KIC Document

When I read about the murals and their possibly negative racial undertones (most notably during the progression from ignorance to knowledge how the characters facial features became increasingly Northern European as the slides progressed) and when I viewed them for myself, I was struck by them. I understand that they are beautiful works of art and were made in a different time when these things were either more acceptable or simply overlooked. Having been white my whole life, I did my best to try to imagine what it might be like for a student of color to ponder these murals.

First of all, please excuse my crude hand, as this might be the first drawing I’ve done since grade school. Second, I tried to mimic, stylistically, some of Albert Runquist’s paintings that they gave as examples from his time on the Oregon Coast and working in a factory. Third, I wanted to make the student the focal point, with the mural fading into the background. Lastly, I made an effort to move between the slides and, as they progress, go from blander colors to more vibrant reds, greens, and blues.

Brave, Passionate, Different, Expressive, Craft

So I was initially going to argue that the collage I created was not art. I have never thought of myself as incredibly artistic or even having a desire to create any sort of art. However, upon rereading one of the definitions that Dissanyake uses on page 19, “Implicit in this argument is a recognition that what is said about a work is not only necessary to it being art, but is indeed perhaps more important than the work itself. There is no appreciation without interpretation.” I understand this to mean that it is not up to me to make that distinction. If you appreciate and ponder what I have made here, that makes it art.

Dissanayake, E. (1991). What is art for? In K. C. Caroll (Ed.). Keynote adresses 1991 (NAEA Convention), (pp.15-26). Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.

Because I lack much more than a cursory knowledge of copy-write law and the many cases that have led up to its current state, I cannot in good conscience argue that the laws surrounding the copywriting of intellectual property be increased, decreased or eliminated. I will however argue that they should be adjusted to adapt to the rapidly changing landscape that is currently our most prominent form of creativity and expression, the internet. Lawrence Lessig pointed out, “It is now anyone with access to a $1500 computer who can take sounds and images from the world around us and use it to say things differently.” He quite passionately argued not to destroy, or criminalize, this next generations freedom of expression. I would argue that though the building blocks of this self-expression, more commonly known as art, are frequently the intellectual properties of others, the final piece is so much more than that. At a certain point, somethings are truly broken down so much that they cease to be what they once were. In The Amen Break, the author illustrates this when he says, “…this was done by slicing the original 6 second sample into each of it’s original drum hits.” At this point of deconstruction, the only thing the artist is not doing is producing the particular sound themselves. If you take those drum hits, and completely rearrange the rhythm and tempo, the only difference between you and the original artist is the money spent on the drum set and the ability to create the rhythm in real time, but what you would have is the intellectual skill to be able to arrange them electronically. Is either of these more artistic than the other? That’s like one painter saying to another, “you can’t use blue. I painted with blue!”

I any regard, even when using much longer samplings like the examples in the Lessig TED talk, if the amalgamations created are not used for financial gain, I see no harm in it. It may reach a few hundred views on YouTube. Where this becomes convoluted, is when both YouTube and the “creator” make money off this sampled content. It is at this point that I get in over my head with copywrite law. Relating to this Lessig wrote in Cultures Compared, “Put simply the current practices of the copywrite law support the practices of the RO (read only) and oppose the practices of the RW (read write) culture.” (p. 97). To me this sounds terribly detrimental to the creativity or our youth. I’m not sure the exact solution, because I simply don’t know the law well enough. What I can tell you, is that this needs to be addressed and fast, before too many companies lock up every bit of content and restrict free expression.

In Beverly J. Jones’ paper Computer Graphics: Effects of Origins, she delves into the deep history of computer graphics and the way that their origins relate to many modern cultural phenomena. Her knowledge behind the history of computer graphics is quite extensive and impressive. Her thesis was clearly stated at the beginning, “By reviewing specific works and what appear to be underlying conditions and assumptions that shaped these works, I hope to establish the relation of specific image, object, event or environment to conceptual frames.” However, it took me finishing the paper to truly understand what she meant by this. Later in the paper Jones stresses the importance of interdisciplinary work and the effect that a person can have precisely because they lack an in-depth knowledge of typical practices in a particular field. This was expressed when she stated, “The potential for widespread and multiple uses of microcomputers by the general public was suggested as late as 1978 at the Second West Coast Computer Faire. Several engineers and programmers were amused because of the impossibility of there being ‘that many programmers.'” (p. 21). Then again when she wrote, “This view suffers from an optimism born of ignorance of the constraints of cultural maintenance and change, particularly the social and economic context of origins and practices.” (p.23).  One of the cultural historical examples she provides is, “Examples from other media illustrate cultural tendencies to cast developing forms of material and symbolic culture in previous modes. The stone columns of ancient Egyptian architecture were based on earlier bound papyrus columns.” (p. 21)

Though it is fiction, I view the base of the film Forest Gump to be analogous to the message Jones is trying to convey here. For those unfamiliar with the film, Forest Gump is a character who is so dimwitted he is frequently unable to understand when an impossible task is before him. Because of this, he tackles every problem wholeheartedly. This ties into the TED talk with Jane Mcdonigal, where she states that one of the amazing things about World of Warcraft is that players are presented with difficult tasks that are still achievable and, in fact, perfectly suited to their current level. If we believe that a positive outcome is possible, we are more likely to invest maximum effort. It appears that the slogan of innovators might as well be, “With enough ignorance, anything is possible!”

Bibliography

Forest Gump [Motion picture]. (1995). Paramount Pictures.

Jane McGonigal  (Recorded at TED2010, February 2010 in Long Beach, CA. Duration: 20:04)

JonJones, B. J. (1990). Computer Graphics: Effects of Origins. LEONARDO: Digital Image – Digital Cinema Supplemental Issue, pp. 21-30.es, B. J. (1990). Computer Graphics: Effects of Origins. LEONARDO: Digital Image – Digital Cinema Supplemental Issue, pp. 21-30.

Mcgonigal presents a very interesting hypothesis. Many people have wondered how to harness the power and work that gamers put in to achieve more productive gains. Jane Mcgonigal is the first that I’ve heard of that that had a completely altruistic motivation for doing so. She presents an interesting, and possibly viable scenario that gamers might just be our saviors. My question is this; what social problem would you have her tackle next? She tackled issues such as oil consumption and human extinction, but are there more pressing issues that you’d prefer? What about race relations with police that are spiraling out if control? Would our world be a better place if we stopped the mass use of pesticides, eradicating bees and needlessly evolving bacteria? If this truly would be a global force for good, where would you focus their efforts?

1.  Spirituality is something that one must find within him or herself. It is an overtaking of mind and body. This can be found in many different ways. It can be found most commonly through religion. Spirituality, in my opinion, is a process that can grow and change over time differently for each person.  There are many experiences throughout one’s life that help define their spirituality. One might find their “spirituality” through a tragic event such as a death of a loved one. In the end, spirituality is found or discovered. It does not have the same definition for each person.

2. Spirituality and religion are not the same but share many traits. Religion is the practice and devotion that is found in religion. The worship of God is the act of religion. However, this worship of God is a personal practice of what I define my spirituality to be. Religion is my realization of what spirituality is in my heart. There can be different definitions of spirituality, however, religion is the understanding that there is a God and/or higher power. The main difference between the two is that religion can be defined in a broad spectrum, and spirituality is most of an interpretation.

3. Creativity is plainly the use of one’s imagination. I don’t think that there are any “new” creative ideas left. They are all recycled ideas of someone that once had that idea in the past. I suppose that if there were truly something “new” that have never been thought of, it would be creative. Creativity can also be defined differently from person to person. One person might think it is creative to add chopped up hot-dog to their macaroni and cheese. Another might think that creativity must be deeper than that and should be the portrayal of a lost soul painted in a dark circle upon a canvas in an art gallery.  I am not sure what I believe to be more creative because I feel that all of these ideas have been thought through someone else’s imagination at some point in time. So what is truly creative is taking an idea and creating a completely new one.

4. The source of creativity is simple at it’s core. It is what one person has encountered in their life. Whether it be interactions with other people, to an extreme life changing experience. These “sources” are what intrigues and molds each individual’s creativity. Each individual’s creativity is different based on how they were raised and their surroundings. The source of my creativity, ideas and imagination are all stemmed from my life experiences. The source of my creativity is vastly different from everyone else. The source of creativity can be closely related to how no single snow flake is the same. However, there is no way to prove that either each individual snow flake or each individual source of creativity is different or the same.

Ann Hamilton’s inclusion in this piece perplexed me. I felt if her art addressed the issue of spirituality, it was in an extremely abstract way. While I understand that definitions of spirituality vary more than species of insects on Earth, her art seemed to deal much more with the way we interact with our physical space than with what many people would define as spirituality. Perhaps, this was intentional by the director or producer. If so, I find that fascinating. I don’t know if I have had enough time to truly digest that possibility to form a conclusion from it.

John Feodorov was, by far, my favorite artist that was highlighted in this piece. His ability to combine ancient religions into a simultaneous indictment of both those religions and the modern “religion” of money, consumerism, and the elevation of one’s own social status was both comical and thought provoking.

Shahzia Shikander’s circular (I would say cyclical) viewpoint of life, culture, and religion, was incredibly on point. Her ability to adapt without losing her roots when moving from Pakistan to Texas, came through in the evolution of her art. It was amazing to watch her explore her own growth as an artist moving from, what seemed like, an incredibly disciplined craft of miniature painting to owning the discipline as her own art to blowing it up on a grand scale in the show she was working on in the end. To go from a time frame of 3-4 years of show prep to 4 days is quite a change. She seemed to tie in some traditional Islamic themes and her description of the Arabic the the Quran was fascinating, but I didn’t really get the impression that her art was spiritual-centric, so to speak.

Lastly, we got to see a look inside James Turrell’s work. Turrell worked with light in many aspects. His life’s work seems to be creating an observatory of sorts inside a crater, where you experience the sky and celestial bodies from a different perspective.

After a brief reflection on all of these artists, it is apparent why the director chose them. I believe that most of their art might not be traditionally viewed as “spiritual art,” but I think that’s the point. That spirituality is an obscure concept. That it means many different things to many different people. It will quite possibly change for every individual at one point in their life or another. I’m pretty sure that all of these artists find at least something spiritual about their art and to fully respect their work, we need to take a look at it through that lens as well.

This is my first attempt at critiquing film, but here it goes. The example of mise-en-scene I chose was when Buffy and her love interest were leaving class. The camera starts off in a broad frame, but narrows in on them as they walk. I believe the intent here is to set the stage and show that they’re on a busy campus, but quickly focus the viewer in on the conversation. I don’t think this had any affect on the aesthetic of horror, but the zoom in technique is used quite often in horror.

There were several examples of non-diegetic sound in this piece, but I would like to focus on the music during the “silent” period. They used music a lot to heighten the intensity during action and fighting scenes. It is interesting how the void created by the lack of dialogue makes this even more important.

The diegetic sound I chose was Buffy’s scream at the end. What a great choice by the writers or director to break the vocal silence with the classic female, blood curdling scream. I think this had such a great effect, due to the minutes without dialogue.

When it comes to personal body adornment, I would have to say I am quite conservative. It’s not because I have any problem with anyone else’s choices to go to great lengths to alter their look, I would think it is a combination of apathy, functionality and how I choose to represent myself. When I look at what I’m wearing right now, it’s pretty standard American dress. I’m wearing khaki shorts, a t shirt and flip-flops. I don’t have any piercings and have no visible tattoos. The only tattoo I do have is a simple set of three numbers 2.4, 112 and 26.2 commemorating the completion of my first Ironman Triathlon on my upper right thigh. I suppose I choose to present myself in this way because that’s how I want to be perceived, but also because it’s simple. And I suppose that is how I want to be perceived as, well, simple.

To address how I have changed my personal body adornment over the years, I’d have to go back to the first time I can remember addressing the issue. I made a pact with my best friend in eighth grade that if one of us got anything pierced, the other was obligated to rip it out, because we thought piercings were stupid. It was a dumb agreement entered into by two even dumber thirteen year-olds, but I have stuck to it, mostly because I have never had any desire to pierce anything, but partly because I take a lot of pride in being a man of my word.

In high school and shortly after, I paid a lot of attention to how I looked and the clothes that I wore, but as I got older I decided that that wasn’t where I wanted to spend my time, money, and energy. So like I said, the way I dress is partly out of apathy. Another key factor is that I’ve been with my wife for eight years now. I’m by no means letting myself go, but there’s no need for me to spend a lot of time trying to attract girls anymore. Also, as I get older, I have become more accepting of my roots. I grew up in a small redneck town and I’m okay with that. I Realize that you get judged a lot by how you dress and I want to be perceived as a hard working, down to earth, simple man. I’m a “jeans and a t-shirt guy” and that’s the image I want to portray. I don’t have any visible tattoos, like I said, because I realize that, though it may be silly, I might be judged by them in a professional setting. American culture as a whole is becoming more and more accepting of “alternative” looks, but I still don’t think having gauged ears or a neck tattoo would ever be worth losing a potential job over. I remember remarking to someone about how I thought that people who got facial or neck tattoos were short sighted, because they could never get a professional job. Their response was quite enlightening to me when they said, “people who get tattoos like that don’t ever want that kind of job.” I honestly had never thought of it that way, though it does lessen your options later on in life if you change your mind.

It’s funny when I think about “the values of my peer community.” I have a lot of friends in the service industry, because I worked at bars for a while as well as friends with professional sales and marketing jobs. I also have many friends that have jobs in construction. So “my peer community’s values” are about as diverse as you might imagine. I just had lunch with a high school friend of mine who has “FUN” tattooed on his chest and “burr-itoes” tattooed on his toes, among a multitude of others. I have another friend who is a very successful sales rep for a fortune 500 company, and she has a kanji tattoo between her cleavage, if you hadn’t seen her in a bikini, you would never know. I guess my family is pretty conservative as well. My parents have always had a style that I would classify as a “standard blue collar” look. They don’t have any tattoos that I know of and the only piercings my mother have are one in each ear lobe. My extended family follows suit, though my grandma on my father’s side did get her first tattoo at 80, which I thought was pretty cool.

When people watching, admittedly I was on campus, I saw a couple different groups of people. The first could most easily be described as your stereotypical American Bro.  Then, I saw a group of employees and friends of employees hanging out in front of High Priestess Tattoo, as you might have guessed they were pretty entrenched in the body modification scene.

My initial reaction to seeing this loud, obnoxious group of guys hoot and holler down the street, with everything from their dress to their movements to their actual speech screaming, “Look at me and tell me how awesome I am!” I will not pretend that I do not have a bit of a bias toward this particular group (I worked at a campus bar for 5 years and they were consistently the worst people to deal with). There are diamonds in the rough I know, but they always seemed to be the exception rather than the rule. I won’t go on and on, but I think this article http://www.vice.com/read/this-american-bro-an-ethological-study captured it pretty well.

The second group of people in front of the tattoo parlor, were covered in various degrees of tattoos and piercings, most of which to the extent that they would not have been able to hold a corporate job ten years ago. Times are changing, and I agree that they should, but who knows what will be socially acceptable in most circles ten years from now. My assumptions about this group is that they have a strong desire for individuality and non-conformity. Though the ironic thing being they are conforming to a group norm, that group is just a minority for now.

As different as these groups are at first glance, I think they have so much in common. I believe, that they both have a desire to be noticed and stand out in a crowd, but at the same time having the very normal human desire to belong.

I’ve gone a little long, but for those of you that stuck with me this far I’ll end with this. I think that the way I dress and act on a daily basis is “right.” Before it sounds like I’m getting too high and mighty, I would argue that we all hold this belief whether we admit it or not. If you thought that the way you dressed was ridiculous or inappropriate or merely unattractive, wouldn’t you change the way you dress (assuming you had the financial freedom to do so)? Unless of course, that was what you were trying to do, and make a statement of some sort. If you are at a restaurant and you realize you are speaking (in your own opinion) too loud, do you not lower your voice? All of this is to say that we all act in a way that we think is the best way to act. This concept of “proper behavior” comes from a multitude of influences; family, friends, media, religion, etc. and is usually constantly evolving. I find it nearly impossible not to judge at all, and if you’re honest with yourself I think you’ll agree. If you disagree with me, here’s my challenge to you:

If someone with intense body odor sits next to you on the bus, is your only reaction to think, “everyone is entitled to their own standards of personal hygiene.”

If someone at a restaurant at a booth behind you is speaking so loudly about their latest sexual conquest that it is difficult to carry  on your own conversation, is your only thought, “everyone is entitled to whatever volume at which they wish to speak.”

Somehow I’ve taken a body modification topic and turned it into a post on civil liberties, so I’ll leave you with a common quote attributed to many different people, but I think I found the true source even though it might not be verbatim.

“Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man’s nose begins.” ~John B. Finch

(If you want to talk about irony, I sell beer for a living and this was a common war cry for the pro-prohibitionists)