Month: October 2012

At 02:13, there is a really scary diegetic sound. This is mostly just a movie about college and begins in a classroom, which isn’t calming but I am indifferent and definitely content as compared to the scary scenes. It isn’t calming, that’s for sure. Suddenly, you hear a girl singing in a long, dark hallway and a very vague view. This freaks me out because I’m afraid that something is going to pop out. At first though, it seemed like a non-diegetic sound, but it’s definitely diegetic.

 

The start of scene 24 is the most apparent non-diegetic sound to me because the sound gets louder and scarier when Buffy is looking out the window and the vampire appears. Then it becomes more tense because of the music and I was definitely on edge. Because the music gets louder, you know that something is going to happen.

 

The mise en scene occurs during Buffy’s dream. The lightning definitely was until she found the voice of the girl was darker. At first, it seems like she isn’t dreaming, but something doesn’t seem right. They used a dimmer light to make this effect and the loud crack of thunder and the lightning made it more horrific.

I’ve never actually really thought about how I dress or customize my look, but now looking at it, I dress unique to my personality. I wouldn’t really say that my dress reflects any religious or political beliefs, but I would say that I believe I dress for me and not for other people. Many people sometimes dress to impress and buy only designer clothes and accessories. While that may be fun to treat yourself sometimes after a big paycheck, it’s just not for me.

For starters, my favorite place to shop is Forever 21. Their clothes are fun, hip, cute and significantly less expensive than, say, Nordstrom. They have genre of clothing, so it fits the needs of many people. I wouldn’t say that I fall into any one genre. In other words, I wouldn’t call myself a hipster or prep. If I see something in the store that I like, and it looks good, then I’ll buy it. I wear preppy clothes, hipster clothes, geek clothes, indie clothes, etc. As long as I like what I’m wearing and can afford it then voila.

I wasn’t always like this, however. In high school especially, I used to really care about what people thought of me. I dressed to impress, and I didn’t mind asking for expensive clothes for birthdays or other holidays. Everything I wore had to have some sort of designer tag because I was trying to prove something to my peers. Now, I dress to impress me. I fully believe when you dress to impress other people, you do nothing but disappoint yourself.

Freshmen year of college was probably the worst for me though. I had just gotten out of a relationship and felt the need to change my appearance. I dyed my hair black and got my nose pierced. However, I wouldn’t say that I did it for myself. I did it because I thought my ex-boyfriend would find me more attractive. This did nothing but disappoint me because there I was with darker hair and a pierced nose, but I didn’t feel better about myself.

One thing that I found funny about how much I have changed since high school is the way I dress on Halloween. You always see girls walking around in basically bras and underwear. To spice it up and make their costume relevant to Halloween, they’ll add a pair of ears and call themselves a cat. I, on the other hand, dressed in a gorilla suit and went out in that outfit. I didn’t care that I wasn’t super feminine. I would rather wear an outrageously funny costume and get laughs than get the negative attention that most girls get when they dress promiscuously.

While I say I don’t dress to impress anyone, I do still have morals. The way you present yourself starts with what you wear and how you wear it. In other words, I steer clear of clothes that are too tight fitting or reveal cleavage. I like to present myself in a way that demonstrates the amount of respect I have for myself. I think that this has a lot to do with the way I was raised. I was born and raised a Catholic, and my parents are very strict Catholics. They made my brother and I go to church every Sunday, and we both attended Catholic grade school and high school. As a result, we were always told to never get tattoos or piercings because it’s a sign of disrespect. If I wore something that my dad thought was too revealing, he would make me change. I wasn’t even allowed to wear make-up until I got into high school. This may be the reason that I always wanted designer clothing because I was trying to prove that I wasn’t just the little Catholic schoolgirl. I actually think that my parents and my ex-boyfriend were the ones who drove me to pierce my nose twice and dye my hair.

Another thing that I have noticed about the way I dress is it’s very Southern Californian since I live in Bakersfield, which is really close to Southern California. Not only do I shop at Forever 21, like I had said previously, but I really like surf shops. My closet contains a lot of Roxy, Billabong, Hurley, O’Neill and Quiksilver. I like to wear my red, green and yellow poncho. I also wear surf clothes a lot because they tend to be more comfortable than a lot of other clothes.

Body alteration is very important to me. What Sanders says about it in the reading, though, isn’t completely true. He says, “Body Sculpting is reshaping the body so as to meet criteria of beauty is a common practice in many cultures.” I don’t completely agree, however. I work out at least five times a week, but it’s not to radiate beauty. I would not know what to do if I couldn’t run when I was stressed. Working out is the one way that I de-stress. It’s also important for health, which is why I body sculpt so much.

Today, my peer community values negative attention through their clothing and personal adornment. As I said earlier, girls tend to wear revealing clothing because they think the attention they get from guys is good. Both girls and guys also tend to have promiscuous piercings and tattoos on their body. Receiving negative attention seems to be valued amongst people my age, but it really doesn’t make sense to me. Girls don’t have to wear revealing clothing to get attention because there’s this other thing I’d like to call having a personality.

I definitely used to fall into that category, but I have realized over the years that I am happier and feel better when I dress to impress me, and me only. C.R. Sanders says, “A person’s physical appearance affects his or her self-definition, identity and interaction with others.” My physical appearance doesn’t define me, in my opinion. It merely shows the amount of self-respect that I have. This affects my interactions with people because I don’t feel disappointed in myself if I don’t “impress” people with what I wear.

For this assignment, I sat at the Starbucks on campus. I picked out two girls and once guy. The first girl to walk in had brown dreadlocks, was wearing brown corduroy pants and a dark green jacket with brown boots. She had a hoop ring in her nose. She was wearing very natural, neutral colors. Her hair and nose piercing made me think she was a rebel/hippie. I want to say she was between the ages of 18-21. I think she was Italian because she had an olive skin tone, brown hair and a rather large nose (These are terrible assumptions, but it’s part of the assignment). If I had to guess her background, I would say she is rebelling against something. I think she is most likely unhappy about something in the world, and has maybe chosen this “live free” lifestyle to cope, I believe.

 

The second person I saw was an African American man sitting at a table with a grande coffee studying Organic Chemistry. He was wearing khaki pants and a black pea coat. He was wearing back spectacles, white headphones and looked very concerned with whatever he was reading. I think that he is a Sophomore or Junior because that is when most of my friends took Organic Chemistry. I believe he is stressed because he keeps rubbing the top of his head in a frantic manner. I think he was most likely raised with a mother and father who made sure he always got good grades because he seems awfully concerned with the material. I think he wants to be some sort of doctor, which could mean he cares about people and their health as well as his own because he looks like he takes good care of his hygiene.

 

The third person was a blonde, Caucasian girl wearing a Kappa Kappa Gamma sweatshirt, blue jeans and black combat boots that go to about the middle section of her shins. She too is carrying an Organic Chemistry book. I believe she wants to become a doctor because of the book, which makes me think she also enjoys helping people. I have no idea which race she is, but I’d assume German since she is blonde-haired and blue-eyed. She seems indifferent to her surroundings, so I think that she has something other than school and coffee on her mind. Since she is wearing a sorority sweatshirt, I would assume that she is into charity and extra curricular activities

This online article tackles the significance of food in culture and argues that taste, like food, is a form of art. The article basically talks about how to define art, and how food can be considered art once one has a clear definition of art. The article defines art as man-made and as an object treated by society as primarily an object of aesthetic consideration even if that was the original intent. It goes on to clearly state its position on defining food as an art once it has a clear definition of art itself. The article states that the functionality of food is not necessary to the appreciation. Basically, the article mentions several arguments stating that food is not art and refutes them based on literature and the author’s own personal opinion. Human emotion is an essential part of art. The article basically says that food ties closely onto art because of the close cultural connections that people make with what they eat.

To argue my case that food is in fact art, I will start by using Ellen Dissanayake’s definition of the arts.

“Included in the many new approaches and subjects that the 18^th century thinkers turned their attention to was a subject that came to be called ‘aesthetics’ – 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” (“What is Art for?” 17).

It is definitely possible for one to eat a meal and have associations with that food that cause aesthetic experiences, according to the definition of Crystal Neely, author of “The Significance of Food in Culture: Is Taste an Art Form?” For example, whenever I eat turkey, I always think of Thanksgiving. Whenever I think of Thanksgiving, I think of being home in California with my mom, dad, brother, aunts, uncles and grandparents. When I think of being with my family, I feel happy. In a way, one could say that I have an emotional attachment to turkey because I think of my family when I eat it. Neely also goes on to say that our beliefs are also a major factor is deciphering what is art. Furthermore, defining food as art is completely relative. “Our beliefs are shaped from a young age and depend greatly on what we are exposed to. Religion, or lack thereof, racial background, and family traditions all play a large role in shaping our social, political and moral views” (Neely, 1). In other words, turkey for me reminds me of Thanksgiving, which then reminds me of being with my family. However, many cultures do not celebrate Thanksgiving, so when a person from a different culture indulges in turkey, it may just be a piece of meat. Art is defined by human emotion. In my opinion, art makes a person feel, and it definitely makes a person think beyond the concrete version of whatever they are looking at.

Neely brings a second argument into the picture. She quotes another individual who says that in order to appreciate art there needs to be some level of distance. “The physicality of the act of appreciating food violates this distance and therefore food cannot be considered art.” Yet, this statement is wrong in my opinion and Neely’s. “In my opinion, the physicality of the act only brings the emotional appreciation nearer and enhances the experience” (Neely, 3). Tefler also argues for food as an art form because a person cannot appreciate an art form unless it means something to him or her (Tefler, “Food as Art?”). In other words, a painting may seem like the most typical form of art, right? However, to one person that painting may not mean anything. It may just be a few strokes of a paintbrush on a canvas. The same goes for something as simple as a plate of pasta. It could be a reminder of home for an Italian foreigner and create an emotional tie to one’s own homeland whereas it could just be carbohydrates for an athlete. Art is different for every person and to lessen any one thing by saying it is not worthy of being art because it is not as complex as some things is absolutely wrong, in my opinion.

The last argument that Neely brings up is what part of food do people consider an art? Is it the chef? Is it the plate? Is it the restaurant? Is it the equipment?  “Again the discrepancies of individual taste come into play. So although the questions regarding the ontological status of food as art may be valid, they are not unique to food and therefore not sufficient to dismiss it as an art form” (Neely, 4). I completely agree with this statement. Tefler says, “As before, the answer to the difficulty is that even where a dish is a structure such as a pie, the aspect of it which is relevant to aesthetic appraisal is not the structure, which is destroyed as soon as the dish is started, but the combination of flavours, which runs right through the eating like letters through a stick of rock” (Tefler, 17-18). The food is the art and should not be lessened by the structure on which it is served.

All in all, there are two necessary components to art, which Neely defines as human emotion and culture. “The feelings of nostalgia, security, closeness, and comfort brought about by a meal are sufficient to make food art so long as it meets the second criterion which is intent” (Neely, 4).

REFERENCES

Dissanayake, E. What is Art For? [On-line Article]. Retrieved October 21, 2012 from http://aaablogs.uoregon.edu/aad250-shuette/files/2010/09/2-dissanayake.pdf

Neely, C. (2007). The Significance of Food in Culture: Is Taste an Art Form? [On-line Journal]. Retrieved October 21, 2012 from http://www.uwlax.edu/urc/jur-online/PDF/2007/neely.pdf

Tefler, E. (2002). Food as Art. [On-line Article]. Retrieved October 21, 2012 from http://aaablogs.uoregon.edu/aad250-shuette/files/2010/09/3-tefler.pdf

 

 

I would just like to start out this blog post by saying that I completely believe that food is art. Being the non-picky kind of person that I am, food is art not just because of its taste but also because of its texture, color, process and smell. The way food is prepared is probably one of the most obvious reasons why food is art. It requires skill, sometimes passion, certain tools, certain ingredients and machinery like ovens, microwaves and stoves. Just as painting requires a paint brushes, paper, canvases, etc., so does food just with a different kind of paint brush.

 

For example, Telfer states, “First, it is generally agreed that there can be aesthetic reactions to tastes and smells. (There can also, of course, be visual aesthetic experiences connected with foodstuffs, as when one admires a rosy apply, but these raise no questions peculiar to food and drink)” (Telfer, 11). In this sentence, Telfer compares the experience of see a beautiful work of art such as a painting or a sculpture to that of a red apple. She also states that it is possible to look at a landscape and be indifferent to it but also recognize its beauty. I think that this is the same for food. While a person may look at a doughnut and just see fried dough, another person may look at it and notice the bright pink frosting with sprinkles that are the color of the rainbow. That same person may even take a bite of that doughnut and experience a brief moment of ecstasy as the sugar engulfs their mouth. “Second, as with the other examples of aesthetic experiences connected with reaction, we can distinguish liking the taste and smell of food from approving of it instrumentally on the ground that it is nourishing, fashionable or produced by politically respectable regimes” (Telfer, 11).

 

I’d have to say Modernism: Art as Ideology best defines my view of food as art. For example, Dissanayake, in her essay “What is Art for?”, she states, “This was that there is a special frame of mind for appreciating works of art —  a “disinterested attitude that is separate from one’s own personal interest in the object, its utility, or its social or religious ramifications” (17). She goes on to say, “’Disinterest’ implied that viewers could appreciate any art, even the artwork of eras or cultures far removed from their own, whether or not they understood the meaning the works had for the people who made and used them. Art was universal” (18). For many different cultures, say Third World countries, food become more than food. It can be considered an art and a delicacy because food tends to be scarce. “Likewise we can distinguish the person who ‘enjoys his food’ but does not notice what he eats, from the person whose awareness is more vivid – the latter reaction being the only one which is characteristically aesthetic” (Telfer, 11). The girl in Africa who bites into a juicy red apple may see it differently than I do. She sees it as a lifesaver. Her awareness of this scarcity is an art making the food an art. Her awareness is more vivid. She doesn’t take it for granted, like many people do when it comes to art…not matter what kind of art you’re seeing.

Defining the term paleoanthropsychobiological is simply a matter of breaking down the word. By definition, paleo refers to history, anthrop refers to human, psycho refers to psychological and biological refers to biological. When one combines each of these terms, the word is the understanding of human nature and the society in which he lives. I belief that Ellen Dissanayake coined this term herself as a way of not only defining and explaining ‘Art’ but also as a way to get her audience to understand ‘Art.’

Dissanayake uses the phrase “making special” to differentiate between the mundane and the extraordinary. In my opinion, humans take too many of the beautiful things in life (which can be considered art) for granted.  Dissanayake wants her audience to see the phrase “making special” as a form of human behavior in prioritizing that which we find to be of the utmost importance. For example, she says, “Among these tendencies is also the behavior or propensity to ‘make special’ particularly things that one cares deeply about or activities whose outcome has strong personal significance” 22). Now, there are the everyday activities such as waking up, showering, eating breakfast and getting ready for school or work. These are everyday human behaviors. These may seem like mundane everyday activities that people take for granted. However, it is the importance that we place on these certain behaviors that “makes them special.”

“The crucial factor for claiming the beginning of a behavior of art. I believe, would have been the ability not just to recognize that something is special, but deliberately to set out to make something special” (22). In other words, we take things that may not be art and make them special by enhancing form and color. For example, Dissanayake states, “In a number of sites from 250,000 years ago, pieces of red coloring material have been found, far from the areas in which they naturally occur. It is thought that these were brought to be used for coloring and marking such things as bodies and utensils as people continue to do today to make them special” (22). In other words, Dissanayake is saying that people made such things special simply by marking them, and then these seemingly mundane bodies and utensils became something of importance. “These may not seem like ‘art’ but they do show the wish to use form and color to ‘make special’” (22).

When she argues about the importance of things, she also illustrates survival instincts. For example, she relates art to human survival through something as simple as hunting. “I suggest that to our ancestors it was essential not only to make good tools – spear and arrows for the hung – but to make sure they worked by making them and the activities that were concerned with them special” (23). In other words, the making of the weapons is an art in itself just as much as the actual behavior of hunting. Before they hunt, she also states that hunters may partake in fasting, praying, bathing or special rituals as a part of hunting behavior. In a sense, these forms of human survival or control of their behavior can be interpreted as a way of “vicariously demonstrating the control they desire in order to successfully achieve their goal. And although ‘behavior made special’ need not be aesthetic or artistic, when one exerts control, takes pains, and uses care and contrivance to do one’s best, the result is generally what is called artistic or aesthetic” (23). As a result, human instinct to eat as a form of survival becomes art. Making tools implements one’s investment in an activity in which he finds to be important.

Dissanayake also mentions three theories of art including: Modernism, Post Modernism and Aesthetics. Modernism was most prominent before Post Modernism and represented one’s personal interest in art rather than its ramifications. “There is a special frame of mind for appreciating works of art – a ‘disinterested’ attitude that is separate from one’s own personal interest in the object, its utility, or its social or religious ramifications” (17). Post-Modernism was most prominent after Modernism and continues to be mostly prominent today. Dissanayake claims that there is valid and intrinsic association between what humans have always found to be important and certain ways that they have found to manifest, reinforce, and grasp this importance. She goes on to say “That the arts in postmodern society do not do this, at least to the extent that they do in pre-modern societies. These abiding concerns are more often than not artificially disguised, denied, trivialized or banished” (26). Finally, Aesthetics is the last theory, which has always seemed to be prominent because aesthetics deal with a concern with elucidating principles such as taste and beauty that govern all the arts and indeed make them not simply painting or statues but example of (fine) art” (17).

As Dissanayake begins this article, it is apparent that art is an inherent human characteristic. It is seen in our behaviors, even our survival instincts. Art is everywhere, and I believe that this is the point of Dissanayake’s article.

“Art is normal and necessary behavior of human beings that like talking, exercising, playing, working, socializing, learning, loving and nurturing should be encouraged and developed in everyone” (Ellen D., 26).

When the author said this at the end of her piece, I fully understood what art what and what art was for. Art is a way for human’s to put those things of importance that are intangible into tangible form. For example, Picasso’s paintings explode with symbolism where certain intangible things are put into perspective simply through art. “One work from 1901 illustrates two main protagonists, a bull and horse, who are exemplified in a rather objective manner. The bull, which is light in color, is shown in repose, without indication of sex, the horse is dark, and is built like the elegant saddle horse that Liebermann was fond of painting. This may reflect Picasso’s fashionable preoccupations in Barcelona at that time” (“Picasso and Symbolic Themes”). Picasso also used many Surrealist devices such as linking heterogeneous elements and levels of reality.

The author of What is Art? also says, “The species-centered view of art I have developed here claims that there is valid and intrinsic association between what humans have always found to be important and certain ways – called the arts – that they have found to manifest, reinforce, and grasp this importance” (26). So when someone asks what art is, art is everything. Art, as the author mentions at the beginning of the piece, is universal. Art is relative to a person, to a society or even to a religion. Art is what the individual sees and can understand. “Looking at all humans as member of one species and then thinking of art as a kind of behavior that developed as they evolved, to help them survive” (Ellen D., 16). Art is an escape from reality, in a sense, for some people. So, for this reason, art is a form of survival for people. Music, dancing, filmmaking, teaching, learning, listening, etc. are all art forms. And what would we be without these things?

Family

Friendship

Loyalty

Independence

Personal Development

———————————–

Integrity

Service

Leadership

Health

Security

Personal Accomplishment

Enjoyment

Expertness

Wisdom

Location

Prestige

Community

Wealth

Power

Creativity

 

Since I have been raised Catholic, I went to church this Sunday. This task exemplifies my loyalty to the church and my family because my mother and father have raised me and expect me to continue my faith even in my older years. I would say that personal development is also another value that I took into consideration when going to church. Just by going, I furthered my faith, which is important to me, through listening to the gospel and through my own personal reflection. Aside from going to church, I also spent most of the day in the library doing my homework, which shows how highly I value my loyalty to my grades and also my family because they are the ones who pay for me to go to college. I value their generosity for such an expensive endeavor and want to study hard and get good grades. As annoying as homework can be, it shows my independence and also my yearning for personal development through knowledge. One value that I have not mentioned yet is friendship. My activities today show that I value friendship because by going to the library and studying, I’m showing my family that I want to stay at this University where I’ve made the greatest friendships I will ever know. By going to church, I show that I value the friendships I have made with fellow Catholics.

My family has raised me Catholic, as I said earlier. Through this I have learned to value things like friendship, family, personal development, loyalty and independence. They have taught me to strive to do my best and be the best and accept nothing less. They have taught me the evil of drugs and how they can ruin a person’s life. I see my mother and father work so hard not only within their careers but with raising two children and loving them with everything they have. I strive to be even half the people that they have come to be. I can honestly say that not a single thing they have taught me is no longer valid. I am so thankful for everything they have done for me and to lessen any value they have given me would be beyond disrespectful. Yes, I value independence and I show that by making my own decisions. However, I strive to be the best for them. My future goals include: graduating from college, getting a Journalism job in San Francisco immediately after college, become financially independent, making a name for myself, surround myself with those who make me a better person and accept nothing less than my best. I can say these are reflected in my list of values. The only thing that stands in the way of accomplishing these goals is me. I firmly believe in the statement that nothing is impossible. If you dream big and work hard, you can accomplish anything. If I lessen that state of mind, then I’m my own worst enemy.

The point that I understand/agree with most is when the reading says that values do not derive solely from human genetics, rather human values are shaped from the environment. This statement is a perfect example of the well-renowned argument of nature vs. nurture. Does a person believe something because it was programmed in their head the day they were born? Or do they believe something because their parents/guardians taught them that it was right? Or did they come to the realization themselves simply through living their everyday lives?

Many times people say that there are certain things that are “instincts,” like a mother’s instinct when her child is in trouble among many other instincts. “For example, self-preservation and sexual drives are often cited as among the most gripping human “instincts.” The reading goes on to state that humans might be controlled by the influence of genes on our underlying personality or peer pressure. This is a classic case where nature vs. nurture plays a dominant role. For example, when I was a freshmen in high school, I went to my first party. It was at a senior’s house and there was more than just alcohol being served. I remember one of the junior’s walked up to me and handed me a beer. I didn’t want it but I drank it anyway. This is an example of being influenced to do something because of peer pressure or the nurture side of the argument. I wanted to be cool because the relentless demands of the society, or high school party, that I happened to be in at the moment. An hour later, the kid came up to me and offered me cocaine, but this time I absolutely refused. Was it because my parents taught me that it was one among the many serious drugs or because I inherently knew that cocaine was bad? This brings up the next question: if it was in fact a chosen personal evaluation, how did I come to that evaluation? Was I influenced by my parents, teachers, friends, etc.? Or did I just somehow know?

According to the reading, I agree that there are four ways that individuals come to know something. They’ve either experienced it through their senses, used logic, felt that something was just right or because they believe that it is right intuitively. There is no way to know if something is right, which is why the terms “right” or “correct” are completely relative.