The murals in the Knight library seemed hard to find at first. But once I found one (the Development of the Sciences at first) I was filled with awe. It still looked great when I first saw on my laptop screen, but I was surprised how grand it actually looked. Especially because I went to look for the murals for awhile on the second floor (until I realized it was located on the “different part” of the second floor), when I found them I felt like I found a National Treasure. I could tell why the two Runquist brothers’ work was so treasured in Oregon. The painting looked grand, strikingly beautiful, yet it gave a crude feeling because of its material.

The mostly yellow, brown, and very little of blue and red color usage was phenomenal to show the evolution and the growth of the science and the art. In the lower panels are the primitive period, showing Egyptians pyramids (Arts) and Roman’s astronomical discoveries (Sciences). Closer to the root of the tree is the modern art and science, including Einstein and Madame Curie (Sciences) and cinema and radio (Arts).

After I read the reading assignment, ‘Public art controversy: Cultural Expression and Civic Debate’ by Doss, I could relate the Runquist murals to a lot of sub topics pointed in the reading. The murals not only present the history and evolution of art and sciences in the world, but also they showed beautification of public art in public space. However, having the Klan inside the mural was extremely irritating as a viewer. Doss stated in his article, “it’s difficult to imagine any kind of contemporary public art that might adequately address the multifacted interests of today’s diverse America”(5). Although it is impossible for public art form to please everyone, having Klan inside the mural and keeping the mural inside a library of university seemed obviously morally wrong. Public art is a great means to recapture the history and to remind us the forgotten, such as the African Burial Ground Monument, but if the piece offends enough of viewers is it worthy it to display in public space? Would it have stayed in the library or anywhere else if it was a scene of sand creek massacre for example, instead of the Klan?

Therefore I agree with the author’s statement that public art is “open to artists of all stripes, without predetermined ruled or a mutually agreed upon critical language”, but I do not believe that is necessarily how it should be (2). I believe in public art’s power and its influence as during the 1960s, public art’s civic beautification unified the public divided over issues over, race, gender, and the Vietnam war.  “Public art controversy can be used as a tool that enhances community awareness and civic life”, but I do not believe it should provoke affront to majority of public viewers.

Due to GSA initiatives and NEA funding, many sites have been able to have public arts such as many abstract sculptures, and Runquist brothers were funded by WPA (Work Progress Administration). Funding for public arts should continue in order to improve and continually growing public culture.

Citation:

Doss, E. (2006, October). Public art controversy: Cultural expression and civic debate. Retrieved from http://www.americansforthearts.org/pdf/networks/pan/doss_controversy.pdf

Lawrence Lessig’s speech was entertaining, however I could not agree with everything he argued.  I agree creation does include re-creation, or so-called ‘remix’ by younger generations. As Lawrence said, “they produce for the love of what they are doing, not for money”. The amateur culture, not amateurish culture should be celebrated.  I do not believe what ASCAP did was  injustice; I also do not believe what BMI was justice, necessarily. The gradually raised money over time they charged their subscribers for listening to music was for artists’ sake. The money depicted and showed proper respect of ownership and authorship the artists deserved. Remix culture certainly must be acknowledged and their artists should be rewarded for their talent, but it should not scale the copyright of the authentic ownership of the creation. Lawrence said he is not justifying piracy, but he also said “law is choking creativity”. Is it just me who thinks he is contradicting himself? He is specifically criticizing the law which inhibits piracy and justifies ownership and authorship of authentic creations. However, he did a great job addressing a current state of our culture, and I do feel the need of reviving our creative culture. Lastly, I wish he drew a clear line whether the “corrupted” law should not exist, or the law should be revised. if it should be revised, then how should it be so that it can encourage the remix culture.

Science innovation has been taking us to a new level of using new technology constantly over time. As more new forms of technology and art become available, they make impacts on human’s capability of accomplishing tasks. Before and even after listening to the TED talk by Jane McGonigal I still had  doubts on how possibly playing games could provoke people’s incentive and inspiration to  solve real world’s problems such as poverty, global warming, war, obesity, low employment rate, etc. But after listening to the presentation about Pacmecium, invented by a biophysicist in Stanford University, I realized the power and hope of playing games. The Pacmecium could be used to help students engage in biology (as well as non-scientists) and support biomedical research. Thus maybe I am now convinced by Jane McGornigal’s idea that “gamers” can success in solving real world problem by keep thriving and playing and inventing new games.

Spirituality is different for everyone. Some may say spirituality is not a religion and is not even affiliated with religion at all. In my opinion, not everyone will reach the  level to understand the one’s spirituality. It requires the extra stretch from the individual’s mindset, desperation, and preparation to reach the one’s limit. But spirituality is so personal level that nobody else will understand what is like besides only you. I don’t think I have enough words, knowledge, and life experience to define what spirituality is now, but I believe in order to reach your spirituality and understand it, you would need to empty your mentality and body in order to challenge your limit.

As deep as I got into with trying to define spirituality, the process of reaching and understanding your spirituality is religion. I believe spirituality can help and give benefits to our lives, just as many people turn to religions when they experience hardships in their lives. Once you take on your journey to find your spirituality and find a religion, it will at least give you a direction and purpose to live a life. Thus, I believe spirituality is religion, and religion is spirituality.

The word creativity is self explanatory. It means the ability to create something, and if I’m taking it further, it would require uniqueness of you. Being able to create something and being creative is like performing magic and supernatural power. The unique or creative ideas may develop at places and times you expect the least. In fact,  a lot of artists whose job requires creativity would say their ideas come to them when they are running, getting ready to go to bed, or drinking.

If creativity is skill and ability to create something unique, can it be inherited in genes? Neuroscientists would call right side of the brain as “lala land”. “Right side thinkers” are known to be better at expressive and doing creative tasks, although it’s often demonstrated as a myth. As I consider myself as a “left side thinker”, I would like to conclude with a theory that two sides of brains work together ultimately, but the more developed right side of brain would be the “source” of creativity.

For anyone who might be interested in the idea of the brain functions, I recommend watching this TED talk by Jill Bolte Taylor.

Bibliography:

Taylor, J. (2008, March). Jill Bolte Taylor: My Stroke of Insight. Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/jill_bolte_taylor_s_powerful_stroke_of_insight.html

1. On WebMD, there was an article attempting to explain why we love scary movies. There are different kinds of horror films. The films like Saw and Hostel series offer something different that they focus more on the suffering of the victim, calling it as “torture porn”. They feature gore and violence. There are also horror films that focus on suspense of the chase.

It also mentioned a term “horror paradox” given rise from why people would put themselves through such “unpleasant” movies ( if you are not a horror movie fan at least).  Furthermore, Sparks, a professor of communication at Purdue University, mentioned on studies that showed effects of horror films resulting the viewers to have an increase heart rate. In studies, the subjects shows their palms sweat, their skin temperature dropped, their muscles tensed, and their BP increased. Sparks compared it to the tribal rite of passage. He says, “there’s a motivation males have in our culture to master threatening situations,” (Sine). Furthermore, he explained that we have lost in this modern society that we are seeking to replace that with entertainment. More violent the movie is, “more justified the young man feels in boasting that he endured it”. And it may explain the reason why we get on roller coasters and frat house hazing.

Another theory was suggested that people may want to see gory films as a way of coping with their actual fears. Sparks backed up the theory by pointing to a study that showed an increased interest in students in a movie with a cold-blooded murder after the murder of a college student in a community.

Stephen King, a horror novelist, said that scary movies act as “a safety valve for our cruel or aggressive impulses” (Sine). It means that watching extremely gory violence in movies may forestall the action in the real world. However, there are opinions that are the opposite, saying it would more likely make people more hostile.

Most people would rather like to experience pleasant emotions. Thus Joanne Cantor, a director of the Center for Communication Research at University of Wisconsin, stated that “No doubt, there’s something really powerful that brings people to watch these things, because it is not logical,” (Sine). Carroll seems to agree with this. Carroll stated, “There appears to be something paradoxical about the horror genre. It obviously attracts consumers; but it seems to do so by means of the expressly repulsive.” (275). This “horror paradox” puzzles me more as I am not a horror film fan. One of the possible reasons Carroll mentions is the curiosity, as she draws a parallel  with monsters in movies. As we are engaged in the movie by being involved in the process of discovery and explanations, we come up with our hypothesis and confirm as we go on. Thus the source of the pleasure may may come from the process of disclosure of the mystery horrific beings. This might be what entertains us and make us seek for more.

2. Another article that was found on website called Inquisitr pointed out possible reasons why we watch horror films. The source said people want though provoking violence. People would rather be more drawn to the violent movies which we can expect the benefits of thrills and suspense,  than just straight gory and violent movies without much of story lines. They are attracted by those horror films because the films “satisfy truth-seeking motivations and offering meaningful insights”. The author stated, “people want to be intrigued, on the edge of their seat with each passing moment where anything can happen” (2013). The suspenseful sensation and stimulation may be what makes us entertained during the horror films. Also we (as audience) know we are safe, or safer than those in the screen being chased at least. Thus we can enjoy the film to full.

In this article, the reason why people keep seeking for the “harmless” entertainment, horror films is because of the satisfaction of our desire of truth-seeking motivations from the dramatic twisted plots. Carroll would also agree with this idea. She said people are attracted because of the “way that the plots of discovery and the dramas of proof pique our curiosity” (283). The monsters in the movies would be disturbing and loathing. But the process of the discovery would reward the audience in a pleasurable way. In other words, we are attracted to horror movies despite the fact that the movies contain disgusting and unpleasant elements, however those elements are required for the ultimate pleasure which will result from the process of revelation of the unknown.

Bibliography:

Carroll, N. (2002). Why Horror?. In Neill, A. & Riley, A. (eds.) Arguing About Art: Contemporary Philosophical Debates (2nd ed., Chap. 17). New York, NY: Routledge.

Sine, Richard (2007). ‘Why We Love Scary Movies’, Web-MD, Retrieved November 8th, 2013, from http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/features/why-we-love-scary-movies?page=3.

(2013). ‘Attraction To Violent And Scary Movies’, Inquisitr, Retrieved November 11th, 2013, from http://www.inquisitr.com/594943/attraction-to-violent-and-scary-movies/.

My everyday routine starts from taking a shower. After the shower I try to get dressed as nice as I can, depends on how much of time is allowed in the morning. I didn’t care or didn’t know how to dress up because I was required to wear uniforms all throughout my middle school and high school in Korea. I didn’t have to buy extra clothes and could save time in the morning, avoiding deciding what to wear that day. But uniforms took away freedom to express ourselves.

I look back now, I really did not mind wearing uniforms at all. It lifted the burden of the stress that I had to look nice somewhat. But now, I have to spend quite a lot of money on online shopping to buy nice clothes, shoes, etc. Because I care how other people see me, as I sadly admit that I sometimes cannot help not to judge others from their untidy appearances. Wearing clean, nice, and neat clothes everyday reflects how I would like to be seen from others. (I am not the most tidy person in the world when it comes to organizing and cleaning my room, however) I have my ears pierced, one on each side. But I don’t have any other facial or genital piercings. I don’t have any tatoos, either. It also reflects how concerned I am with what kind of impression I can make with my appearances to others.

In adolescence I got my ears pierced without asking for my parents’ permission. It was during my teenage rebellion phase. Having my ears pierced and starting to wear make ups were a means for me to express my emotions and frustrations on whatever I was having as a teenager.  I come from Asian background. And my parents are very conservative when it comes to body piercings or tattoos.  Luckily, I was not scolded too harsh for getting my ears pierced. But I remember when my older brother had his ears pierced without telling my parents. It was his first “rebellious” action in his life, as a celebration of getting admitted to a medical school. He showed up with earrings, and my parents almost disowned him that day. Girls may have their ears pierced (only one on each side), but no guys should have their ears pierced, according to my parents. I remember my mom saying to my brother that he would not become a good doctor if he keeps the earrings. That is how conservative my parents are. I cannot even imagine how they would react to tattoos. As a result, having conservative parents affected my values and beliefs on how to dress up.

In this society, there is no dress code. Body adornment is welcomed, as well. At least in Eugene, it is not too rare to see dreadlocks around. Tattoo parlors are pretty popular too. Having liberal mindsets,  welcoming tattoos, and non-existing dress code portraits how Eugene/Springfield is like. Because Eugene is a college town, a lot of young adults wearing nice clothes can be seen a lot too. Because there are varieties of styles of people living here in Eugene,  I think there is less judgement made on people’s appearance, compared to California. I believe people respect others’ taste on clothes and body decorations very well in Eugene, as they are used to present and express individual’s uniqueness in an art form.