Author: Bean

Last week, I went to the Knight library and saw the original works of Runquist Murals. Before I saw the real murals, I took a look of the online version from their website. I have to say that the real works are much bigger than I thought, and they are very grand. There are two parts of murals including in the whole work, which are “Development of the Arts” and “Development of the Sciences”. Each of them has eight Panels divided by a big tree, and each panel represents a period of time in human history. Like the summary form the website, in the development of the arts part, “mother earth provides the materials for the arts exemplified here by gems and precious stones, and inspiration in its infinite forms and growth represented by flower”, and in the development of sciences part, “figure at base of tree represents humanity rising to erect posture of thinking being”. To be honest, I probably wouldn’t look at them very carefully if I don’t know their history and stories. But after looked through the history of our university and knew that these Runquist Murals have close relationship with UO, I felt it was interesting to look at them. They make me think of the definition of art, which I discussed in unit three. Most people might agree that the definition of art is so hard to make since there is no clearly limit for a work to be called art. In Dissanayake’s article “what is art for?”, she said that art is a kind of behavior when people try to make something special (Dissanayake, 10).  Take the Runquist Murals as example, they mean nothing but two big trimmings to me until I know the stories of them. I have connection with them because I am a student of UO. In other words, I changed my view of them because I feel them special.

Form another perspective, they are a kind of public art. Similar with art in general, public art, which I think is a subcategory of art, is also very hard to define. In this week’s reading, Doss mentioned that public art is “artwork in the public realm, regardless of whether it is situated on public or private property, or whether it is acquired through public or private funding” (Doss, 2). I think the main purpose of public art or the reason that they are exist is that they can bring something good to people. Whether their beauty make people feel relax or their exaggeration stimulate people’s creative inspiration, they have value. However, there are too many different kinds of public art in resent society, I would discuss some of them in my own categories.

I call some of public art trimmings if they express normal ideas. Here when I say normal idea, I mean the idea that most people will get immediately when they look at that public art. For example a great man sculpture.

https://library.uoregon.edu/guides/architecture/oregon/xpioneer.html

I would say landmark buildings are a kind of public art. They have huge impact on both nation’s citizen and human history as a whole, and they are valuable wealth we can keep for later generations.

http://www.topchinatravel.com/beijing/famous-landmarks-in-beijing.htm

Some of public art are very abstract, and many people do not know the meaning of them. Different people will have different perspective for this kind of art. To me,  I call them “want to take a picture” public art.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vancouver-public_art.jpg

I am not very sure if I should include this next kind of work into public art because they are not original from artists, and instead they are some creative thing added onto daily life objects. The reason I lastly include those is that I reconsidered the definition of public art, which I think should be something meaningful to people. This kind of “remixed” object brings joy to me, so I would consider them as art.

http://sofunjean.pixnet.net/blog/post/29865038-%E9%8B%BC%E7%90%B4%E6%A8%93%E6%A2%AF

http://www.thenerdfilter.com/2013/08/11/found-on-the-internerd-nintendo-graffiti/

Like Doss said in his article, the value of a piece of art work does not depend upon how long it took to finish or how much its material cost. I believe the center of the idea is human, and anything that can bring positive effects or memories to people is worth to be called art.

References:

Doss, E. (2006, October). Public art controversy: Cultural expression and civic debate. Retrieved from http://www.americansforthearts.org/pdf/networks/pan/doss_controversy.pdf

Inspiration

Creativity

Patience

Unique

Emotion

Passion

——————

attitude

story

eyes

color

The overall TED talk “Laws that Choke Creativity” was fairly interesting. Lawrence Lessig talked mainly about three stories. However, I was drawn away by the last story when he started showing the second remix video where Jesus was dancing on the street with barely any cloth on. Jesus was lip singing to a very famous song. He focused on a very important issue in today’s society which is copyright. Most of us have access to the internet and it had become very easy and common to use other people’s work and re-make it into their own work. It touches on a serious problem of copyright. As he mentioned in the video, the important part is not about technique, but about the idea or the way people using the source. New generation and young kids have their own way to see the world, and the old law of copyright would limit new ideas. But I personally think that remix is just something funny, and it does not show a lot of creativities. The law of copyright has its own value of protecting people’s work, so I think remix shouldn’t affect the power of copyright.

Click here to the main page of final portfolio

After reading “Computer Graphics: Effects of Origins” by Beverly Jones, I think the main thesis of it is that even though we are in the modern world now, the old pattern of art is still influencing the artists nowadays. She talked through the timeline which how old and new ideas and material are merged, and how they related and influenced each other. She stated that “old cultural patterns may fade or become more evident; that is they may be deemphasized or emphasized” (Jones 51). The history is the fundament of today. I said that because I think this is how everything works since people are influenced by past naturally. She proved her points by using several examples include egg tempura paintings are the origin of oil paintings, and earlier papyrus columns are the origin of stone columns of ancient Egyptian architecture (Jones 51). She also illustrated her point by explaining how two dimensional graphic imagery in the past changed to three dimensional graphic imagery now. Like she said “with the development of ray-tracing techniques, particle systems, and other techniques depicting three dimensional world and dynamic systems within it, technical imagery outstripped the planar illusionism previously practiced by artists” (Jones 54). Computer scientists and artists, I never thought that these two areas have overlap before I read Jones’ article. But I find out that they actually have a lot common things in terms of building modern world. Computer scientists take charge on technique limits while artists worked on the content of work. When I thought about it in this way, the first example came into my mind was cartoons. I am not sure about the specific origin of cartoon, but I know we used comic strip to tell stories or express mind. A very famous cartoon called Slamdunk is an example. It was drawn by hand on paper in comic strip, and people use technology and make it into two dimensional cartoon, now they are re-formed it into three dimensional graphic imagery. Computer scientists cannot do it without artists who created this cartoon, and artists cannot achieve this without computer scientists who deal with technique problems. I always believe that past influences present, and this is probably true in every area. With the development of society, we would have more and more overlaps among other areas, and they would bring us a brighter future.

References:

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

It is so interesting to watch the lecture that Jane McGonigal gave about how gamers can save the real world in the future. I totally agree with her when she analyzed the reasons that could make epic wins possible in online worlds. McGonigal said people feel they are being trusted, they enjoy the sense of accomplishment when they achieve the mission, and they are keen on positive feedbacks every time they achieve next level. However, in my opinion, I think the main difference between online games and the real world is that the failure in game world doesn’t really matter while it does in real life. People are fearless when they play online games and they are not afraid of making wrong decisions, and if they can do the same thing in real life, which is impossible, their potential could be inspired. But how could we make it possible in the real world that people are less scared of failure? Is that possible that we always give people second or even multiple chances?

Click here to the main page of final portfolio

http://www.xdzsh.com/g/b/GB066.html

Before I take this course, I generally see art as beautiful things. Of course I know different people have different tastes on beauty, but I personally believe that most people would have similar aesthetics on the painting above, which might be “uhh…”

After I reading some of articles about seeing art through this course, I start thinking this might be art just in a different perspective.  Grey mentioned that we have three eyes to look at a piece of work, and spirituality is something that we can notice only when we see a work by heart and think it deeply. There would have some connection with the work and the audience.

Personally, I feel like “creativity” is a commendatory term, and it should be something nice and fun such as these:

http://creativedispatch.blogspot.com/2012/06/human-creative-painting.html

http://creativedispatch.blogspot.com/2012/06/human-creative-painting.html

However, some people like to think “creativity” as “different”, and they just use some random ideas knock together and all my brain has when I see those things are question marks. Maybe they are absolutely some kind of art but it just beyond me, for example:

http://www.paintingsilove.com/image/show/199036/action-abstract-painting-badmadsad

I would say for me, spirituality is something I really like and well known, and I can get motions from it. Creativity is things new to me and I want to introduce them to others to surprise people.

Again, I think art is one thing which never had exact rule, and this is what makes it so hard to define and so attractive at the same time.

Click here to the main page of final portfolio

After reading chapter three in “Art as Spiritual Practice” by Grey, I learn to see pieces of work in different views. Grey discussed the differences between look and see, which are two levels of seeing art. He pointed out we should use our heart instead of just eyes to see works deeply, which I think is really interesting because I feel like this is similar when we see a person. He said that “in the deepest art, a condition of the soul is revealed, one’s heart is opened, and spiritual insight is transmitted to the eye of contemplation” (p.82). Just like when we get along with some people, we firstly would just see them in general and have first impression of them, then we start to actually know them after talking or hanging out, and finally we can only know them very well by knowing their stories and seeing them by heart.

Grey talked through the article that artists use three eyes to see their works, and wholeness, harmony and radiance are three elements to be considered for beauty (Grey). When I see a piece of art, I suddenly will have my first sense of its subject or theme. By now, I just look at it. When I start thinking about the motivation or stories behind this work while I seeing it, I am using my second eye. When I connect it with myself or I can feel the spirit inside of it, that’s the time I really understand this work. In this perspective, I cannot say I totally understand any of the art because I never had such experience to see any of them deeply. Grey mentioned that his painting Transfiguration took him so long to finish it because he wants to express the spirit behind it, which is the hardest stage in creating art. I know I probably would not feel the spirit of it by seeing it now since I still don’t know the artist in person and his stories, but I am very thankful to him for letting me know I actually have more than two eyes to see the world.

Click here to the main page of final portfolio

To be honest from the start, I am not a fan of horror.

I watched a movie which had some horror elements in it when I was young, and it left a shadow in my heart. I just don’t understand why people want to make something to scare others, and why some people enjoy being scared.

Personally, I am not afraid I called man-made horror. Although I know that all horror movie or pictures are all fake, I still categorize them into two big types. One is “man-made”, another is “realistic”.

By saying man-made horror, I mean things that created by director or artists to scare people. They use computer and makeup techniques to create a kind of feeling of terror, and I guess I can accept this type of things as long as I know they are absolutely all mythical.

Here are some examples to illustrate:

http://www.picswalls.com/horror-wallpaper/

http://www.horror-extreme.com/asian-horror-movies/

Another type is realistic horror. I don’t like this type of horror because either stories or characters are all created based on real life. For example, many movies use mirror as an important prop to create horror motions, and I will start be afraid that there is something appear in mirror every time I look at mirror. Another example is mansion where lots of horror stories happened, so every time I visit my friend who lives in mansion I cannot sleep well. I just can’t help thinking scary thing even I know those stories are all fake.

Here are some examples to illustrate:

http://screenpicks.com/2012/11/note-to-hollywood-no-more-horror-sequels/

http://blogs.slj.com/connect-the-pop/2012/11/english/guest-post-by-miguel-rodriguez-opportunities-for-rich-discussion-and-literary-analysis-overcoming-the-stigma-of-the-horror-genre-part-2/

Like I said before, I am not a fan of horror movie or pictures or whatever, I just don’t get it why people choose to be scared. Lots of my friends tell me they have fun when they watch horror movies and I probably would never understand what kind of fun they could had.

Non-Diegetic Sound

The example I like to choose for non-diegetic sound is happened at 13:21 to 14:42 of the movie. A big clock appears pointing to around 1 AM while people are all in deep sleep. The reason I pick this piece of sound as an example is that I think this is a kind of sound that horror movies always use, which is just use musical instruments to provide deep down and terror effects. There is no people voice at all and it just a piece of background music. It is non-visible on the screen and it has not been showed to be present in the action. I guess this kind of sound in movie called effect sound and in terms of this piece, it absolutely contributes to the aesthetic of horror for this movie because I feel afraid by just listening it. I even has to get off my headphones because I am afraid of it.

Digetic Sound

In the movie form 40:40 to 41:03, there is only one sound, which is a very long screech from actress. This sound is visible on the screen because it is a voice of character. I call it actual sound and the reason I pick up it is very obvious. In this short twenty seconds, this one sound push the movie to the pick and this is the most exciting part of this movie since they finally find the right way to beat those vampires. People’s voice is a very important element in this movie and this shows again the importance of that screaming. I think this sound contributes a little aesthetic of horror for that move but not in a horror way. What I mean is that if I ask someone who never watched this movie to hear that twenty seconds screaming, she most likely will feel terror and be afraid of it. But the point is people who watched this movie will think this screaming is not horror but victory. They finally end all of this nightmare because of this screaming, so that’s why I say this sound means a lot in this movie but not in a horror way.

Mise-en-scene

I choose the first one minute as an example of mise-en-scene sound. A women’s voice appears while many students taking notes on frames, and in just few seconds I already know this voice must from a professor and this story starts in probably college. I think sound and picture are not from the same person is a really good way to start a movie because people more likely to feel interesting this way than let’s say, a female professor is talking about final exam in class. The main reason I choose this part as an example is that I think it attracts me in just few seconds and I want to see what’s going on, and I think this is a really successful beginning for a movie. I also can guess that girl in first frame must be actress in this movie, and that guy stand by side must have something to do with her. I think this part does not necessarily contribute the aesthetic of horror for the movie because this is just a start. However, I think the most horror movie is whose story based on real daily life. For example, something happened at home or school, these are really normal and common place that everyone might go, and using these place as the theme to make a horror movie is a smart choice since everyone would connect the movie with their real life after they watch the movie.

Personally, I feel like my personal beliefs and values have changes a lot over the years. I was born and raised in China.  Students their all had to wear the school uniform and tie up their hair into a ponytail. Back then, I found my uniform extremely plain and ugly. I could not stand wearing this white and red clothing to school day after day.  As I walk to school every day, I would see other girls wearing a shirt with a cute detailed shirt and I would envy them so much. Even during weekends, when I was allowed to wear something else, I still could not wear what I wanted back then, since my parents wouldn’t let me.  I had no choice but to wear cloth my parents bought me.

http://www.fjsen.com/zhuanti/2010-03/31/content_3011719.htm

Now that I am older with different personal beliefs I find myself wear cloth that are very different from what I believe I would a few years ago.

I thought that I would start wearing very grown up cloth and high heels to university or when ever I had the chance like this:

http://www.disneydreaming.com/category/meaghan-martin/page/6/

Though, this is not the case. I find myself most confortable in baggy cloth, such as a plain t-shirt and leggings. My values have shifted from appearance to comfort. Appearance is no longer the priority on my list but comfort instead. As I grow older and encounter more different situations my values starts to change from the media perspective and values of an ideal girl to customizing my own beliefs.

http://www.nipic.com/show/3/124/5598580kab22b563.html