Month: November 2013

I decided to focus on the Larry Lessig video and paper for this discussion. In the Ted Talk Lessig opens with many seemingly incongruent topics to eventually arrive at the discussion of copyright laws. Lessig believes that copyright laws how they are today are outdated.  Super strict copyright infringement laws create extremes on both sides that are both wrong. On one side of the argument you have sites like YouTube that now use a computer program to auto-takedown any copy infringing content even when it is being altered inter user-generated-content. On the other side are people who reject copyright laws completely. They are already seen as criminals for breaking laws to create their own content from previously made content and so see the enforcement of these laws as a joke and are prone to disobey the laws even more (say torrenting). Lessig believes: “Every single use of culture produces a copy, every single use requires permission” (Ted Talks Lessig). Just like airplanes being considered trespassing when they flew over people’s land, Lessig believes copyright laws restricting the use of ‘culture’ for user-generated content are outdated laws. He believes that “artists and creaters must embrace sharing” (Ted Talks Lessig). If the artists can get on board the laws will follow. However, he is very against people using this copyrighted material for profit and commercial usage.

Our generation is one in which we use and share all sorts of content. I have done a bit of torrenting, made music videos (for classes) using other people’s songs, and streamed television shows on ad free sites. It is hard to find the line when there is so much gray area. We can find any music or movie we desire at the click of a button, for a price or for free and the rest is up to morals and what is perceived as right or wrong. Lessig believes this bad behavior would stop if people were given some leniency with user-generated content and able to create their own content. He thinks that people only reject copyrights completely because they are already living against the law so whats the harm in taking it a step further.

Do you believe that less stringent copyright laws would heal the corrosive nature of people living against the law and cause them to obey the laws that are in place?

I don’t think that if copyright laws were more lenient there would be a shift away from torrenting and general piracy of content. These are options that have become so accessible and natural in our culture that a change in laws wouldn’t do anything to stop them. Once people have experienced something beneficial to themselves it’s hard for them to give it up. Making more lenient laws would only prove to them what they’re doing isn’t wrong. Plus I see the abolition of outdated copyright laws as the government giving an inch and the public taking a mile.

In Beverly Jones’ article: Computer Graphics: Effects of Origins she discusses how technology has become an art or technology has at least adopted past art forms to create a fusion of old and new. Her thesis is: “it is a premise of this paper that old cultural patterns do not die. They may fade or become more evident; that is they may be deemphasized or emphasized” (Jones 51). What Jones is saying is that the new takes from the old in an ever-evolving process. It might get to the point at which you can’t clearly see the original inspiration or thought (or art form) that created the new, but the old will still be there. Her premise is basically that “new” things are usually based off of older things. She supports her assertion with a few examples from history: “The stone columns of ancient Egyptian architecture were based on earlier bound papyrus columns. Early-oil paintings-were similar in technique to egg tempura paintings and did not take advantage of oil’s mixing properties, slower drying: and resultant appearance of softer edges. Early mass-produced furniture imitated handcrafted furniture in form and applied ornamentation” (Jones 51). Basically in a world with ever-growing technology and innovations we still borrow from the past. Even when a new technology first comes around, like oil paintings, we may not at first use them to their full advantages because we are used to the old form of art and so look at it from that perspective. In today’s culture new things are forever taking from the old. Movies are continuously being rehashed, remade, or simply parallel an existing movie. Avatar was Pocahontas with better graphics and better technological innovation but in its barebones it was the same thing. “Paint” on Microsoft computers allows you to use different brushes and strokes to create digital artwork but there is no necessity for the applicators to be called paintbrushes because it isn’t real painting but it borrows this terminology from the old to give the new meaning.  These days “new” ideas all come from older ones. The ‘wheel’ will forever be being improved upon but it will still in essence be a wheel.

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

The Ted Talk featuring Jane McGonigal really intrigued me. She stated that the internal power we gain from playing games can be applied to the outside world. Furthermore, we can make games that help affect how we interact with the real world and in doing so improve the world. McGonigal has a very bright outlook on our future, she thinks that games can be a positive change on our world. She thinks that there are four main “superpowers” that gamers get from their online experiences: blissful productivity, social fabric, urgent optimism, and epic meaning. This is the point that made me questionable, do all or most gamers really gain those four skills from playing online games?

I could understand some people achieving some of those skills but McGonigal is insistent that all gamers have these traits. Now I’m not a World of Warcraft player but I do enjoy video games. I can understand the social fabric to an extent because when I was younger I did develop friends over Xbox Live, people I had never met in real life and people I will never meet in real life and that’s the problem. ALthough these voices over my speaker were real people and I interacted with them multiple times a week it didn’t make me any better at being social in reality (I was a very shy kid) and if anything gave me more reason not to go and find more present friends because I had these friends across the country. As for blissful productivity, yes in the game I seemed productive and I was on task but in reality it took away from my school work. McGonigal states that at the current rate gamers are spending the same amount online as they are in classes from 5th to 12th grade. I may have been present at school but my schooling and homework was always delayed and procrastinated to play video games. I do not believe the type of productivity can be transferred to the real world. As for urgent optimism and epic meaning, I was optimistic about games and got a lot of meaning from them but that didn’t transfer over to my real life. That is from my personal experience but I would like to hear if others think those four skills are obtainable from games.

 

1. How do you define “spirituality”?

I think that spirituality is a sense of ease that can lead to inspiration when you truly have a deep connection to your soul. If you have a high spirituality you can access your spirit and are more finely tuned to the world around you. Being spiritual allows you to cut through the clutter of your usual conscious egoic tendencies and think on a deeper and more profound level. This is often accessed in group settings that rely heavily on ritual like religion but I do believe you can have high spirituality without religion.

2. Does spirituality differ from religion?

I think spirituality does differ from religion. Religion is a great way to reach spirituality. People find themselves part of something bigger, something powerful and that can lead to a sense of spirituality. However, I do not feel that religion and spirituality have to be connected. Spirituality is an inside driving force; it can lead to inspiration and creativity. Religion allows people to be part of a community where they share similar values and beliefs. Due to this connection these people may get inspired and access their spiritual selves but they aren’t the same thing.

3. How do you define “creativity”?

Creativity is a skill. It isn’t something you can practice or get better or worse at it just the imaginative ability of your brain. You can get better at attaining your creative mindset and can push what you use creativity for to greater heights but I don’t see it as a tangible ability you can train for. You either are creative or aren’t. Creativity is the backbone to innovation and without creative people we wouldn’t have the technology and advantages we take for granted everyday.

4. What is the source of creativity?

I think that everybody has a different source for creativity. Much like inspiration creativity isn’t something that can be forced. It has to come in its own fluid way and is most likely to come to those who aren’t looking for it. I think creativity stems from being relaxed. If you’re stressing about having to come up with an idea then your brain is unlikely to come up with anything. Creativity comes to me from relaxation. I find that I am most creative after meditation; a point at which my brain has gotten past the “egoic boundaries” (Grey 72) that normally blocks my creativity.

I found two articles that explore human beings’ peculiar nature to escape into horror, a genre that stimulates fear and anxiety.

The first article I read was “The Curious Appeal of Horror” by Lucy O’Brien. O’Brien brings up multiple points for why we are drawn to horror. The first point she brings up is that of curiosity. Humans are innately curious. Although this curiosity isn’t as profound as thought provoking questions like: is there life on other planets or which came first the chicken or the egg horror still stimulates our curiosity of the unknown. “We want to see things we wouldn’t usually see in our daily lives”, says O’Brien. She further articulates that the draw of horror is from a persistent urge to see events out of the norm and considered illicit, think forbidden fruit. “Part of the appeal of horror comes down to a basic thrill of seeking out that which we’re not meant to see” (O’Brien). We aren’t meant to see people tortured, beaten, abducted, or killed but horror lets us see all of those things while keeping it not real. The fictitious nature of the events on screen are key for two reasons. The first reason being that if the horror is fictional we can feel in control of it instead of the fear of it controlling us. O’Brien references a study done by Jonathon Haidt, Clark McCauley, and Paul Rozin. In this study the three men exposed a group of horror movie fanatics to: “a series of video scenes depicting real-life horrors –specifically, animals being slaughtered and explicit surgery – and 90% of them turned the video off before it had reached its end” (O’Brien).  If the action is real there is no way to end it, there are no credits because it is real life violence. The fictitious nature allows us to grab a bag of popcorn and enjoy the faux fear knowing that when we go to bed at night a real ghost isn’t going to attack us or a masked man isn’t going to break into our house with a chainsaw. The other main point about violence fiction is brought up by O’Brien through a quote from Warren Ellis. Ellis states: ““Fiction is how we both study and de-fang our monsters. To lock violent fiction away, or to close our eyes to it, is to give our monsters and our fears undeserved power and richer hunting grounds” (O’Brien). Ellis is saying that the only true way of understanding and coming to terms with real life violence is to see it through the guise of fictional violence. We don’t actually want to take part or be a part of violence but the only way to learn about it is to see it. The final reason O’Brien brings up for why we watch horror is the apparent catharsis we get from watching these acts. The violent animal in us is allowed to come out without there being any social repercussions. “ As sports games are the modern equivalent of war, King suggests, horror movies are the modern equivalent of a savage and chaotic public lynching” (O’Brien). We want to see these grotesque events without actually participating in them. Society provides outlets for our deepest darkest selves. We watch sports for the rivalries, the competition, the feeling of victory but don’t go out and fight the other team (hopefully). We watch horror for the violence, the fear, and the insanity of it all so in turn we don’t have to go be violent and crazy. These are all very good reasons for why we watch horror. I believe O’Brien demystifies the notion that Carroll questions about in the reading  “the apparent delight with which we dwell upon objects of pure terror, where our moral feelings are not in the least concerned and no passion seems to be excited but the depressing one or fear, is a paradox of the heart” (Carroll). We get a lot more from horror than fear itself although the fear in turn helps us grow and better ourselves. It lets us escape from real world horror as well as come to terms with it and that is why horror exists.

Sharon Begley is the author of the second article I read entitled: “Why Our Brains Love Horror Movies”. Sharon brings up a lot of similar points as O’Brien did although she disagrees with catharsis as being a main reason to watch scary movies. Begley quotes a professor emeritus of psychology, Stuart Fischoff in saying: “ the scare we crave—and this applies to haunted houses and spooky corn mazes no less than to horror movies—is a safe one” (Begley).  We seek thrills but want safe thrills. This applies even more to people who have relatively calm uneventful lifestyles. “our nervous system requires periodic revving, just like a good muscular engine” (Begley). Fear and horror help stimulate us. As Carroll says “It stimulates our cognitive appetite with the prospect of something previously inconceivable” (Carroll 287). People who need more excitement in their lives are drawn much more to horror movies said a 1195 study. This helps to show why horror movies are especially popular with teenagers and young adults. These folks are more likely to look for intense experiences. Once you hit middle age there are plenty of real-life terrors like unemployment, divorce, etc. to keep you on your toes that you no longer need the stimulation from horror. Begley believes that the catharsis theory isn’t the true reason we look to horror.

“Jung argued that horror touches on primordial images in the collective unconscious. But since there is no evidence that many of us have repressed feelings of drowned children like Freddy marauding through a summer camp in Friday the 13th, let alone that that’s part of our collective unconscious, such psychoanalytic explanations for the appeal of fear have fallen by the wayside.” (Begley)

Basically, catharsis would only be a plausible explanation if we were very violent in our early lives or even evolutionary selves. The collective has yet to show that our society is subconsciously or consciously as violent as horror movies depict and so there is no reason why we should relate or appreciate them on a cathartic basis. Begley believes the appreciation of horror is due to the moral code they depict. “You can be pretty sure that the girl who has sex with her boyfriend will wind up dead (as parodied in the Scream movies), as will teenagers who pick up deranged hitchhikers. Horror films thus appeal to people who like predictability and neat ends” (Begley). Scary movies are easy to predict. You know what is going to happen and that gives a sense of empowerment to the viewer. They help teach what not to do (like never split up or don’t sleep around) because there are repercussions and in horror movies those are taken to extremes. Another reason Begley brings up is that horror movies help to teach you how to control fear. Horror movies teach you how to cope with your environment and your negative emotions. Begley ends with stipulating that despite horror movies’ ability to excite and all of the other positives they are less popular than other genres due to the level of unsettlement they can leave with the viewer. The fear perpetuated by the movie leaves the viewer with less than fond memories. So there are many reasons why we watch horror, more than one can be true, but what is evident is that horror is necessary in our society whether it is for thrill, catharsis, or education.

Bibliography

Begley, Sharon. “Why Our Brains Love Horror Movies.” The Daily Beast. Newsweek/Daily Beast, 25 Oct. 2011. Web. 11 Nov. 2013.

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.

 

O’Brien, Lucy. “The Curious Appeal of Horror Movies.” IGN.com. IGN, 9 Sept. 2013. Web. 11 Nov. 2013.

Non-Diegetic Sound: I chose my example of non-diegetic sound to be at 15:30 and going through the scene until 18:00. I chose this selection because it starts right after a long period of diegetic sound (she gets out of bed, brushes her teeth, opens a door) and this causes the non-diegetic music to really stand out. The music is non-diegetic because the characters in the show cannot hear it. The music that is playing in the background builds up intensity as everyone realizes they no longer can talk. The way the music slowly increases in rhythm and noise helps emphasize the lack of diegetic sound and the breach of normality. This breach of normality gives the viewer a sense of unease. Furthermore, the intensity of the music with little to know diegetic sound causes the direness of the situation to be realized.

Diegetic Sound: A good example of diegetic sound during this episode of Buffy would be at: 28:20. There is no non-diegetic sound going on which is one of the reasons I picked the scene. The scene has two primary sounds. The sound of the music and the sound of the main guy flipping around his presentation slides. The music correlates to the story going on with the slides, which gives the whole scene a more dramatic and resounding effect. The lack of non-diegetic sound allows all of the in-scene sounds to stand out. The grabbing of a book and the walking of footsteps as they are leaving the presentation all gain emphasis from the lack of other noise.

Mise-en-scene: Mise-en-scene is everything you can see within the frame of a scene.  I chose to look at the mise-en-scene starting at 22:48. The scene starts out with a sharp angle down so you can only see the floating feet of the creatures. This immediately shows that they are levitating which is important to show the abnormality them. It shifts to a long shot that shows the procession of creatures headed into town. This is important to show how many there are and what they’re doing. All of the main monsters are wearing suits with baldheads and crooked smiles. The “minions” all have bent backs and are wearing straight jackets. The lighting is dark to give the appearance of nighttime although some light shines on the creatures to emphasize their features. The slow motion of the creatures seems methodical and adds to the eeriness of the whole scene. I picked this scene because it used primarily to establish the creatures as the villains.

I don’t think I explicitly wear any unique item that displays my personal beliefs or values daily. However, a lot can still be said about the way I dress. The style in which I dress has changed a lot over the years. When I was a little kid I wore shirts that displayed things I liked the most. I had so many shirts with different animals on them because I loved nature and animals. I almost solely watched Animal Planet and Discovery channel; my clothing reflected these choices. I remember my favorite shirt was a toss up between one that had a giant sea otter on it and another that had a tiger on it.  You actually see shirts like these popularized because of their “vintage” feel, however when I wore them they weren’t ever really popular. Nevertheless this was predominately what I wore as a little kid and my parents were fine with; they let me dress as I chose. When I moved to San Diego my wardrobe took a drastic shift. I believe a lot of it had to do with the culture surrounding San Diego. The children there were a lot more pretentious and conceited. It was a much different culture than that of my small-town Mid-western origins. My outward appearance was critiqued and made fun of and so I adapted my appearance to match my peers. I wore a lot of brands such as Billabong, Vans, and DC. I used these as a type of cloak for a few years until I stopped being so self-conscious and started caring less about being judged by appearance. This brings us to how I dress present day. I don’t wear any makeup or jewelry (never have); I occasionally wear a watch but not all the time. I currently dress mainly for comfort and functionality. I hated those years I had to dress to keep up with trends (and I was normally always behind them anyway). My parents raised me not to worry about fashion; they’ve always been practical. I wear clothes that are comfortable for me and hopefully look good but I’m not worried about the brand I’m wearing. That might say that I’m not extremely worried about my social status. I used to always want to be in the “in” crowd but I’ve outgrown that desire. I think I’m pretty cool and if other people think that then great but otherwise I don’t mind. I’m really not drawn to social displays of wealth; in fact people who adorn themselves in very flashy attire and flaunt their wealth put me off. I see myself as having three types of dress: fraternity attire, duck attire, and casual attire.

I put fraternity attire in a category by itself because I wear it so much and I think it says something distinct about myself. When I choose to put on letters or anything with my organization on it I am choosing to not only represent myself that day but also my fraternity. My fraternity lives by the values of love, honor, and truth; I am especially attuned to these values while I am representing it with attire. Since I am wearing the clothes it makes me think more about it and I wouldn’t say it changes me at all but I do think it makes me act out my values a lot more than I normally do. I pay the most attention in class, and often sit closer to the front (or in the front) when I am in letters because when somebody sees me goofing off or daydreaming in casual attire their thought is “look at that guy” when it’s in fraternity attire it’s “look at that frat guy, they’re probably all like that”. So not only am I able to disprove beliefs of the stereotypical “frat” image that is perpetuated by the media and some of our peers in other fraternities but I am also able to be more productive and attentive personally. Fraternity attire brings out the best in me.

Duck attire is a shared category for my fellow University of Oregon peers and myself. Wearing clothes that portray our University demonstrates our affection for the campus, the school, and our duck sports teams. I do truly love my ducks and I think it’s a sentiment shared around campus. Even though we are all students and don’t need to define ourselves as “ducks” around school because it is obvious while taking classes my peers and I still wear this clothing to signal our passion for our school. I wear something that says Oregon on it basically everyday. Whether it happens to be a pair of shorts, workout clothes, a beanie, or sweatshirt duck attire is very integrated in whom I am.

Casual attire is everything else I wear. Normally I wear a simple pair of jeans, sweatpants, or shorts and a comfortable shirt. I don’t have too many preferences besides that. I like a little bit of a design and am often drawn to shirts that have horizontal stripes. I’m not sure what that says about it except that I’m not overly picky. I do prefer comfort over fashion. I feel like that makes me very practical and efficient.