Month: November 2012

My question to this reading is how does/did the government decide what was worthy of censorship and what was not? For example, on pages 39 and 40 it says, “The visual Arts Center in Anchorage, Alaska put together a show of sixty works, all of which had been censored somewhere in the United States in the last several decades. Not all of these censorial acts were First Amendment violation because not all of them involved governmental action. But in every instance, someone was attempting to prevent others from seeing an artwork.” This absolutely does not make sense because the reading goes on to say that the common reasons given for an image’s removal were either opposition to the ideas expressed or a desire to protect others, like children. The desire to protect children from obscene images makes sense in a way, but that is of the concern of their parents. It is especially ridiculous to me that it says removal was in opposition to the ideas expressed. This seems to violate the First Amendment, which guarantees all citizens a right to speech. By censoring these paintings, is the government saying that art is not a form of speech? If so, then what did the government consider art to be back then? I understand that some of the artwork was pretty revealing such as those conveying condoms, the Ku Klux Klan, body mutilation, etc. However, my opinion is that is people feel offended by such art, then don’t look at it because others may find it quite appealing.

 

On pages 40 and 41, the reading mentions the instance of “What is the proper way to display the flag?” and how it made a lot of people angry and even President Bush deemed it disgraceful. I actually agree with this because clearly putting the flag on the ground is not the greatest way to display the flag. It’s deemed disrespectful to the country, and since we all live in this country, I think it’s safe to say that most anyone would find that disgraceful to the place they live.

I don’t necessarily like the author’s definition of the difference between professional creativity and regular creativity. The author says, “They teach but not by inviting questions. Or if they invite questions, they direct questions to someone other than the speaker. Or performer. Or creator” (1). My question is can’t amateurs fuel this same sort of questioning from their work? Is the author demeaning those who he thinks are not “professional” artists? How is this an important difference? I believe that some amateur art can be more insightful than professional art. It’s all in the eye of the spectator.

The primary thesis of Beverly J. Jones’ “Computer Graphics: Effects of Origins” is to establish the relation of specific image, object, event or environment to conceptual frames and to demonstrate how those frames exist within art and technology and are present in other forms of symbolic and material culture. She also aims to examine computer graphics as a reflection of culturally embedded aesthetic theories based on varying views of reality.

 

One historical example that Jones uses to illustrate her thesis is the Henry drawing computer, “which was a modified analog computer signed by D.P. Henry that produced imagery replaced by the prevailing analog imagery” (52-53). This illustrates her thesis because the Henry drawing computer was an example of digitally computed imagery of that time. Jones says, “Because early computers had low capacity of speed and memory” (53). In her thesis she says that the essay would demonstrate how conceptual frames exist within art and technology. The Henry drawing computer was a form of art, as it would produce geometric calculations such as Lissajous figures and vector graphics. “Usually these images were done by engineers and technicians employed by government, industry or large research institutions” (53). The creators behind it or those who worked it can be considered the artists. Jones takes a simple machine used for computer graphics and shows how it is art and technology.

 

Jones also goes on to say, “Not all images served technological research or practical purposes, some were done is ‘spare time’ by engineers and technicians” (53). She uses the example of an image called Stained Glass Windows, a graphic designed in the Army Ballistics Research Laboratory that reflected a desire by individuals not trained in art to produce aesthetic imagery. In using the term “aesthetic,” Jones demonstrates how even a computer program attempted to demonstrate the appreciation of beauty. The program even received second prize in the Computer and Automation Computer Imagery Contest in 1963.

 

“In general, computer art is any art in which computers play a role in production or display of the artwork” (“Computer Art”). This article even says that such art can be an image, sound, animation, video, CD-ROM, DVD-ROM, videogame, web site, algorithm, performance or gallery installation. This furthers Jones’ point of demonstrating how computer graphics and conceptual frames exist within art and technology and how they are symbolic and material culture. It also furthers points I’ve made in previous posts where I said that art is “universal” as Ellen Dissanayake would say. It is completely relative so art can be anything, even something as technological as a computer program.

 

Jones, Beverly J. (1990). Computer Graphics: Effects of Origins. Copyright Clearance Center, Inc. Retrieved November 18, 2012 from http://aaablogs.uoregon.edu/aad250-shuette/files/2010/09/8-jones.pdf.

 

Computer Art. Online article. Retrieved November 18, 2012 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_art.

One thing that I found to be very interesting about the reading was when it talked about the artistic uses of computers. For example, it says, “Note the artistic theoretical emphasis on pastiche and text reflected in the supplemental issue of Leonardo titled Computer Art in Context” (56). It goes on to talk about how most artistic uses of the computer remain separate from practical, scientific or technical uses. My question is how? Is this statement implying that science and technology are not art? From technology have arisen things like video games, technical effects in movies, etc., which I consider digital art forms.

When I think of the word “spirituality,” I think more along the lines of the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things. Spirituality is like an immaterial reality that a person enters to discover himself or herself. It is the way in which an individual analyzes his or her deepest values. Spirituality is often times practiced with spiritual practices such as meditation, prayer, yoga, etc. Spirituality is experienced as a source of inspiration whether divine or personal.

 

Spirituality can differ from religion but it is also a part of religion for some people. Grey quotes Ernest Watson, “There is a vast difference between looking and seeing – a difference which is fundamental to the artist’s experience.” My definition of spirituality refers to the human spirit and soul. Many times, it is easier for a person to dig deep and find their personal values through religion and God. On the other hand, spirituality is also experienced individually through things like nature, yoga, meditation, etc. Spirituality only differs from religion if it is found through another source.

 

By definition, creativity refers to the use of the imagination or original ideas especially in the production of an artistic work. Grey says, “An artist’s finest works can symbolically unveil depth upon depth of meaning…In order to bring forth their most profound work, artists need to be sensitive to and courageous about their own creative process.” In other words, creativity is a form of expression. Grey states six steps to the creative process: formulation, saturation, incubation, inspiration, translation and integration. Creativity is the artist’s way of putting their inspiration and spirituality into concrete form to share with others.

 

Creativity and spirituality almost go hand in hand. The source of creativity is spirituality. Once the individual finds their deepest values and meanings in life, the creative process can begin. Through spirituality, the artist discovers the most important question, which Grey refers to as “What is my subject?” Grey also states, “I have always been mystified by the body-mind-spirit relationship and the difficulty of making these multiple dimensions of reality visible in a work of art.” Creativity comes from the inspiration an individual receives from the body-mind-spirit relationship, which I would say may come from spiritual practices. Basically, however, creativity comes out when the artist finds their inspiration and puts it into their perspective for others to see.

 

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

One of the statements from the reading that really hit home for me was when Grey says, “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 the self and the otherness of the world, momentarily merging with the thing seen” (Grey, 72). This is basically just a different way of defining art, in my opinion. This statement coincides with a statement made in Ellen Dissanayake’s “What is Art?” essay where she says, “’Disinterest’ implied that viewers could appreciate any art, even the artwork of eras or culture far removed from their own. In this sense, art was universal” (Dissanayake, 18). Art is universal or rather seen instead of just looked at when a person feels an emotional tie to that work of art. I believe that when Grey says that when deeply seeing, we transcend the egoic boundaries between the self and the otherness of the world, Grey means that we’re not merely looking at a tangible object, rather we are seeing that object for what it symbolizes in our eyes. This is why we SEE it as art.

 

Grey then goes on to quote Ernest W. Watson by stating, “There is a vast difference between looking and seeing – a difference which is fundamental to the artist’s experience” (Grey, 72). It’s like one of the examples I’ve used before about food being art. Whenever I make or eat pasta, an instant feeling of nostalgia hits me because it reminds me of my Italian family in Wisconsin. It also reminds me of my mom and grandma who make superb pasta dishes. I look at the pasta and I see my family. However, this may not be the case for someone else. For example, an athlete may see a plate of pasta and this about carbohydrates and their game the next day. It may simply be noodles and red sauce. The same goes for a painting. There may be symbolism to Van Gogh’s “Starry Night” for someone, or they may just LOOK at it and move on to the next painting in a gallery.

 

“Seeing determines every aesthetic decision…seeing is also the recognition of meaning” (Grey, 73). Like Grey says, artists SEE their subject, which inspires them to create. Next comes accurate analysis of the formal relationships that the artist wishes to express. After this comes the critical translation phase where the artist speaks to the SEEING mind. This step then becomes the SEEERS job to translate it in the way that they SEE the piece. It’s not about looking at a piece and seeing its concreteness; rather, it is looking at the piece and SEEING its symbolism, which then creates an emotional response from the SEEER.

This article comes from WebMD, and it basically talks about how horror films impact people in different ways, which is why many people tend to watch them. Watching horror films is like a morbid fascination. James B. Weaver III, PhD, says many young people may be attracted to them merely because adults frown on them (Sine, 2). Another reason he says that people love scary movies is because it is almost a tribal rite of passage. For example, he says that there’s a motivation males have in our culture to master threatening situations. In other words, the bloodier the movie, the more justified the young man feels in boasting that he endured it (Sine, 2). It presents curiosity. Noel Carroll says, “The horror story is driven explicitly by curiosity. It engages its audience by being involved in processes of disclosure, discovery, proof, explanation, hypothesis and confirmation” (Carroll, 279). A lot of times, it’s hard to turn the scary movie off no matter how gory it is because of our innate characteristic of curiosity. For example, in the Scream movies, it’s hard for me to stop watching no matter how gory because I always want to know who the murderer is in the end. “Monsters, as well, are obviously a perfect vehicle for engendering this kind of curiosity and for supporting the drama of proof because monsters are impossible beings” (Carroll, 279). In comparison, Sine says that humans may have an innate need to stay aware of dangers in our environment, especially the kind that could do us bodily harm. In my opinion, it’s our way of explaining the bad in the world. I think a lot of people watch them to become aware of what could happen if they’re not careful. It could even be a teaching mechanism because most of the time, scary movies always have one survivor. That survivor’s ways may be mimicked if a person is ever in that sort of danger.

Watching scary movies may also be a way of coping with actual fears of violence. For example, Sine says, “Sparks points to a study that showed that shortly after the murder of a college student in a community, interest in a movie showing a cold-blooded murder increased, both among women in the student’s dormitory and in the community at large.”

All in all, many people watch horror films because of morbid curiosity. It is a curiosity of figuring out whom the killer is, who survives, how they survive, why they survive. Sometimes it’s way of coping with actual fears of violence or even as a safety valve for our cruel or aggressive impulses, as Sine says.

Sine, R., ‘Why We Love Scary Movies’, Retrieved November 4, 2012 from http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/features/why-we-love-scary-movies.

 

This article says that there are two explanations as to why humans watch horror films. The two main branches of explanation are integrationist and co-existentialist. The integrationist theory says that the pleasure we get from horror films comes directly from the fear and disgust we experience. The co-existentialist theory states that the pleasure is not directly related to the negative feelings, we enjoy horror because the positive feelings outweigh the negative ones.

 

The integrationist theory best correlates with Carroll’s statement, “The disclosure of the existence of the horrific being and of its properties is the central source of pleasure in the genre.” We have innate human curiosity to have to know what the monster is and what monstrosities it performs. Carroll states,

 

With the horror fiction, that appetite is whetted by the prospect of knowing the putatively unknowable, and then satisfied through a continuous process of revelation, enhanced by imitations of proofs, hypotheses, counterfeits of casual reasoning, and explanations whose details and movement intrigue the mind in ways analogous to genuine ones (Carroll, 283).

 

We have to know, it’s simple. We have to know what happens to the damsel in distress, we have to know how the monster kills his victims. While this may seem sick at first glance, many times it’s for the pleasure of knowing how it ends. Does the protagonist survive? It’s almost as if you’re rooting for the protagonist. It’s like watching a sports game. It’s hard to start something and not finish it. Carroll states, “That interest and that pleasure derive from the disclosure of unknown and impossible beings, just the sorts of things that seem to call for proof, discovery, and confirmation” (283). As humans, we get pleasure from proof, confirmation and discovery. This does not just go for horror films but also for many different aspects of life. It’s not that we get pleasure from seeing people tortured; instead, we get pleasure from seeing the resolution in the end.

 

‘Why do we enjoy horror films?,’ Retrieved November 4, 2012 from http://www.thestargarden.co.uk/WhyWeEnjoyHorror.html.