Before I went through the readings and visited the murals this week, I wasn’t even aware such work had even existed, let alone at the Knight Library. With that in mind however, I love that they are placed on opposite sides of the library, as I believe it symbolizes the potential of learning the ideals of either the development of art or science in our lives. Furthermore, I believe that they encompass the notion of two different degree paths of knowledge that the University offers, in which one can graduate with either a bachelor of arts or of science.

In this weeks reading of Public Art Controversy: Cultural Expression and Civic Debate, Erika Doss brings up the controversies that arise when dealing with public art, along with their numerous interpretations. First and foremost, I believe that whenever people first see public art, their first reaction is the appreciation of their civic beauty. “That’s because whether permanent or temporary, figurative or abstract, man-made or mass produced, public art is as diverse as the people who view it” (Doss 2). The public represents many different variations of people, with many different views, beliefs, and backgrounds. That being said, any public art that represents a specific belief, historical event, time, etc., is will most likely be criticized. “Indeed, controversies over public art tend to unmask deeper concerns American have regarding their voices and their interests in the public sphere” (Doss 6). The Runquist murals represent the perspectives of the two Runquist brothers, in which they highlight important components of historical moments that guided the evolution of the development of arts and sciences. Although I personally don’t see the murals as being controversial or offensive I can understand how some people could view them in a negative light, due to its issue with diversity. I noticed that there were very few depictions of women that were observed as part of the development of arts and sciences. The only sections that women were represented in are the first two panels of both murals, in which they are seen as either cooking or taking care of children.  The other place women are represented in is in the fourth panel of the development of the arts mural, which represents the Greek Period.  The Arthur and Albert Runquist’s interpretation of the Greek period states, “Music, drama and the dance; development of the beautiful human figure”. For some, this perspective appears to objectify women and places them in stereotypical ‘female’ roles, and so many viewers can be offended at this particular controversy. However, I feel that this simply shows the amount of history that this mural represents, and if anything I appreciate the amount of change that has occurred to our civic improvement since these murals were created. Throughout our time, and up to the point where these murals were created women weren’t perceived as equals, even though they were given the right to vote before the murals were painted. As a result, the traits of sexism and gender inequality can be highlights from these works, which can be perceived very negatively by the feminists of our world.

I have always believed that exceptional works of art have the ability to evoke a positive emotion from a viewer. But after seeing this mural, I believe that those that can invoke controversy and debate are solid ideals of works of art as well. “The strong sentiments expressed by people who make various interpretations of it’s meaning after 12 years, is a testament to its value as an artwork” (Doss 10). Regardless, these murals would have caused controversy one way or another, because had these two brothers carry a more feminist perspective back then their art would have been controversial at that time instead. Regardless, I think that if there wasn’t controversy to begin with people wouldn’t care as much about this piece of art, but because there is this shows how valuable these murals are in the first place. I hope that these murals enlighten the path of knowledge for future students and that they continue to symbolize the purpose, vision and values that this University represents.

The role copyrighting plays in society is that it preserves one’s intellectual property. The value of copyright is that it prevents one from stealing an original idea from someone else and using it for their own benefits. Although this concept seems very straightforward, there are many controversies regarding as to what is considered as “creative” and “original.” Larry Lessig’s reading provides us an insight of the two styles of creativity; RO (Read only) and RW (Read and Write). RO gives the power to the creators while RW allows the possibility for others to join in and give input. RO is supposedly set for professionals, while RW is for professionals and amateurs as well. Although they are both very significant to our culture, they are both judged differently from a legal standpoint, as RO appears to be very supported by our laws but RW is considered illegal due to copyright claims that are set in stone with our government regulations. Lessig believes people should be able to remix songs, or utilize the ideals of RW with no legal issue. “There is no plausible argument that allowing kids to remix music is going to hurt anyone. Until someone can show that it will, the law should simply get out of the way” (Lessig 114). He encourages this notion further in his TED talk, by stating that we should have a culture where “people produce music out of love, not just for money”. I too agree with this in the sense that as long as people aren’t profiting from the mix of music, I don’t see why the issue of copyrighting should come in play. Only when one is taking music created by others and keeping the revenues themselves should be dealt with accordingly by the law.

With that in mind, I believe that remixing songs actually bring more attention and revenue to the original songs, as most people would be curious to see where the song had originated. Ed Sheeran, for example, created a great song with “I See Fire”, but Kygo, an EDM producer, created a famous remix that millions of others, including myself have loved and adored. I think that remixed songs can actually enhance the original work to a certain extent. This can be observed by Danger Mouse’s album. By remixing two well-known artists in creating a new style of music, they not brought fame and publicity upon themselves; they have also brought even more attention and recognition to Jay Z and the Beatles. However, I believe that such remixes should be constructed in such a way that part of the profits should go back to the original artists, and that copyright laws should apply this rule in one manner or another. This is because although the RW people carry some sort of creativity and intellectual property themselves, their creativity was a source of the creativity from the original artists, so some credit should go back to them. I feel like this is also a way for us to appreciate the music culture to another level as we are respecting those who established the pavement for us to enjoy. Copyright laws are very important to maintain, but it shouldn’t be regarded so black and white on originality. Since the concept of creativity is very vague, this law should only be enforced to ensure that every artist is receiving credit when credit is due, including those have remixed the original songs as well. This will truly enhance the music culture, which will continue to enlighten us for the next generations to come.

I believe that the primary thesis of the Computer Graphics: Effects of Origins by Beverly Jones is that in the artistic form, technology has changed the world and have continual influence over their evolution in the form of art and social evolution combined. “New forms of art and technology are frequently cast in the mode of old forms just as other aspects of material and symbolic culture have been” (Jones 21). In such a short period of time, technology has improved so vastly and is continuing to do so in an everlasting faster pace. Jones explains this change through the visual effects of computer graphics.

One of the three historical examples Jones provides to help support her thesis is the use of electricity and computers, in which she states that during their introductions, no one thought that they had any potential or value in our lives. “These examples express the tendency to set limits of ‘the possible’ based on previous experience, knowledge, and conceptual frames” (Jones 21). This was highlighted through the sales of Mercedes Benz cars as well, as they were projected very low numbers due to the lack of high quality drivers present at that time. She claims, “those who originate and use new forms of art and technology embed their assumptions in the new symbolic and material forms” (Jones 21). These assumptions create new patterns that can be observed in many different ways.

A compelling and accurate illustration of Jones’ thesis at work in today’s culture can be observed through the visual effects in movies. Not only does the improvement of technology create more appealing graphics for the viewer to enjoy, they also make animated scenes appear more realistic, making it possible to “film” an impossible situation. Because of this, technology fuels new forms of creativity and inspiration to portray movies in a different light to society. We can see the effects of technology though animated films, from children movies such as The Incredibles and Frozen, to Transformers and many other blockbuster hits. One of the movie companies, Pixar, is an excellent example of computer graphics because it exemplifies its growth and success from the adaptation of older modes of art and technology. Due to the effects of digital art and computer graphics, we have the most breathtaking and amazing movies of the generation.

An article that I found that relates to this reading is from CNN Money, where it describes the type of futuristic technology from Star Trek that we use today, as a tribute to the passing away of Leonard Nimoy, the actor that had played Spock in this legendary movie. From GPS, to automatic doors, seeing how we take today’s form of technology for granted while society 20-30 years ago were dreaming of such technology shows the beauty behind the progression of our human race. The art of technology has advanced at such a high level in present times, and it is only progressing at a faster rate as our time continues. I am looking forward to seeing what the future holds for us, and hopes that the art of technology evolves to become even more beautiful.

Bibliography:

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

Goldman, D., & Pallotta, F. (2015, February 27). Star Trek Technology that we use today. Retrieved March 1, 2015, from http://money.cnn.com/gallery/technology/2015/02/27/leonard-nimoy-dead-spock-star-trek/3.html

I really enjoyed watching Jane McGonigal’s TED talk on the impact of gaming on solving our world problems. One aspect that I caught from her talk was the study about how the average avid gamer will have played 10,000 hours of online gaming by the age of 21. I have also heard of the outlier theory by Malcolm Gladwell, in which he mentioned that attaining 10,000 effortful hours of any subject or topic would ensure our success at that particular craft. So by connecting the points from his study to the one about gamers achieving those 10,000 hours playing online, she is claiming that there are hundreds of millions of gamers becoming so-called masters at particular skills, such as “urgent optimism, weaving a tight social fabric, blissful productivity, and epic meaning”. By saying this, she believes that qualities such as teamwork, persistency, optimism, goal-oriented, and more are accomplished by playing such games, and that the mastery of these will help solve our world’s problems one day. However, I disagree with her claims because the difference between video games and real life is that games have something called a reset button, where if one fails completely or dies they can start over and continue as if that failure never occurred in the first place. Assuming that gamers constantly save their progresses often, they could even start over on where they had lost or died, meaning that failure doesn’t cause them significant losses at all. Unfortunately, that doesn’t quite transfer into the real world. Failure to accomplish something significant cannot be wiped out by resetting, and if you die in real life, you don’t come back. This is where I believe that these “skills” that video games aspire in gamers vanish upon transitioning into the real world. If video games were programmed to stop working after one dies, I believe that gamers wouldn’t be optimistic, as willing to work with others, so on and so forth. So I feel that the power of the reset button is the reason of the difference between the personalities of kids through the real and gaming world, and that increasing the amount of online gaming played won’t solve any more world problems than the ones we have already.

How do you define “spirituality”?

I look at spirituality as the emotion within, in which it is the characteristic of our soul. To me, spirituality is enlightenment; it bears ultimate belief and faith in an invisible entity such as god, and uses that belief in consulting ones decisions throughout life. Being spiritual is the process in which one is making the unknown known in their lives by utilizing their faith in creating the perspectives and backgrounds they assume today.

Does spirituality differ from religion?

In my opinion, they are both similar in the sense that the ideals of spirituality are observed in the root of religion. In my culture, one of our main aspects of religion is idol worship, where we all sit together and focus on a sculpture and respects it as a form of god. This is one practical example of spirituality, as it captures the ideal of enlightenment by enabling us to see the invisible by using a visible object. Likewise there are many other such practices in religions that can be connected with spirituality as well. However, I think that spirituality covers a broader perspective than religion and that religion stems most of its inspirations from the concept of spirituality, as seen throughout history as well.

How do you define “creativity”?

I look at creativity as a measure of uniqueness, something that has the potential to stand out in the world. I also judge originality as a basis for creativity as well. To be creative is to be different. A creative person would have the capability to change a process for something that everyone does the same. This change in process can lead to better results while being more efficient. A company that simply defines creativity for me is Apple, in which the used touch technology to make their products unique, and in a few short years, its technology became fully ingrained in our lives today. Without creativity, the world would never progress and improve, and we would continue living our lives the same style our ancestors had before as well. There are different ways around a mountain to climb to the top, and all of these ways are the effects of creativity.

What is the source of creativity?

The source of creativity in my opinion is inspiration and passion. I feel that without inspiration and passion, we wouldn’t have the drive to find a different method to accomplish a certain need. Imagination is another component of creativity as well. For example, artists can use their creativity by looking at certain objects or scenes and use their imagination to portray their interpretation on a blank canvas. Finally, freedom is a source of creativity, as it establishes an environment that sets up an open ground for one to make something out of nothing. Overall, there are many sources and components that can instill creativity in a person, which can lead to further progress and advancement for mankind as well.

Art is a very universal concept, in the sense that everything can be interpreted as art; it just depends on the individual’s perspective. However, art for me is something that can induce an emotional response from the viewer, and to articulate and inspire upon the artist’s intent and skill behind his work of art. “In order to experience art fully viewers must go through a mini ego death by placing themselves in the inspired mind of the artists, who themselves are out of their minds and only acting as channels of creative spirit” (Grey 74). Art can be very subjective, and the nature of this entity can be very influential on the viewer. “No matter what state of being is expressed in a work of art, universal creative spirit is the prime move behind all art media” (Grey 79). Art is a method for one to visually display their imagination or thought process, and so this ideal is cherished throughout our history due to its vast uniqueness and significance to our cultures. Just like two individuals aren’t identical, no two pieces of art can be drawn the same, as they are created through different styles and motives behind different artists.

One concept that Grey brought up which I agree with is the ‘three eyes of knowing’, which “are inspired by the radiant spiritual beauty of the subject, fascinated b the subject’s harmonic structure, and motivated to express the unique wholeness of the subject by drawing a bounding line around it.” (Grey 74). Up to this point, I always assumed that it was solely the viewer’s responsibility to judge art upon these ideologies, but I realized that the artists too must maintain the same guidelines as well, in order for the viewer to be able to see and understand such content in the first place. It is unfortunate that art has such a broad criteria on what is considered art; it makes such work as the authors on the same comparison to an organized pile of rocks. Because of this, I feel that the value of art has been diluted and is the reason as to why people don’t appreciate art as much they used to in our past. I hope that we can go back to that stage to appreciate true art by its nature and to think critically behind its purpose; I feel that doing so will give these artists the recognition and respect that they truly deserve.

The first article that I researched on this topic is by Katie Heaney, called “The Psychology of a Horror Movie Fan”. In this article, Katie appears to personally be against the concept behind horror movies, as she brought up the fact that horror movies have been in a slump and have been questioned “dead” apparently by the media due to its lack of recent box office success. She even labeled those that love the thrill of a horror movie as a “psychopath” and questioned their emotional state of mind. However, she did mention 4 different theories on a study inquiring about the relationship between viewer enjoyment and frightening movies. The first theory describes how viewers enjoy the experience after a threat is resolved at the end of a movie when they were initially dealing with fearful apprehension throughout it. The next two studies refer to ones empathy level for others: those with a lower level of empathy for another person or situation tend to enjoy horror movies as they don’t mind seeing others suffer and aren’t worried about having a situation occur to them anytime soon. Finally, the last study mentions how those with more masculine qualities, such as sensation seeking, aggressive and “maleness” will seek out and retain more pleasure from these kinds of movies. In conclusion, the author stated that horror movies would give the viewer a sense of triumph after the movie is over, due to the relief of it ending along with the pride in knowing that they were able to bear through what most people haven’t been able to do so themselves.

Personally I love horror movies as they are very thrilling to watch. However. I believe that horror movies have been slumping not because people don’t like horror movies anymore but because they weren’t scary to begin with. I’m very critical of horror movies myself, and so if a movie doesn’t have a good plot or a believable story I’m not going to like it. I want to see a horror movie that has a good storyline with a good amount of suspense so that it captures my attention in wanting to see the conclusion. Likewise, Carroll writes about the influence of curiosity in creating desire to watch a horror movie, in which we are attracted to watching horror movies that provoke disgust because “disgust is required for the pleasure involved in engaging our curiosity in the unknown and drawing it into the processes of revelation, ratiocination, etc.” (Carroll 284). Carroll in this sense would agree with the first theory, as curiosity and relief are the driving forces behind one’s motivation and pleasure in watching a horror movie. The lures that “disgust” brings upon the audience that Carroll wrote about relates to the other theories as well, as lack of empathy and bearing male-like qualities are two driving forces in order for society to desire being disgusted by a horror movie.

The next article is by Allegra Ringo and is titled “Why Do Some Brains Enjoy Fear?” Here the author writes about the same topic as the first one, but in a question and answer format. Allegra believes that first and foremost, we must be in a safe environment in order to enjoy a scary situation. Also the gorier or scare-intensive a movie is the more relief that is felt by the viewers in the end, along with self pride that they were able to bear through such a movie or experience. These beliefs are very similar with the author from the first article as well. Allegra too had stated that it is a male-like quality that the viewers want to master a threatening situation so that they are mentally prepared for the future. This desire is a motivation for some to watch such horror movies. Finally the author wrote about how one of the biggest reasons that society loves horror movies is because they are driven by the desire to see their curiosity fulfilled. “Humans are obsessed with death; we simply have a hard time wrapping our mind around what happens when we die.” Overall, Allegra wrote about the psychological effect of horror through various perspectives, from the effects on the brain itself to cultural beliefs in order to answer a seemingly controversial question as to why human beings love to watch and put themselves in hypothetical death-threatening situations.

One point that I want to bring out is the fact that Allegra had used death as a reason that society is obsessed with horror movies since directors utilize the ideals of death very effectively through exorcisms, devils, and more. Carroll too, vastly agrees with the notion of curiosity. He believes that curiosity is the biggest factor for one to see a horror movie, in that it “engages its audience by being involved in processes of disclosure, discovery, proof, explanation, hypothesis and confirmation” (Carroll 279). Because life after death is a topic many would want answered, there is a strong attraction for horror movies, as they seem to answer this question to a certain extent where people take the conclusions portrayed by various horror movies as their own as well. Carroll states further that horror movies center upon “something which is given as in principle ‘unknowable’” and that this trait, whether its rooted from death or not, creates that drive of fear and curiosity that many pertain when watching such movies (Carroll 281). After reading this article, I know understand the value behind the mysteriousness of death behind horror movies. Death is the biggest connecting point between Carroll and Allegra as they both stated that monsters and other forms of horror are stemmed from this factor in our life. Because it is so vague yet so scary for the majority of society, death is truly the selling point behind horror movies and experiences, and as to why one must be in a safe environment themselves in order to enjoy this type of movie. This of course doesn’t relate to everyone, and that those with an aggressive yet curious mentality would easily be brave enough to enjoy this certain genre in our entertainment world today.

Sources:

Heaney, K. (2014, October 31). The Psychology of a Horror Movie Fan. Retrieved February 15, 2015, from http://www.psmag.com/books-and-culture/psychology-horror-movie-fan-halloween-scary-cinema-93375

Ringo, A. (2013, October 31). Why Do Some Brains Enjoy Fear? Retrieved February 16, 2015, from http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/10/why-do-some-brains-enjoy-fear/280938/

One example of the non-diegetic sound was when the girl dropped her books around 32:30, and the gentlemen along with their gremlins appeared from the back. Before this scene, the background music that was played created a mood for calmness yet suspenseful. Once she dropped her books though, the music went silent, and you can start hearing the noise of chains indicating the arrival of the monsters. Once she came to that realization, she started running, and while she did that the music came right back into the scene; this time it was more high-pitched and the flow went faster, indicating a mood of horror and urgency. The use of non-diegetic sound in this scene added a level to the aesthetic of horror in this video because it made the viewers relate with the scene and made us feel like we are in the movie as well, being chased by all those monsters at night by ourselves.

An example of diegetic sound was when the TV was turned on to the news channel and the reporter had announced that the whole town was quarantined. The reporter seemed to have answered the question asked by everyone in town as to what happened with their voices. This scene magnified the effect of this dilemma, in which the whole town appeared to have been affected in one night. This scene also captured the frustration and desperation of the other characters watching the news as they were being quarantined and were locked in their own town with no outside help, meaning that they had to resolve this issue themselves. I felt that this diegetic scene permitted the use of fear by making the characters believe that they will be stuck in their situation. I also feel that this scene foreshadowed a potential event to occur in the near future as well. I think this played a very good part in creating further confusion and chaos as it seemed like everyone else is affected as well, yet no one has an immediate solution for this catastrophic situation.

Finally, one example of a mise-en-scene in this episode was the design of “The Gentlemen” themselves. In their full introduction, which occurred during the 23^rd minute of this episode, the mise-en-scene trait is shown in many ways. Their costumes showed this trait as they were designed to appear very unique and strange, creating a feeling of unfamiliarity. Second the camera angle in this scene appeared to be on our level, which was used to add depth to the horrific image of these monsters, especially when they are floating around as it made them look even bigger and intimidating. And finally, the scene appears to be mainly dull; from dark blue to black, these colors show the overall mood of the scene. The overall combination, from the strangeness of the “gentlemen’s” looks, to the depth of the imagery, to the dark mood provided from the colors and music played, this scene adds a lot of flavor and enhancement to the aesthetic of horror.

For me, I don’t wear anything that stands out. I’ll always try to match my clothes with my shoes and whatnot, but I don’t wear anything that has slang or of offensive content. I am a low-key kind of person; I’ll usually keep to myself unless I’m with people I’m close with, and I feel that my style shows that characteristic to a certain extent. Normally I’ll wear different type of Nike t-shirts, and I’ll wear a black or gray sweater on top. I’ll either sport dark blue or pitch black jeans and I’ll wear different shoes with my look, weather permitting. For my shoes, I only wear Nikes/Jordan’s, because they are very comfortable and very stylish as well. I’ve grown up wearing Nikes my whole life; I did purchase one pair of Adidas, but the shoes were really uncomfortable so I switched back to Nike. I personally am a brand-loyalty type of person; I’ll usually limit myself to Nike, as I love to play basketball, and Nike always had better basketball gear than Adidas. From there, I’ve latched on the Nike culture as I also work out often, and I love the Dri-fit fabric that Nike uses for their clothes. For jeans, I’ve tried different types but I only purchase Levis, as they are the most reliable for me, and have a good look as well. For going out, I’ll wear more casual higher quality clothes, such as Apt. 9 and Marc Anthony. I have a very consistent yet distinct personality, and my style reflects as such. The types of colors that I’ll wear the most are red, blue, black, grey and white, and I’ll always try to switch my color combinations on a given day. It may seem like I spend a lot on my clothes but in reality I always find really good deals on items and I have friends that work in clothing stores such at Kohls for example and so I get very exclusive discounts on almost anything I’d want to buy. I follow upon the saying “look good feel good do good”, and I feel that one’s style can be a huge impact on their confidence.

My style has changed a lot over a long period of time, especially these past couple of years. In my early teens I would wear basketball shorts everyday of the week, and I would never try to match my clothes. I wore baggy t-shirts and socks that would cover my entire calf, not just my ankles. I had attempted to go with a “street” look back then, but my parents and family friends were not a fan of my style. However, now I am an overall casual dresser unless I’m going to workout or play basketball, then I’ll wear the appropriate clothes. The “feel good” factor helps me a lot when I work out or play basketball because it motivates me to exercise more and become more fit. I’m not 100% sure that wearing Nike Dri-fit gear helps one perform better as opposed to a plain t-shirt, but it will for sure psychologically prepare someone to workout better, which makes buying such gear worth the expenses.

My family doesn’t carry a strong belief for every day attire, but for various holidays and events they have a strong belief in wearing traditional clothing. In my culture, the males wear a style of clothing called Kurta and women wear a type of dress known as a Sari. Both types of clothing come in many colors, and they are very gorgeous to look at. My parents love to wear traditional clothing and will grab any opportunity to do so. I too love wearing traditional clothes as well, as it is a completely new look and it’s very stylish. The only drawback is that it can be hard to put on, and it can get uncomfortable, but it isn’t too big of a problem since we don’t wear them that often. We are a very cultural family, and love to show our traditional attire given the opportunities to do so.

Finally in my core community, their beliefs are to be more mature and have a conservative perspective so they wear more shirts and pants. It would be a rare sight if they were wearing a t-shirt or shorts. They are modest in their looks; on a warm day the men would maybe wear cargo shorts, and the women would wear a long dress. For holidays and events however, everyone in my community would wear traditional clothing as well.

I’m fortunate enough to have been born a male in my family and culture, because although the women are very respected, they have to follow a lot more rules than we too, especially in terms of attire and what they can and can’t wear. There are some rules for guys of course, but showing any more skin than necessary in my culture is considered offensive, and so girls would be glared upon constantly. However, traditional clothing is one of my most favorite aspects of my culture as it is very unique and carries a lot of significance in our history.

Overall, I believe that clothes can define a person to an extent. However, by that I don’t mean that those who wear a $500 t-shirt is superior to one that wears a $5 shirt. There are so many styles and types of clothes in this world, which gives hundreds of millions of combinations for guys and girls alike; so in that sense I feel that their characteristics are seen by their certain style in outfit Some carry more attention on their shoes. Others prefer a branded style of jean. Regardless of ones preference, I love to see what other people wear on a daily basis, whether it is a regular or a traditional day, and I hope that all the cultures continue to maintain their individuality as time progresses.