Jean-Michel Basquiat And His Influence On Developing Graffiti University Essay Example

In the year of 1976 Jean-Michel and his family move back to the states where they built a new life in Boerum Hill, Brooklyn. Once again, Jean-Michel runs away from home, but this time in his leave of absence he experiments with the psychedelic drug lysergic acid diethylamide, also known as LSD. LSD is an illegal, but common, drug sold off of the market and is known for its hallucinated side effects. According to the official drugs website, “LSD is a mind-altering drug. It is thought LSD causes its characteristic hallucinogenic effects via interaction with the serotonin receptors in the brain. Serotonin is a neurotransmitter that helps control your behavior and mood, governs your senses, and moderates your thoughts.”

As Jean-Michel reflects on his experience with running away from home and trying the drug for the first time, he says, “I left home at 15, and went to Washington Square Park I just sat there dropping acid …. now that all seems boring; it eats your mind up” (Basquiat) It seems as though acid wasn’t something that he would try again, he seemed rather bored with the entire experience. It’s no surprise that he wasn’t a fan of a predominate drug that controlled his mind because Jean-Michel was a very liberated young man. He was never one for dictation, and he could be described as a free thinker. His lesson was learned after his father found him two weeks later, and though he left the acid alone that wasn’t the end of his rebel phase.

During his high school years Jean-Michel dipped into his creative side and joined a drama group known as Family Life Theater. The group welcomed Jean-Michel with open arms, one group member in particular being Al Diaz. Basquiat and Diaz were two peas in a pod, and they were known for their mischievous, but artistic, after school festivities. The two would often tag the D train in lower Manhattan as a way of relieving stress. This stage of Basquiat’s life is where SAMO (Say-MO) was born, SAMO being a personification for Same Old Shit. SAMO was known for an abundance of things one of them being a political figure known for some, and a fake religion to the public for others; something for people to believe in. In a scholarly essay written by Henry A. Flint Jr. he explains the time period when SAMO was created he writes:

In 1978, a wave of graffiti appeared in downtown Manhattan—each one a statement about SAMO© or a statement signed by SAMO©. 1 When comprehended as a sequence, in their public locations on buildings, the graffiti expressed a substantial cultural message. Areas in which the graffiti appeared included SoHo, the new art quarter of New York, and the Lower East Side, an ethnic neighborhood which was also the site of New York’s bohemian ferment. Inhabitants of these neighborhoods automatically became the graffiti’s viewers.

​​SAMO was for those like Basquiat and Diaz who needed an outlet from the political world. During the seventies, many young adults were in a position of feeling like their voices were going unheard, SAMO gave those people a voice and with perfect timing. In 1967 graffiti gave its official debut and since then it’s been ongoing controversy surrounding the intent and influence it has had on our youth. Politicians may argue that graffiti is brainwashing children into thinking that vandalism is the only way to get attention, but according to artist and muralist, Lady Pink, “graffiti is young, cool, creative, – let it happen.” In The NY Times opinion pages, Pink says, “If graffiti is inspiring, it’s because it’s fun, cool and does not take formal training.”(New York Times) Basquiat was fighting from becoming stagnant, this is why Diaz and Basquiat took charge and became the voices for the new world.

The Concept Of Love On Pope Francis Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia 

Love and marriage, love and marriage, they go together like a steed and carriage!’ So murmured Francis Albert ‘Straight to the point’ Sinatra during the 1950s. After sixty years, another Francis is rehashing similar verses, but with a marginally progressively authoritative song.

In the fourth part of his missional urging Amoris Laetitia, on Love in the Family, Pope Francis embarks to ‘talk about adoration’ among a couple in a section entitled ‘Love in Marriage’ (Amoris Laetitia, 89). Starting with significant and useful contemplations on the sections of Saint Paul’s famous Hymn to Love in 1 Corinthians 13, Pope Francis traces all the different measurements and appearances of affection so as to give solid counsel to cherishing in day by day life.

‘Love is understanding,

love is caring;

love isn’t desirous or bombastic;

it isn’t egotistical or discourteous.

Love does not demand its own particular manner,

It isn’t bad tempered or angry;

it doesn’t celebrate at off-base,

in any case, celebrates morally justified.

Love bears all things,

trusts all things,

trusts all things

perseveres through all things’ (1 Cor 13:4-7)

The Pope ponders piercingly each of these ‘highlights of genuine romance’ (90), spending no less than two passages on each (91-119). These improving reflections on the every day requests of human love genuinely have the right to be perused completely.

Especially incredible are the Pope’s words about cherishes shirking of envy and self-importance. ‘Love has no space for disappointment at someone else’s favorable luck. Jealousy is a type of pity incited by another’s success; it demonstrates we are not worried for the bliss of others but rather just with our own prosperity. Though love makes us ascend above ourselves, begrudge closes us in on ourselves. Genuine romance qualities the other individual’s accomplishments. It doesn’t see that person as a danger… it endeavors to find its own street to joy, while enabling others to discover theirs’ (95). ‘The individuals who love not just cease from talking excessively about themselves, however are centered around others; they don’t should be the focal point of consideration.’ This implies ‘we don’t move toward becoming ‘puffed up’ before others.’ Those who are haughty have ‘a fixation on appearing and lost the feeling of the real world. Such individuals feel that, since they are progressively ‘otherworldly’ or ‘shrewd,’ they could easily compare to they truly are.’ Here the Pope utilizes Saint Paul’s aphorism that, ‘Information puffs up,’ though ‘love develops’ (1 Cor 8:1). ‘What truly makes us vital,’ as per Pope Francis, ‘is an adoration that comprehends, demonstrates concern, and grasps the feeble,’ this is ‘the genuine ‘control’ of the Spirit’ (97).

Here Pope Francis offers functional guidance for Catholics with relatives who are ‘less learned about the confidence, frail or less beyond any doubt in their feelings.’ How critical it is ‘for Christians demonstrate their adoration by the manner in which they treat relatives’ in these circumstances. ‘Now and again the inverse happens: the as far as anyone knows develop adherents inside the family turn out to be unendurably pompous. Love, then again, is set apart by lowliness; on the off chance that we are to comprehend, pardon and serve others from the heart, our pride must be mended and our quietude must increment’ (98). On the off chance that we are called to observer to God who is love, what a poor observer we offer by broadcasting Love in a way that does not demonstrate love.

In calling us to endeavor to cherish with self-giving liberality, Pope Francis utilizes the assistance of Saint Thomas Aquinas. In a way that echoes the Prayer of Saint Francis of Assisi, the Angelic Doctor clarifies in the Summa Theologiae that ‘it is increasingly legitimate to philanthropy to want to adore than to want to be love.’ Indeed, ‘moms, who are the individuals who love the most, try to cherish more than to be adored.’ The Pope therefore guides our consideration regarding the way that ‘affection can rise above and flood the requests of equity, ‘anticipating nothing consequently’ (Lk 6:35), and the best of loves can prompt ‘setting out one’s life’ for another (cf. Jn 15:13). Can such liberality, which empowers us to give unreservedly and completely, truly be conceivable? Truly, on the grounds that it is requested by the Gospel: ‘You got without pay, give without pay’ (Mt 10:8)’ (102).

Pope Francis by and by offers reasonable exhortation in announcing an adoration that excuses. In pardoning others, we should first ‘have had the experience of being excused by God… If we acknowledge that God’s adoration is unrestricted, that the Father’s affection can’t be purchased or sold, at that point we will end up equipped for demonstrating unlimited love and excusing others regardless of whether they have wronged us’ (108). ‘My recommendation,’ says the Pope, ‘is never to give the day a chance to finish without making harmony in the family. ‘Also, how am I going to make harmony? By getting down on my knees? No! Just by a little signal, a touch of something, and congruity with your family will be reestablished’ (104). Pope Francis proceeds to layout his ‘three fundamental words’ that ‘every day secure and sustain love’ in the family: ‘It would be ideal if you ‘Thank you,’ and ‘Sorry’ (133).

Following his unbelievable contemplations on Saint Paul’s Hymn to Love, Pope Francis digs into the riddle and truth of wedded love. ‘Marriage is the symbol of God’s adoration for us… Starting with the straightforward normal things of life [spouses] can make obvious the affection which with Christ cherishes his Church and keeps on giving her life for her’ (121). Marriage is in this manner the ‘best type of companionship’ other than God’s adoration for us (123), in which human love is ‘injected by the Holy Spirit’ so people move toward becoming ‘fit for cherishing each other as Christ cherished us’ (120).

To support this companionship over the years and decades requires an affection that sees the excellence in the other individual, and gives them space to be the individual God has made them to be. Pope Francis says that adoration can be profoundly communicated as a ‘look’ which sees the extraordinary worth of alternate merits our genuine love. This look of adoration gives space for the critical discourse that empowers connections, among life partners particularly, to proceed to extend and prosper. Here the Pope’s recommendation is basic: ‘Require significant investment, quality time. This implies being prepared to listen calmly and mindfully to everything the other individual needs to state… Do not be surged, set aside the majority of your own needs and stresses, and influence space… To build up the propensity for giving genuine significance to the next individual’ (137-138).

In talking about wedded love, Pope Francis offers us a diagram for cherishing solidly and earnestly in the midst of the noise of day by day life. He calls us to adore truly and to understand that this adoration is regularly communicated in little ways, not just in extraordinary motions. Being unassuming, saying it would be ideal if you requesting absolution, giving the other individual a chance to talk – all are little things that communicating exceptional love in common ways. Past the verses Frank Sinatra, maybe the most expressive outline of this fourth part of Amoris Laetitia comes to us from Mother Teresa: ‘We can do no extraordinary things, just little things with incredible love.

Curriculum Theory: My Personal Philosophy Of Curriculum

Curriculum theory, the way curriculum should be created and implemented, has been argued over for many years by leaders in education. Educators have varying opinions and viewpoints that influence the way they see education and how students should be taught. There are four main visions that have been created by advocates that have vastly different views on the purpose of education. Those four main ideologies have “both stimulated improvement in American schools and caused conflicts that have inhibited progress in the development of the school curriculum.” (Schiro, 2008, p. 1) Since the views that make up Scholar Academic, Social Reconstruction, Social Efficiency, and Learner Centered ideologies are so diverse, it has made creating curriculum difficult for educators, veterans and newcomers alike. By gaining understanding of the key elements of each of the four main ideologies, teachers can form their own philosophy of curriculum and instructional goals that works best for their them and their students.

The Scholar Academic approach to curriculum focuses on conserving and maintaining the knowledge of the culture, passed down from generations before. Educators are viewed as masters of their content area and transmitters of information to the students who are viewed as having “an enormous capacity to learn and will absorb ideas like sponges if properly [taught,] motivated and encouraged” (Keynes, 1995, p. 64). All students are expected to learn the academic disciplines and be highly successful to move up the hierarchy of knowledge which flows in the order of students, teachers, and scholars.

Educators who believe and advocate for this ideology mainly focus on the content and spiral the content, so that students consistently see and use the same skills again and again with growing intensity. In some ways, I can see how this ideology could be helpful in my math classroom. There are so many students that come into my classroom at the beginning of the year without a common understanding of the basic skills of mathematics needed to complete the sixth-grade standards; (knowing their multiplication facts, how to do long division, how to find factors of a number, etc.) that makes teaching difficult at times because some of my learners are at different levels of understanding.

The Social Reconstruction ideology focuses on the detriment of our current society and leaders encourage learners to respond to this by developing and bringing to life visions for a better world; they want the learners to solve the problems of our current state of social crisis. “These problems include, among others, racism, war, sexism, poverty, pollution, worker exploitation, global warming, crime, political corruption, population explosion, energy shortage, illiteracy, inadequate health care, and unemployment.” (Schiro, 2008, p.133) The educators use problem-based learning connected to a world issue so that learners can use critical thinking skills to develop a plan of action, while also having it relate to learning the English, Mathematics, Science, and History standards that must be taught. Along with problem-based learning, teachers also use class discussion because social interaction is a major part of gaining knowledge and social reconstruction. I believe that using problem-based learning and discussions in my sixth-grade math classroom benefits all learners. Instead of direct teaching of concepts and facts, learners can use and build their problem solving and critical thinking skills to solve a real-world problem related to math. This type of learning also can build communication skills, which is a skill they will need for anything in life.

The third ideology, Social Efficiency, also focuses on the social aspect of educating students. Learners in the Social Efficiency ideology are provided the skills and are trained to be successful, contributing members of society. Social Efficiency educators view the creation and design of curriculum as a science; they are finding what society needs and working to produce an educated learner who will meet the objectives to satisfy that need. The creator of this ideology, Franklin Bobbitt, compared the production of an educated person to producing steel rails.

“Education is a shaping process as much as the manufacture of steel rails; the personality is to be shaped and fashioned into desirable forms. It is a shaping of more delicate matters, more immaterial things, certainly; yet a shaping process none the less. It is also an enormously more complex process because of the great multitude of aspects of the personality to be shaped if the whole as finished is to stand in full and right proportions.” (Bobbitt, 1913, p. 12)

The leaders in the Social Efficiency ideology believe that educating a child is preparing and shaping their behavior for society and they focus on making each generation better than the last; they do this by using standards and objectives to assess the products (the educated learners) of schools and seeing how they perform in diverse situations. I believe that certain aspects of this philosophy can be used in my instructional setting. It is of high importance to me that my students are ready for the world when they finish school, whether they decide to further their education or enter the workforce. I want to ensure that I’m doing my part to produce an educated learner that will be an active member of society. I can do this by carefully and strategically creating curriculum and lessons that I know will serve my students well throughout their sixth-grade year and beyond.

The final ideology puts all the focus on the student. The Learner Centered ideology believes that all learners have a set of capabilities to acquire knowledge and grow in their learning. Educators that advocate for this ideology believe that each learner is unique, and their way of learning is unique as well. The role and responsibility of the teachers that support the Learner Centered ideology is to create and provide the learner with the learning tools and environment that will inspire growth and curiosity; this will persuade the learner’s natural capabilities to emerge. When reading about the Learner Centered ideology, my first thought was connecting this ideology to the ideas and principles of Montessori learning and schools.

These schools for younger-aged children have brightly colored walls, an inviting nature, and children are free to learn and make discoveries at their own pace; older students are active participants in the process of how the school operates. “The routine needs of the school, as well as the lesson assignments, the planning of excursions and exhibits, and the criticism of reports are taken over by the pupils.” (Rugg, 1928, p. 57) Personally, I feel that this approach can be helpful in some ways to my instructional setting. Allowing students to discover, rather than sit and listen to lecture or direct instruction, can be beneficial to their educational process and allow them to take ownership of their own learning. I can do this by supplying the students with the tools they need and the learning environment needed for student growth and natural discovery.

With a complete understanding of all four of the curriculum ideologies, educators can be more accepting of different viewpoints. Educators can either jump on board with one ideology; or they can feel free to take different parts of each to create their own philosophy of curriculum design and how it should be implemented into their own classroom. Developing a personal philosophy of curriculum can be accomplished by evaluating your own beliefs and combining it with the ideas of others to make what works best for the educator and the learners. Knowledge in each of the four ideologies can also prepare educators to communicate curriculum decisions within their district to their colleagues, their school administrators, the district school board, etc.

My personal philosophy of curriculum design takes various aspects from each of the four main ideologies. I both agree and disagree with features of each ideology, and take away a lot of good points from each one to form a philosophy that I’m comfortable with and will work for my current instructional setting and group of learners. I also believe that personal philosophies are ever-changing and ever-evolving due to life changing experiences, moving to another grade level, changing schools, learning new information about curriculum, or even receiving a new set of learners.

My current personal philosophy supports a main education goal for the learner to not only be successful in the next grade level, but to be a successful citizen when they finish school. The educators’ primary focus should be preparing the learner for what they will need to be a good person and an active member of their community. I think it’s also important for students to stand up for what they believe in and have the education to support their ideas. I also think a goal of education and designing curriculum would be to always to stay current with the newest understandings and ways of thinking, so that educators and students alike can always be aware what’s going on in the world. I believe the main goals for education in my personal philosophy relate to and are influenced by the Social Efficiency and Scholar Academic approaches.

According to my personal philosophy, the role of the teacher is to facilitate student learning using various forms of teaching. Those types of teaching include lecture, note-taking, group practice with manipulatives/game-play/worksheets, learning centers, group discussions, discovery through tasks, and project/problem-based learning activities. Let me share what this looks like in my classroom. Every Monday, I introduce a new skill set, I provide whole group instruction through lecture while students take notes in their interactive notebook. On Tuesday, I review what was introduced on Monday and do a few examples with them. I allow the class to work in groups to practice the skills (with manipulatives/ game-play/ worksheets) how I see the most benefit for each student.

We review the work completed together as a class and have a group discussion about any questions they may still have. Wednesday is used for practicing the skill in real-world context, so I may present them with a task or a problem and they have to use the skills to solve the problem. I circulate around the classroom to listen to conversations and ask thought-provoking questions about the material to get my students thinking deeper. On Thursdays, I set up learning centers, where students can take a few minutes at each center to work on the skill for the week and prepare for the weekly assessment on Friday. After the weekly assessment on Friday, I allow students to play math games on the computer on any skill they would like to give them choice in their own learning.

I believe the ways that I instruct my students relate to multiple ideologies discussed earlier. I believe that lectures and note-taking are a part of the Academic Scholar ideology because I’m transmitting knowledge to my students. Learning centers, discovery tasks, working with manipulatives, and game-play are strongly correlated with the Learner Centered ideology because I’m giving my students choices and freedom to use their own unique sense of capabilities to learn and accomplish the task. The tasks and problem-based learning activities I sometimes give to my students would be a Social Reconstruction ideology approach. The blend of multiple styles of teaching make it possible for all of my learners to be successful in my classroom.

It is my belief that the role of a teacher doesn’t just stop at teaching. I think teachers should be involved as much as they can be at their schools. I believe an educator should always stay current in their content area or degree area by using data to inform their instruction, taking courses, advancing to another degree, or attending conferences. Educators should strive to be the best for their students every day and show their students that they are life-long learners. I also believe that you need to not only support your students in the classroom, you need to support them in all that they do. For example, if a student asks you to come to a football game or a dance recital, you should go! Showing an interest in what they do allows your learners to see that you truly care for them, not just about their education. At the beginning of the year, I spend a great deal of time establishing a relationship with my students and it makes the year easier to know that your students trust in you and respect you.

In my personal philosophy, the role of the learner is to gain knowledge of the sixth-grade mathematical standards, be respectful to their peers, use growth mindset to achieve their goals, take ownership of their learning, and try their best every day. I hold high expectations for all of my learners; I also expect them to set goals and achieve them. For example, after receiving state test data from their previous year, I sat down with all of my students one-on-one and we analyzed their data and set a growth goal for this year’s state test. Students keep up with their own assessment data for this year so that they can see if they are on track for meeting their goal. This allows them to take ownership of their own learning and goal achievement.

Similar to the Scholar Academic ideology, I feel that students should be evaluated through various types of assessment. The teacher should not feel bad about giving students a test to see what they know. However, assessments don’t always have to take the form of a paper and pencil test. Exit tickets, interactive online quizzes, participation in a group discussion, or a verbal explanation of a skill can be used as an assessment. I believe that schools should continue doing standardized tests because I find the data that I get back from it to be so helpful and informative to my teaching. That data also ranks students and compares them to surrounding areas, which I find useful and informative.

In order to fully implement my personal philosophy in my classroom, I would like to continue the development of two strategies: differentiation and use of technology. Differentiation is used in classrooms for all learners to be successful. Developing curriculum for all levels of learners and incorporating technology is a struggle for many educators, including myself. I feel that if I continue to work on developing these strategies and implementing them in my classroom more often, it would greatly affect my learners in a positive way. I will begin this transformation by changing the way I plan my lessons. I will follow through with these strategies by researching different ways to differentiate and implement use of technology. These effective strategies relate to my personal philosophy of curriculum by preparing the learner to be a successful citizen and provide them with more opportunities to take control of their own learning.

I differentiate my learning centers by having the struggling learners complete a small group with me first before doing centers on their own. I also make sure that they are grouped with high students that can lead the group in the right direction. To implement even more differentiation in my classroom, I will make alternate assessments for the different levels of learners and allow for varying lengths of time to complete each task. I will also try to find tasks varying in complexity when implementing real world scenarios in class for all levels of learners. This strategy is effective because it will make all learners feel accomplished; all learners will be able to be challenged within their means by completing an assignment that meets them on their level of understanding and meets their individual needs. If any students are still struggling after the differentiation, I can form a small group during class to address the needs of those learners.

Use of technology is an important aspect of a 21st century classroom. Technology is a part of everyday life and it is crucial that students know how to use technology to learn and complete simple tasks. This effective strategy will change the way many educators teach and present their content. This year, my school was fortunate enough to go 1-to-1 on technology, so that every student has a Google Chromebook that they can use at school. Without that advantage before, I was hesitant to bring technology into my lessons, not knowing what was out there at my disposal. I have being doing a lot of research lately and have found many great websites that students can use to practice math skills and that I can use to assess and receive data for my learners. I will implement this strategy by continuing my research and finding more resources on the Internet for me to use in my classroom and further implement my personal philosophy of curriculum.


Bobbitt, F. (1913). Some general principles of management applied to the problems of city school systems. In S. C. Parker (Ed.), Twelfth yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (Pt. 1). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Keynes, H. B. (1995). Can equity thrive in a culture of mathematical excellence? In W. G. Secada, E. Fennema, & L. B. Adajian (Eds.), New direction for equity in mathematics education. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Rugg, H. O. (1936–1938). Man and his changing society (Vols. 1–8). New York: Ginn.
Schiro, M. S. Curriculum Theory: Conflicting Visions and Enduring Concerns. [Western Governors University]. Retrieved from

error: Content is protected !!