Personally I chose to always be at least decent looking whenever I go out in public. When it comes to dressing myself, I am really just all over the place because I don’t only stick to one type of style. Sometimes I like to dress casual and wear jeans with a top and sometimes I feel like dressing up and put on a full face of make-up. A good example of showing that I have a very versatile style is through my footwear because I have a wide variety which includes things like pairs of Jordans, heels, vans, flats, etc. This is how I choose to dress myself and everyone has their own style and can choose to dress however they want.

A lot of what I believe in or value was taught to me by my family, especially my mom. My mom always told me to be somewhat presentable in public because it reflects on you, of course. I know that sometimes you just want to run to the store but are too lazy to get ready. The reason my mom tells me to always look presentable is because you never know who you are going to meet or what’s going to happen while you’re out. For example, my first job was working as a sales associate at Hollister and they way I got the job was by just shopping in the store on a random day. On that day, I was shopping with my mom and the manager walked up to me and offered the job because she liked the way I looked. Being presentable doesn’t mean always looking your best but as long as you look put together then you’re good. I mean, the day I got hired I wasn’t dressed up and I had little makeup on.

Like I said, I make the choices I make because that’s just how I was raised. These beliefs and values were distilled into me since I was a little girl. I’m very family oriented and people say I’m just like my mother but it’s definitely true. My mom is my hero and she basically taught me everything I know, there are sometimes that I catch myself saying the exact words that she would say. With that being said, I wouldn’t say that my values or beliefs have changed very much over the years. I still carry those that were taught to me when I was growing up. Over the years as I grew up, I guess you could say that some of my values and beliefs have evolved but not very much has changed. Isn’t that what’s supposed to happen when you grow up? When you’re little you learn everything from your family and surroundings but as you grow up, you become your own person and morph your values into your own.

There are some core beliefs and values that my family follows that show in the way we dress. I’m not too sure why but my family likes to live by sayings. For example, one saying that my family follows other than the ones I’ve already mentioned is “there’s a time to work and a time to play”. Although this saying is usually associated with behavior, it can also deal with the way we dress or present ourselves. This is because different ways of dressing or styles are appropriate for different occasions. Of course you wouldn’t dress like you’re going clubbing, to school right? Dressing like you’re going to the club would fall into the “play time” category whereas going to school would fall under the “work time” category and therefore this clashes. Same for if you were dressed casually like you’re going to school, to the club.

I grew up in Hawaii and I now go to school in Oregon at the University of Oregon and to be honest, they are completely different places. It is obvious that everyone will have their own beliefs and values based on their family and how they grew up. Because my peer community would be the students around me, it is safe to conclude that everyone believes or values different things just by looking at the variety of people that attend our school. I would honestly say that because here at the University of Oregon has his or her own style. It is really hard for me to infer a person’s values or beliefs based on how they are dressed because if they are anything like me, they could have a versatile style making it hard to determine their values or beliefs because they are always dressed differently. One thing that I could conclude about my peer communities values and beliefs would be that we all value education and success because we’re all here for a reason right? We all want to graduate, maybe go on to some type of higher education in hopes of landing a great paying careers that allows up to live the lives that we’ve always dreamed.

Although I try not to judge the way others dress around me, I am only human and it does happen sometimes but I make it a thing in my life to not judge anyone because I wouldn’t want anyone to judge me even though people probably do. There’s a very common saying that my mom never failed to tell me which was, “Treat others the way you want to be treated”. This is one of the many sayings that I live my life by. There have been a couple incidences where people around me have been judged and bullied and I saw how it hurt their self-esteem and later affected how they interact with people around them. I guess this could count as one of my life experiences that affected my values and beliefs as I grew up.

The first person I chose to write about is what I feel like is a laid back kid. He is sitting down on his computer in the EMU. He is wearing a black Hurley hat, a white billabong t-shirt, blue jeans, and a pair of vans. At first he was alone, but about 5-10 minutes after he sat down at a table, a girl came and joined him. I feel that he is possibly very friendly and happy because he is constantly smiling. I also believe that he values education and being successful because him and his friend seemed to have been working together to complete an assignment. Based on his dress I would believe that he is around 19 or 20 years old, probably a freshman at U of O. He is obviously of white decent because of his skin color and a male. Because I try not to judge or make negative assumptions of people, I feel as if my assumptions are very superficial to his appearance. I didn’t make any stereotypical assumptions based on his dress, skin color, etc.

This second person is walking past the Lillis business complex wearing a really baggy type of what looks like a hemp poncho with loose fitting pants and what I call “Jesus sandals”. This maybe a stereotypical judgment, and I rarely do this, but I would believe that this person is a hippie. I say this because based on what she is wearing she gives off this sense of stress free and happiness. She had ear buds in and was just jamming to whatever she was listening to, she didn’t care that people were around or watching her. I feel as if she is the type of person that values life itself and just wants to be happy. She also had what seemed as little dreads in her hair and what looked like a nose piercing. I assumed that she was about 20, maybe 21 years of age and she was obviously of white decent because of her skin color. Again, I would say that my assumptions were superficial and didn’t make any real judgments on who she was just based on appearance.

This might be weird but I’ve noticed this person because he’s in my music class, he really caught my eye, and this is the perfect assignment to write about him. Like I said, he’s in my music class and every lecture he wears some type of suit. I thought this was very interesting and the first thought that popped into my head was that he’s “dressing for success”. This leads me to believe that he values his education and wants to be successful. I also noticed that he often asks questions during lecture. Because he dresses in some type of suit I would say that he’s from a well off family and is from white decent because of his skin color. Although I know that he’s probably around my age, between 19-21, because he wears a suit people would assume that he’s of an older age. I applaud him for taking initiative to become successful because success is something I also value and want in the future. I mean who doesn’t want to be successful right? Isn’t that why we are in college?

The article Art on the Plate: Effect of balance and color on attractive of, willingness to try and liking for food talks about different aesthetic reactions to food. These aesthetic reactions include non-instrumental, non-neutral, and sense experience; these are all topics that Tefler talked about in her article Food as art (course reading). Zellner et. al explains that although we may think that our liking for food may be based on it’s taste, texture, or burn there are other aspects that we overlook majority of the time (2010).

One of the overlooked aspects includes the physical appearance of the food. Most people will consume food that they know taste good or satisfy their hunger and sometimes those foods aren’t necessarily mean that they are aesthetically pleasing. On the other hand, in a situation where the individual is at a restaurant that they have never eaten at before they will likely make a decision off of either physical appearance, non-instrumental, or non-neutral components; this is something that I do when eating at a new restaurant. For example, most restaurants will have pictures of their dishes within their menu – this definitely influences the individual’s decision because they will most likely pick something that they think looks the most appetizing. Also, some people will ask others for their opinion on what to order whether it’s someone they are dining with or one of the restaurant staff members; this is an example of non-neutral, they assume that if it’s recommended they would most likely enjoy it also. Lastly, for some people the contents of the food is really important to them and the benefits that the food provides for the consumer influences their decisions. When someone considers the benefits of the actual food rather than physical appearance, taste, or smell they are going by non-instrumental ideas. Moreover, the ideas of aesthetic reactions including non-neutral, non-instrumental, and judgment were discussed in the assigned reading Arguing About Art: Contemporary Philosophical Debates by Elizabeth Telfer. Although Zellner did not use these exact terms but her explanations and examples were similar to Tefler. Overall, both Tefler and Zellner had the same views and insight to aesthetic reactions – especially when it comes to food.

The article Food as Art: The problem of function talks about the difference between art and craft when it comes to food. In the article Quinet states, “The culinary arts, one might claim, are indeed arts, but only when we use the term ‘art’ in the sense of mere ‘craft’; and this is not the way in which the term is used in aesthetics” (1981). She goes on to explain that the difference between the terms is merely between productive activities and the products of those productive activities. Quinet also claims that some products of crafts are not works of art, so the two terms although they are similar and sometimes go hand in hand it’s not always like that.

In the article, craft is looked at as the productive process or activity whereas art is mainly the outcome or product of the activity. The definitions given by Quinet in the article are similar to those that were given and discussed in the assigned reading Arguing About Art: Contemporary Philosophical Debates by Tefler. We can assume that their ideas are similar because Tefler states, “Art is original creation, whereas craft is carrying out an instruction, following a convention or employing a technique” (2002). Quinet and Tefler’s insight to the terms craft and art differ when Tefler goes on to talk about technique and creativity. She explains the difference between craft and art is whether a technique or creativity was used to create the product. Crafting requires the application of technique or skill whereas art takes mere creativity and expression to create a product. Overall, Quinet and Tefler have similar thoughts and agree that food is art to an extent. Also, even though chefs create the food, which is art, they are not exactly artists. Chefs would be considered more as craftsmen because it takes a lot of skill and technique to cook and create food. With that said the culinary arts could be seen as both a craft and art depending on your point of view and how you define the terms craft and art.

Quinet, M. L. (1981). Food As Art: the Problem of Function. The British Journal of Aesthetics, 21, 159–171. doi:10.1093/bjaesthetics/21.2.159

Tefler, E. (2002). Food as Art. In Neill, A. & Riley, A. (eds.) Arguing About Art: Contemporary Philosophical Debates (2nd ed., Chap. 2). New York, NY: Routledge.

Zellner, D. A., Lankford, M., Ambrose, L., & Locher, P. (2010). Art on the plate: Effect of balance and color on attractiveness of, willingness to try and liking for food. Food Quality and Preference, 21, 575–578. doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2010.02.007

Urmson assumes that all aesthetic reactions are pleasant, but I do not agree with this take on aesthetic reactions however I do agree with Tefler when she states that, “an aesthetic reaction need not be a favorable one” (pg. 10). I believe that aesthetic reactions are results of how something interacts with your senses to create a feeling, thought, or reaction. These feelings, thoughts, or reactions can vary and not every time will they be favorable. For example, when you see an artwork that is not appealing to you, your thoughts are not favorable but it is still an aesthetic reaction. Moreover, Tefler explains that there is a range of sense-experiences that fall under the aesthetic reactions description, which includes non-neutral, non-instrumental, intensity, and judgment (pg. 11). These are very interesting ways to describe an aesthetic reaction. Non-neutral can be explained to be something that is thought to delight other people, would also delight me too. On the other hand, a non-instrumental reaction can be explained as something that you may appreciate because of its look or sound and not for any benefit that it may offer to yourself or others. Intensity and judgment are both topics that most people are familiar with but both deal with how you perceive the object when you view it.

Now think about it… Does food cause an aesthetic reaction for you? I don’t know about you but food does cause me to have an aesthetic reaction, most times. These aesthetic reactions can include if I think the food looks delicious, it could taste amazingly, I enjoy it because it’s good for me, etc. Overall, I definitely view food as art. On the other hand, if art is defined, as, “a man-made thing” then wouldn’t you think food should be considered as some type of art (pg. 12). Although the ingredients itself aren’t necessarily man-made, the ingredients are put together by a person in order to become food – which fits the above description.

I don’t agree with Urmson or whenever people define art as something that was intended or used only for aesthetic consideration. The main reason is because not all works of art were made with the intention of evoking an aesthetic reaction; some pieces of art came about purely out of accident. Even with that being said isn’t food made with the intention of evoking an aesthetic reaction from its consumer? I’m pretty sure all foods are made with intentions of evoking a favorable reaction from its consumer; no one wants a bad reaction to their food. If this is true, and foods are prepared to create a favorable reaction, then food fits into the description of art that assumes that all works of art are intended or used for aesthetic consideration.

Combination words                       Meanings

Paleo-                                                 Paleology

Anthro-                                               Anthropology

Psycho-                                               Psychology

Biolog-                                                Biology

Suffixes                                              Meanings

-ical                                                     Pertaining to

The person who coined this term was Ellen Dissanayake; she used this term in the article what is art for? which was our assigned excerpt for this week. Dissanayake uses this term in order to describe what art is to her.

2. It this week’s reading Dissanayake uses the phrase “making special” to explain that when you make something special, someone will care for it or it has some sort of significance in his or her life. Another way to look at the phrase “making special” is to transform a regular object or activity into something “special” or extraordinary. The ability to make something special is necessary to human survival, Dissanayake explains in the reading. The example she uses is animal survival; if a prey cannot distinguish between branches that are falling or branches that are moving because a predator is coming will put the prey in great danger and they probably won’t survive. One way that this phrase relates to art is when art works are put into galleries, they are then “made special”.

3. Medieval times – During these times Dissanayake explains, “arts were in the service of religion… but were not regarded ‘aesthetically’” (pg. 16). Art had an extremely different meaning than it does today. Artists from the Renaissance era were said to “gradually replaced God-center with man-centered concerns” (pg. 16). People of this time believed in different ideas and with this, in time the focus of religion shifted to freedom. For example Dissanayake states that, “Plate did not discuss ‘art’, but rather beauty, poetry, and image making. Aristotle dealt with poetry and tragedy” (pg. 16).

Modernism – This is probably when art started to be truly appreciated. In the 18^th century, many people started to be more concerned with aesthetics. Dissanayake explains that, “ a concern with elucidating principles such as taste and beauty that govern all the arts and indeed make them not simply paintings or statues but examples of (fine) ‘art’” (pg. 17). During this era, the ideology and inspiration of the artwork came into focus but not everyone could understand these ideas and needed experts to explain it to them.

Postmodernism – Dissanayake states that postmodernism is a “point of view that calls into question two centuries of assumptions about the elite and special nature of art” (pg. 19). In this era, the assumption that art reflects a unique and privileged kind of knowledge is thrown out and art is looked at through the artists’ “individual and cultural sensibilities” (pg. 19). Nowadays art is for everyone and anyone can interpret an artwork, however everyone may have different interpretation of an artwork based on his or her point of view.

In this weeks reading What is art for?, the author introduced that to her, art is “palaeoantropsychobiological” (Dissanayake, 15). To me this was very interesting because the word he used when broken down means pertaining (-ical) to the ideas of paleoecology (palaeo-), anthropology (anthro-), psychology (psycho-), and biology (biolog-). He then goes on to explain that is suggest that the idea of art includes all of human history whether it’s Paleolithic or earlier, that it includes all human societies meaning anthropological, and that it needs and has a emotional and psychological effect on it’s viewers (Dissanayake, 15). During Fall 2013, I took an AAD 252: Art and Gender course which really broadened my view on art because it taught me that art can be anything made by any human. Something doesn’t have to be made with the intension of being art, some forms of art were accidentally made but as long as it evokes some type of emotion from its view; it’s considered art. I would agree that my view on art, is the same as Dissanayake which is what she foreseen, “Most people would probably agree that their personal “idea of art” includes all these things…” (15). Everyone has their own take on art and there is no correct definition because it depends on the eye of the beholder. However, these are present day definitions or art whereas back in the Paleolithic or pre-modern times the definition of art was extremely different.

Moreover Dissanayake explains that during the medieval times “arts were in the service of religion, as they have always been, but were not regarded ‘aesthetically’ (16). Although I obviously was not there during this time I know that society as a whole had completely different values from the society we live in today. Everyone was so much more conservative and religion was a big part of everyone’s lives. No one really cared about aesthetics, like today’s society.

There’s a drastic change in how people describe art over the years but overall, I don’t think any definition of art is wrong whether it’s what people in the medieval times thought or today’s people. I believe that there is no exact definition of art because everyone has different point of views. Anything can be considered “art” as long as it evokes some type of thought or emotion.

Before reading this weeks unit readings, I thought of values as just personal guidelines and even though I am not wrong, there is so much more to the topic. The excerpt that we were required to read this week explained values to be “synonymous with personal evaluations and related beliefs” (Lewis 1990). I believe that this is a good way to think about what values are, since simply values are based on what an individual believes and follows which influence how a person behaves or how they see themselves. An individual will set their values as they grow up; this is also when they are influenced by factors in the person’s surroundings. Some of these factors may include parental upbringing, religion, school, family, and culture. On the other hand, the excerpt introduces and talks about six different mental modes; there are four basic mental modes and two synthetic mental modes. In the excerpt, Lewis explains that the four basic mental modes include sense experience, deductive logic, emotion, and intuition whereas the two synthetic mental modes are authority and ‘science’ (1990). The way I see it, the four mental modes are all internal modes and are how we think, sense, and feel whereas the two synthetic modes are things we learn and encounter as we grow up.

It is believed that the factors within a person’s surroundings will morph an individual’s value(s) by influencing the person’s mental modes. I would agree with the previous statement because a person will develop their values based on how they grow up. For example, someone who grew up with one parent, has one sibling, and is religious will most likely have different values compared to someone who grew up with two parents, five siblings, doesn’t follow a particular religion, and was home-schooled; all because of how they grew up. In conclusion, this is why everyone has their own values because no one grows up the same or has the same childhood.

The author of the excerpt claims that all six modes must be somewhat co-dominant to one another to avoid bias or one sided-values. This is true since all six mental modes together create us, metaphorically speaking. When one mental mode is made dominant over the others, the persons values will be one sided and although it isn’t technically wrong, since there is no such thing as a bad value, their value is will not be “well rounded”. Someone who balances all six mental modes will most likely have values that are well rounded because they take all parts into account when developing or choosing their values.

In the end, everyone has/chooses their own values and is entitled to those values.