young people, which mostly remain unresolved.
The story is formatted in a letter format, which is different, but very good. This really gives the reader a close-up look into the world through the eyes of Charlie. We know exactly how he is feeling, what he is feeling, and why.
The words in the book aren´t confusing, which makes the book easy to read. The Perks of Being a Wallflower definetly makes you think. I think the main message of this story has to do with staying true to yourself, and not living up to other people´s expectations.
I really like this book and I would recommend this novel to anyone who likes books about teenagers. I think it could be enjoyed by anyone from age of fourteen upwards.

words: 255

THE PERKS OF BEING A WALLFLOWER

DESCRIPTION OF CHARLIE

The main character in the novel named Charlie is a very interesting and likeable character. Emotional, diffident, and small are all words that could be used to describe Charlie´s personality at first, but as the time rolls on, some of Charlie´s personality traits to change somewhat.
At the beginning he sees his environment through the eyes of a child and discovers so contradictions in things over which normal people no longer think about, they are simply routine.That brings him a lot of problems and he also doesn´t know why he is different. Charlie is burdened with some emotional instability. He often cries, for what most people would things see as “stupid reasons”. Charlie is trying to figure out the world, and how everyone works. He tends to sit on the side lines and just watch people, wondering what is going on in their life. He does this until his teacher tells him that he should try to participate, in stead of just observing. When Charlie meets his new friends Sam and Patrick, he tries to participate more, and observe less. From now on he starts to go on parties and he starts smoking and taking drugs. He lies to his parents, what he didn´t do before, he go on dates, learn about sex, homosexuality, friendship and other things. Through Sam and Patrick Charlie experiences things that he never would have done if he hadn´t found them, also negative things. Till the end of the book he developes to another person.

words: 250

Correction of the 2nd exam

Violence and violence in the media

There are many discussions about violence in the media, because whenever there is a horrible crime people start to blame movies. Violence is part of our daily lives, but where are the problems and what can we do ?

Michael Medved is an opponent of violent movies. He says that Hollywood tells us four big lies. In some points I agree with Medved´s attack on the media, but I´m also critical of one. The first lie which Hollywood tells us is that these violent movies don´t influence us. So I totally agree with Medved because everyday you can read in the newspaper about “copycatkillers”. They imitate some scenes of their favourite movie, because of curiosity. The second lie is that violent movies only shows reality. Medved claims that it´s absolutely wrong to argue that violence in movies only show the reality and I agree with him. Often the scenes are depicted far too exaggerated and unrealistic. In addition it´s also nonsense that only violent movies are succesful, which is the third big lie. Everybody knows that non-violent films are often much more popular and the evidence of this are Disney films. So finally to the last lie which say that you don´t have to watch violent movies. In contrast to Michael Medved I think that it is possible to escape this violence and reading about such films in magazines is quite different to watching them.

We also have to think about why we are living in a violent society. Theories say that violence is something that we learn. We hear about violence, see it, experience it and also imitate it. In addition it is also an instinct, it will always be with us and it is necessary for survival. Moreover, violence is the result of frustration. When we don´t get what we want we become frustrated,and this frustration leads to aggressive behaviour.

Nowadays we can notice that more and more children get violent. In my opinion we can reduce this violence if parents start to forbid their children to watch violent movies, instead of that they should spend more time with their kids. I think that parents have to be only good role models.

To conclude, I want to say, that we will never live in an absolute harmony, but we really should try to do it.

A pro/con essay
a ban on violence in movies / against such a ban ?

Violence is part of our daily lives and always has been. Every day when we watch TV, listen to the radio or read the newspapers, we hear about acts of violence all over the world. I thought about the fact that people maybe could get more violent when they watch movies which comprehend a lot of violence. This took me to the questions if a ban on violence in movies would be better and which arguments argue against such a ban ?
To begin with arguments for a ban on violence in movies. In my opinion movies with to much violence aren´t realistic anyway. Sometimes the scenes are simply to exaggerated and to hard and maybe people could get anxiety and have bad dreams afterwards.The most film directors always think that their movies should comprehend scenes with violence to create tension for the people and I think this isn´t needed. This takes me to my next argument. Non violent films are also successful and popular, because there are so many films with violence and for example a romantic film or a film with a regional background are a variety to this. Beside this you could learn of such films and you can take something for your life. Violent films shows the opposite to this, because in many cases it leads to imitation and bad experiences. I think this is the strongest argument for a ban on violence in movies. Even children and teenagers are effected, because the dangers are unknown for them sometimes. Violence is something we learn. We hear about violence,see it, experience it and imitate it and as I say for the children it is unknown and I think through films with violence this could be added.

However, in case the majority of the people doesn´t get violent, I only see danger for the children when they see to much violent movies. Grown up people have more experiences than children and they really know how to act when they have a conflict or other problems. Moreover the most films are so unrealistic that a normal person doesn´t copy this violent scenes, because when it comes to violence in movies, it is usually that films come in for the most criticism for their vicious content. I also think that violence is an instinct that we all have. Violence is necessary for survival and will always be with us. People will always experience frustration and aggression will always exist. In other words I think that we don´t turn into a non-violent society just because showing non-violent movies, because violence exist, wether if people watch violent films or not.

Therefore I think that a ban on violence in movies would not be better for our society. As I already mentioned violence will always exist with or without violent movies, because it is an instinct that we all have. As a final sentence I want to say that we all can get rid of violence if we want to.