Month: November 2014

Relaxation

Creativity

Color

Black & white

Patience

Passion

Technique

Unique

Thoughtful

Detail

For this week’s assignment, I broke out of my usual routine tackled the final posting first.  The artistic and creative nature of it was appealing and it was fun to think about the subject matter as I pulled it together.  I played around with lots of different images and while I landed on a set that are “stock” images available for public consumption, I did consider several that might require permission to reprint them under certain circumstances.  Reading Richard Koman’s interview of Lawrence Lessig caused me to think differently about my own process and to wonder if what I was doing was contributing to “remix culture.”  My collage, while nothing to hang in a museum, was the gathering of creativity based on creativity” to form something new.  It is curious to me, as Lessig points out in “Cultures Compared” that there are those people, including attorney Charles Simes, who believe that this type of creativity is worthless.  Specifically, he and others believe that engaging in this kind of creative mixing is “ … a fundamental failure of imagination.” (Lessig, 91)  My question is how can this be true?  Who is to say what is imaginative and what is not when it comes to the artistic process regardless of consumer or economic value?

Art, Games, and Technology Research

In the simplest terms, the central thesis of Beverly Jones’ piece, Computer Graphics: Effects of Origins, is that the history of computer graphics and technology greatly informs modern day achievements in this realm.  Jones, who is most likely an engineer, offers a more detailed and complicated explanation when she says, “Electronic and photonic art forms have been and will continue to be influenced by their origins and practices.  In this paper the origins and practices of computer graphics from 1945 to the present are examined to reveal cultural patterns embedded in their material and symbolic form.” (Jones, 21)  In other words, early computer graphics technology, going back nearly seventy years, can be seen in what Jones called the “conceptual frames” of new technologies.

Jones offers several historical examples to help illustrate her thesis including scientists working at Bell Labs in the 1960’s.  In 1966, two such scientists, Knowlton and Harmon, “… produced gray-scale images from drawings, photographs and real objects by using data from a photodensitometer (a device that measures the degree of darkness of a photograph). “ (Jones, 24)  Other examples at Bell Labs that were precursors to computer aided scientific and artistic work include E. Zajak depiction of a satellite orbiting in space in 1964 and in 1967, A. Michael Noll’s production of a film that “depicts a four-dimensional object rolling through our three dimensional world.” (Jones, 24)  The work of these scientists, nearly fifty years ago, “ … prefigure the work of scientific visualization, in which things that have never been seen and may never be seen are presented as graphic imagery to stimulate conceptual thinking.  This imagery augments thought formerly supported by alphanumeric and primitive graphic symbols.” (Jones, 24)  While complicated to understand in the specific, Jones is painting a picture of how computer graphics today have come about because of the deliberate layering of one discovery upon another to achieve greater and greater success.  Today’s computer and technology advancements are not something Jones likely imagined at the time she wrote the article in 1990.

Jones’ belief that early computer graphic advances influence current applications can be seen in many circumstances. In particular, I was exposed to one such example last summer during my internship at the HopeLab Foundation.  HopeLab’s mission is to harness the power and appeal of technology to improve human health and well-bring.  One of HopeLab’s most successful products is called Remission and Remission 2 – interactive video games designed to help children and teenagers with cancer fight their disease.  The games place the players/patients inside the human body and use a variety of weapons such as chemotherapy, antibiotics, and the body’s own immune system.  The games were designed specifically to motivate young people to stick to their treatment plans by improving self-efficacy and positive emotions. (HopeLab Website)

The creation of Remission and Remission 2 is an example of Jones’ thesis that early efforts in computer graphics inform more current incarnations. Unlike early video game design teams, Remission’s was comprised of programmers, artists, and scientists.  In early video game production, the programmer and the designer were often one and the same.  But, as games became more complex and computers more advanced, video game production took the basic platform for game design and added many layers including separate teams for programming and design.  Sometimes, the design team is broken into sub-teams because the effects have become so refined and specialized.  (Games Design Forum Website)  In addition to the programming and design teams, Remission was developed with significant input from scientists who helped the designers understand the underlying human behaviors that would make the game successful.  This unique collaboration speaks to Jones’ view that, “The development of computer graphics reflects trends diminishing the rigidity of boundaries among disciplines and applications.  Contemporary work in disciplines formally untouched by computer graphics now reveal convergence … “(Jones, 22).  Until the creation of Remission seven years ago there had never been a video game, based on scientific research, designed to address the issues facing young cancer patients.  The well-documented development of Remission demonstrates how one type of technology created for a particular use can be enhanced and reused for purposed previously unimagined.

Hopelab.org,. ‘Hopelab’. N.p., 2014. Web. 24 Nov. 2014.

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

Thegamedesignforum.com,. ‘An Introduction To Videogame Design History’. N.p., 2014. Web. 24 Nov. 2014.

Wikipedia,. ‘Densitometer’. N.p., 2014. Web. 24 Nov. 2014.

Wikipedia,. ‘Video Game Design’. N.p., 2014. Web. 24 Nov. 2014.

In her 2010 TED Talk, video game designer Jane McGonigal talks about her desire to use games to solve some of the world most pressing problems such as hunger, poverty, obesity, and global conflict.  By her own admission, she says her goal is counter intuitive because even in 2010 numbers we would need to go from playing three billion hours of games per week to 2100 billion hours per week to accomplish this.  Yet, she firmly believes that gamers excel in four key areas that can serve as a model for real life problem solving including:  urgent optimism and self motivation; a high level of social connection; blissful productivity and happiness when working hard; and epic meaning attaching to awe inspiring work.   I love McGonigal’s notion of gamers having super powers and what a unique and awesome way to think about tackling societal issues.  But, I wonder if these super powers that come to the surface in the virtual world could really be transferred to the real world?  Do gamers have the focus and creativity they do specifically because they have stepped out of the real world?  I am not a big video game player but I have to imagine that people are drawn to games, of all kinds, because they represent a break from reality, much like movies or books.  I am really curious how McGonigal might propose getting us to those 2100 billion hours of gaming and for real world problem solving, what are the rules of such a game?

McGonigal, Jane. ‘Gaming Can Make A Better World’. Ted.com. N.p., 2014. Web. 20 Nov. 2014.

1. How do you define “spirituality”?

For me spirituality means connecting with something outside the physical world that serves as a guidepost for how I live my life.  My spirituality definitely has roots in the Jewish tradition in which I was raised but I don’t believe it is the same thing as religion (see question #2).  These unseen but deeply felt guideposts are like an invisible border around my values and they make themselves known when I stray from them in either thought or action.  They help me remember to be kind even when I don’t feel like it and to think carefully before judging others.  They remind me to be open to what the world has to offer and to show up every day with gratitude.

2. Does spirituality differ from religion?

Yes, spirituality definitely differs from religion. I think religion in general or a specific religion (like Judaism) is defined as such because it has a specific framework with shared beliefs, common rituals, and sometimes strict rules about who is “in” the group and who is “out.”  Religion is more about a particular community or group.  I see spirituality as more of an individual thing that gets developed over time as someone grows, matures, and experiences life.  However, I do think spirituality and religion are related.  For example, I don’t think of myself as a religious person even though I was raised Jewish and believe deeply in many Jewish values and traditions. My spirituality is connected to these values, as well as others not unique to Judaism, but it is unique to me.

3.How do you define “creativity”?

I think there are many ways to demonstrate creativity including doing something outside established norms, breaking or bending rules, or approaching situations in ways previously unexplored.  Acts of creativity can have huge impact such as Steve Jobs’ creation of the Mac or Pete Frates creation of the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge.  But, I also think there are less well-known or even unknown acts of creativity that happen everyday because people take a different approach to something.  I am reminded of my roommate Arianna when I filmed her for our unit on food as art.  She is a fantastic baker and she tries new things all the time.  So, creativity can be public or personal and have great influence or none at all.

4. What is the source of creativity?

I think the source of one’s creativity is as individual as the person doing the creating.  For some it might be their passion for a particular endeavor like baking or painting.  For others it might be something they physically experience, as Grey describes in our reading Deeply Seeing, and it drives them to paint, draw, or sculpt in a particular way.  Still others are moved by existing works of art or music and get inspired to create their own.  I think nature and the physical word also serves as inspiration for creativity.

After my initial reading of the chapter, Deeply Seeing, I have to admit to finding it somewhat inaccessible.  I am not an artist and I had a hard time understanding the author’s view of the artistic process.  Not that I don’t appreciate that artists, of all types, experience life in a way that informs their particular practice, but I found myself grappling with Grey’s descriptions and explanations.   However, I reread the chapter and some sections a third time and believe I have a better understanding of what Grey is offering.  That said, his journey to answering the question he poses,  “But what is the difference between merely looking at a thing and actually seeing it?” (71) feels convoluted and overwrought.  But, as he notes in the section about the chakras, “It is a matter of my personal preference to use this chart with seven levels.” (94) So, I tried to take in the reading as one man’s personal exploration of creative endeavors and how his spirituality impacts his own artistic product and his views of the creative process overall.

Clearly, the entire piece is very personal to Grey and his spiritual self is as important to him as his artistic self.  In fact, I think what Grey is saying underneath a lot of words is that the outcome of deeply seeing something is a spiritual experience and that in turn is a key ingredient to an artistic endeavor.  To be an artist, one must be able to truly see the world (as opposed to simply looking) because as Grey defines it, “Seeing occurs when our attention is arrested by a person, object, or scene.  Our mind stops chattering and pays attention.” (72) When this happens, Grey goes further to say, “when deeply seeing, the object of our contemplation enters our heart and mind directly.  In the act of deeply seeing, we transcend the egoic boundaries between self and the otherness of the world, momentarily merging with the thing seen.” (72) These two comments set the context for Grey’s practices as an artist and his belief that spirituality, in other words deeply seeing, is a significant force for creativity.

Later in the chapter, Grey talks about the creative process and the six steps he believes accurately captures it.  Step four, inspiration, is where Grey makes his case that artists follow a spiritual path towards creation of their work.  He says, “To in-spire is to be in spirit. Inspiration means access to spirit.” (82) Interestingly, the next section immediately following Grey’s explanation of inspiration is called “Seeing Art” and this is where Grey blurs the focus from the artist and his or her creative process to include that of the viewer of art.  He uses language such as, “ Many of us can recall profoundly moving experiences of art” but in reading and rereading this section, he is largely focused on his own experience of truly seeing art and his resulting epiphanies.

In trying to understand Grey and his strongly held beliefs about seeing, the artistic process, and the spirituality that informs it, I thought about a project I was exposed to when I interned at the HopeLab Foundation in northern California this past summer.  HopeLab is an organization whose mission is to use the power of technology to foster wellbeing and personal resilience. As part of doing this work, HopeLab engages in a process called “user centered design thinking” whereby the target audience for a particular technology (for example an app that discourages teenage bullying) is engaged to help think through and design the best product.  To make this happen, the staff at HopeLab has designed a deep listening protocol that actually speaks to the difference between hearing and listening.  Specifically, when we hear someone speak, we take note of the words and their superficial meaning so we can respond.  In other words, hearing is waiting to respond or take action based upon what we think we heard and it is largely a passive process.  On the other hand, listening goes a level deeper and is actually an active process.  When you listen, you actively concentrate on what you hear and you take in the information to transform it into knowledge.  Listening allows you to look into the feeling and meaning of what is being said word by word.   I see many similarities between this process and Grey’s explanation of what it is to truly see something and in particular a work of art.

Grey says, “Seeing determines every aesthetic decision.” (72) I imagine one could replace a few key words and apply the same statement to listening in certain design contexts.  While I don’t pretend to deeply understand Grey’s discourse on art and spirituality, applying what I learned about hearing versus listening helped me sort through his views about the key differences between looking and seeing.

Grey, A. (2001). Art as Spiritual Practice. The Mission of Art (1st ed., pp. 205-233). Boston & London: Shambhala.

Like Noel Carroll in “Why Horror?” and Sharon Begley in “Why Our Brains Love Horror Movies,” Anthony Rivas poses the question, “Why Do We Watch Horror Films?” in the online journal, Medical Daily.  Rivas explores and provides evidence for two main theories.  First, he looks at the notion that people want to watch something that confronts or addresses what he calls our “archetypal” fears.  In other words, people want to put them selves in scary situations, like horror movies, to understand how society as a whole understands the typical notion of fear.  Second, Rivas looks at our attraction to horror films as a way to derive pleasure even if we are very scared in the process.  He compares it to what happens in the brain during other thrill seeking activities such as skydiving or bungee jumping.

It’s the second theory, that horror films give viewers a psychological ride that is both enjoyable and frightening at the same time that comports with both Carroll and Begley.  Rivas cites a 2007 study in the Journal of Consumer Research where participants were asked to watch horror films and rate their emotions as a result.  The findings revealed that, “ … although all participants expressed similar fears at the end of the clips, those who reported being horror movie lovers expressed more happiness than those who were horror movie haters.” (Rivas, p. 2) This point of view is similar to that offered by Carroll when he says, “Whatever distress horror causes, as a probably price for our fascination, is outweighed for the average consumer by the pleasure we derive in having our curiosity stimulated and rewarded.” (Carroll p. 290) Further, Rivas and Carroll are shown to be on the same page when Rivas again cites the Journal of Consumer Research study by noting, “ In the real world, people simultaneously can experience both happiness and sadness, exhilaration and anxiety.  People enjoy excitement even if it’s from a negative source.” (Rivas, p. 2)  Finally, in addition to the fact that fear and pleasure are related, Begley’s research explores the counterintuitive nature of this reality by confirming Rivas findings when she says, “… the stronger the negative emotions (fear, worry, etc) a person reports experiencing during horror films, the more likely he or she is to enjoy the genre.” (Begley p. 2)

One of the interesting things about Rivas exploration of our attraction to horror films is his inclusion of some biological facts alongside the psychological theories.  Thrill seekers or those wanting to experience the roller coaster effects of watching horror movies tend to be more responsive to the neurotransmitter dopamine. (Rivas p. 3)  When dopamine is released by nerve cells is sends signals to other nerve cells thereby creating the sensation enjoyed by viewers of horror movies.  The rush can last for a long time as well.  Rivas’ cites Dr. Glenn Sparks of Purdue University when he says, “He calls it the ‘excitation transfer process’ that is the culmination of a heightened heart rate, blood pressure, and respiration process that can linger after a movie.” (Rivas, p. 3)  For those who like horror movies the pleasure seems to be a full body experience.

Carroll, N. (2002). Why Horror?. In Neill, A. & Riley, A. (Eds.) Arguing About Art: Contemporary Philosophical Debates (2nd ed., pp. 275-294). New York, NY: Routledge.

Rivas, Anthony. ‘Why Do We Watch Horror Films?’. Medical Daily. N.p., 2014. Web. 10 Nov. 2014.

Wikipedia,. ‘Dopamine’. N.p., 2014. Web. 10 Nov. 2014.

I am not a fan of horror movies so I don’t spend much time watching them let alone researching them.  But, I have to admit that reading about the science beyond the allure of the horror genre was very interesting.  There is a great deal of information available and many theories to consume about this about this topic but I found Sharon Begley’s article, “Why Our Brains Love Horror Movies” fun to read.  Begley presents her information in a much more accessible fashion than Noel Carroll does in “Why Horror?” but they reach some of the same conclusions about our interest and pleasure in the horror genre.

Begley’s article highlights several different findings to help explain our interest in scary movies including the idea that people want and even crave being scared but in a controlled or safe environment; people, especially teenagers and young adults, seek intense experiences; horror movies tend to be predictable with neat or resolved happy endings and appeal to people who appreciate this while at the same time being repulsed and; the experience can help people, again especially teenagers, manage being afraid or terrorized.  In the end, what stands out in Begley’s exploration of the underlining reasons horror movies are popular is the data around favorite films – they are almost never among anyone’s top picks.  Dr. Stuart Fischoff, a professor of psychology at California State University, Los Angles and an editor at the Journal of Media Psychology explains this phenomenon when he says, “ … while horror films excite and arouse, they often leave people feeling nervous and unsettled … and this is not a state which leads to fond memories.”(Begley p.3)

In comparing Begley’s findings with Carroll’s, the insight of greatest similarity is that of the predictability of horror movies.  Begley offers that, “… horror movies, even slasher flicks, generally stick to an almost Victorian moral code.  You can be pretty sure that the girl who has sex with her boyfriend will wind up dead . . . as will teenagers who pick up hitchhikers . . . in these movies, there is no question about who the bad guy is.” (Begley p.2) Begley’s view is confirmed when clinical psychologist Glenn Walters of Kutztown University says, “Control lost under the cover of darkness is rediscovered in the light of day; danger posed by things unknown is reduced by increased knowledge and predictability.” (Begley p. 3) This view seems to be in concert with one of Carroll’s theories when he says, “ … these stories, with great frequency, revolve around proving, disclosing, discovering, and confirming the existence of something that is impossible …” (Carroll p. 278) such as vampires, monsters, or other horror related characters.   In other words, I would suggest that the narrative arc that Carroll describes is a predictable and familiar methodology in horror films that allows the audience to view a movie and be scared but also feel safe in knowing how it will generally end.

It’s clear from many sources that people watch and really get pleasure from horror movies for many reasons.  But, it’s the formulaic or predictable nature of such films that keep audiences coming back and asking for more.

Begley, Sharon. ‘Why Our Brains Love Horror Movies: Fear, Catharsis, A Sense Of Doom’. The Daily Beast. N.p., 2011. Web. 8 Nov. 2014

Carroll, N. (2002). Why Horror?. In Neill, A. & Riley, A. (Eds.) Arguing About Art: Contemporary Philosophical Debates (2nd ed., pp. 275-294). New York, NY: Routledge.

My posting for today is also a comment back to another comment on a previous posting.

I appreciate your comments Eric, and totally understand not being into horror movies.  I am not a big fan either.  I think what I was trying to say about being off balance during the scene where the non-diegetic music had the most impact on me, was that it lulled me into relaxing.  I knew the creepy/monster part was not yet over and still I let down my guard as the music and action moved from intense to romantic. I think this is a fairly common practice in horror films as noted in Horror History reading.  The scary and weird scenes are contrasted with, “… the minutiae of daily life …”. (AAD 250 slide 3) We can relate to the characters as they interact normally but also experience the intended the roller coaster ride of emotion that occurs during this kind of film.

I thought Carroll’s piece was interesting as well although I think he used way too many words to express his theories.  I found it very repetitive.  That said, as I understand his point of view, Carroll is saying that people actually do find pleasure in the genre of horror specifically because of the repulsion or disgust that inevitably accompanies these kinds of movies.  It does seem counterintuitive but he offers several theories to account for this reaction including, “… the pleasure derived from the horror fiction and the source of our interest in it resides, first and foremost, in the processes of discovery, proof, and confirmation that horror fictions often employ.  The disclosure of the existence of the horrific being and of its properties is the central source of pleasure in the genre …”(282) By saying this, I think Carroll is offering that it does in fact make sense that people actually enjoy scary movies.

Given all his theories, I also appreciated Carroll’s acknowledgment that there is a set of folks who like horror movies simply because it’s disgusting!

After watching Buffy the Vampire Slayer, the element of mise-en-scene that was one of the most interesting to me was towards the end of the episode when the two women from the Wicca meeting regroup after the monsters are slayed.  Here we have two college students sitting and talking in a common area on a college campus – the most normal and mundane of circumstances.  I love the contrast between that and what they have just been through and what they discover about each other.  This contrast, between a totally normal setting, their power and potential power as witches, and that of the horror they confronted just the night before makes for a great story and great theater.  The diegetic sound that had the greatest impact to me was Buffy’s screams once she got her voice back and the effect it had of blowing off the heads of the monsters.  As a character inside the scene, Buffy’s screams literally gave voice to the anxiety I was feeling.  I knew she would conquer the monsters but until the spell was broken it was unclear how it would play out. The non-diegetic sound that was most interesting to me was used in the scene when Buffy and her love interest (the secret military guy) meet on the street.  Everyone in Sunnyvale has lost the ability to speak and it’s very tense.  The background music shifts briefly from spooky, reflecting the tense mood, to soft and romantic as they see each other.  The change in background music has the effect of keeping the viewer off balance and relaxing before the real action begins.