At a first glance, I saw nothing wrong with the murals. I thought they were really interesting and depicted the important keystone events throughout history regarding art and science. I think this is mainly because I am not part of a minority group. No doubt about it, it is easier growing up in America as a white citizen. Even though America has made extreme efforts and progress to make the playing field more even for every ethnicity there is still a long ways to go. And I think this is why there is controversy over the Runquist murals.

On Maruska’s website, A response to the runquist murals, she talks about how there is controversy over the lack of diversity in the people represented in the murals. It almost gives the idea that only white people took part in the great events and progressions of art and science throughout history and that is simply not true. While Doss’s article explains that, “Today’s public art diversity speaks to America’s diversity—and to the increasing number of Americans who want to see their cultural interests represented in the public sphere,” (Doss, 2) these murals were painted in a very different era in the 1930’s. When this mural was painted, racism was much more prevalent and America was less diverse. It is important to note the context and time period of an art piece and when it was placed in public. When talking about how an old African Burial Ground was paved over and forgotten for years until it was rediscovered and turned into a National Historic Landmark and Monument, the author stated that “It shows the shifting circumstances of American public culture and that original intentions regarding public art’s placement, permanence, and public interpretation are often subject to change and reconsideration” (Doss, 4). The original intentions of the placement of these murals were to purely show the history of the arts and sciences rather than to address the issue of diversity or lack thereof. That being said, the controversy of taking the mural down and replacing it with something else I think would be a mistake. It is a beautiful historical painting. These murals do a beautiful job of capturing the events in history, and many public art pieces do just that, depict history. What is interesting though, not all of our history is great and dandy, a lot of it was cruel and important to never forget and repeat. Never are the painful and cruel parts of history portrayed in public art.

As far as appropriateness and relevance, I think that these murals are extremely appropriate and relevant for the place and manner they are in. They depict the progression of the arts and sciences and so they are in a great learning place within the College of Arts and Sciences. You can’t get any more relevant than that. I do, however, think that there should be other new and contemporary paintings added to the Knight library that show more diversity. Doss simply states, “Today’s public art diversity speaks to America’s diversity—and to the increasing number of Americans who want to see their cultural interests represented in the public sphere” (Doss, 2). So we should put more of today’s public art in the Knight library. I think it is very understandable that Americans want to see their cultural interests represented in the public artwork because, hey, they’re Americans too. As Doss says, many people are “Angered by perceptions of powerlessness and invisibility, many Americans target public art. Indeed, controversies over public art tend to unmask deeper concerns Americans have regarding their voices and their interests in the public sphere” (Doss, 6). And this goes deeper than public art. It is still a cultural issue that America still has a lot of work ahead of ourselves.

In my own personal opinion, I think public art should be sensitive to diversity and other political issues. It should try its best to address all people in the community. Public art is meant for the public to see, and public means everyone not just certain groups of people.

The primary thesis of “Computer Graphics: Effects of Origins” by Beverly Jones is simply stated as, “old cultural patterns do not die. They may fade or become more evident; that is, they may be deemphasized or emphasized” (Jones, 21). It is restated again on the first page of the article with a little more detail that, “New users bring additional assumptions and considerations of form, content, material, technique, meaning and purpose. However, some traces of the origins and practices remain in these forms, which consequently contribute to both cultural maintenance and change” (Jones, 21). She makes a really good point because everything we know in today’s world has ideas rooted in history. The food we eat now were most likely based on ideas from a blend of many different cultures food and fusions of these kinds of food were created making a kind of new food culture. There are examples like this everywhere you turn. Jones gives a few historical examples illustrating her thesis. The historical example that Jones uses are, “Graphics done by computer scientists, engineers, and technicians…In this, they entered the realm of visually simulating three-dimensional reality on a two-dimensional surface, the same problem that had occupied Roman artists practicing illusionism and Renaissance artists who revived visual perceptive” (Jones, 24). This illustrates the fact that “old patterns do not die” because computer scientists are using the same theories of plotting three-dimensional objects on a two-dimensional surface as the Romans and Renaissance artists did many years ago. It’s the same thing, but instead of being on paper or stone, it is on computer graphics.

Another illustration of Jones’s thesis is modern day movies. These can be compared to the very first plays performed by the Greeks. Instead of acting on stage, this same idea was transformed by using technology to acting on a set and filmed for people to view later. A PBS article states that, “According to tradition, in 534 or 535 BC, Thespis astounded audiences by leaping on to the back of a wooden cart and reciting poetry as if he was the characters whose lines he was reading. In doing so he became the world’s first actor” (The Origins of Theatre).

Alternate Source:

The Origins of Theatre – The First Actor. (n.d.). PBS. Retrieved August 10, 2014, from http://www.pbs.org/empires/thegreeks/bac

The words from the Google searches for the images I used were:

Creativity

Perception

Worldly

Synesthesia

Imagination

Sources Used:

Synesthesia by SilentReaper on deviantART. (n.d.). Synesthesia by SilentReaper on deviantART. Retrieved August 9, 2014, from http://silentreaper.deviantart.com/art/Synesthesia-273485854

patriciaddrury. (n.d.). patriciaddrury. Retrieved August 9, 2014, from http://patriciaddrury.com/tag/finger-art/

Not-So-Tortured Artists: Creativity Breeds Happiness. (n.d.). Pacific Standard. Retrieved August 9, 2014, from http://www.psmag.com/navigation/books-and-culture/forget-tortured-artist-stereotype-creativity-breeds-happiness-74813/

Art Tech L@w. (n.d.). Art Tech Lw. Retrieved August 9, 2014, from http://arttechlaw.com/where-do-the-best-brains-come-from

Yoga in The Gita: Love Changes Our Perception.. (n.d.). Elephant Journal. Retrieved August 9, 2014, from http://www.elephantjournal.com/2012/03/yoga-in-the-gita-love-changes-our-perception/

1. The way I define spirituality is how people connect with a higher power. I think that spirituality is very individual and differs from person to person. Some people like to meditate, some like to do yoga, some pray, some go to religious services, etc. Spirituality helps people cope with the stresses of life. There isn’t one way to find your own spirituality. I do think it is important for each and every person to be spiritual because health definitely has three parts to it. Mind, body, and spirit and people aren’t truly healthy until they figure out the spirituality part of their lives in my opinion.
2. Spirituality definitely does differ from religion although sometimes they do run together. Someone can be both spiritual and religious, but another person can be spiritual but not religious, or even religious but not spiritual. There is nothing wrong with being spiritual and not religious because a lot of people including myself feel that they don’t belong in one specific religion. There are things about each religion that they feel they believe and things that they do not. There are some people who are religious and not spiritual. These people go to religious services and follow their doctrines, but they never actually put in the work to build their spirituality. If people do this, I personally think being religious is a waste of time without the spirituality component.
3. I define creativity as the ability of someone to think out of the box, to think the differently than the way they have been taught in schools to think, and to be able to put their imagination into something tangible. I think creativity has been extremely underrated in my schooling, and I think that everyone has the ability to be creative, we just weren’t taught to practice this part of our brain going through school. I personally think this is why I don’t think I am very creative because I never got the chance to practice it very often.
4. I have a little different view on the source of creativity than the author of the article. I don’t think that the creativity comes from spirituality because people can be amazingly creative without being spiritual at all. I think the source is more so people’s life experiences who make up who they are as a person. These experiences come together to form the view and interpretation that the artist has of the world and creativity comes from their desire to express those interpretations. People who have a narrow interpretation and view on the world, their creativity can be hindered in my opinion.

Are copyright laws prohibiting and limiting creativity in society? Copyright laws are so strict that many people are afraid of using their creativity of remixing. I know that when I was trying to create video projects, I did not use songs in the background from popular artists because it would have been copyright infringement even though putting it in a video would have been in my mind remixing the music. I do think that there should be copyright in music, or else artists wouldn’t be able to keep their content as their own, the way they intended it to be. However, as the author said, “In protecting RO culture, we shouldn’t kill of the potential for RW” (Lessig, 90). I don’t think using the argument that without copyright, artists wouldn’t make any money. Music artists like Britney Spears and Michael Jackson would make plenty of money without copyright because of concerts, advertisements, etc. The author states, “the most valuable contribution to our economy comes from connectivity, not content. Content is the ginger in gingerbread—important, no doubt, but nothing like the most valuable component in the mix” (Lessig, 89). The content of the music is important, but remixing the content has a huge positive impact on the economy. Many things have been remixed in order to create further advancements. The example they use in the reading is that someone created electricity, but it wasn’t of much use until someone expanded or “remixed” it to be used in computers. Remixing is a very important thing and copyright laws can limit it.

Art and technology have always been seen as two completely separate topics, but are they so different? Or have they actually been working together longer than we would think and could we be more successful if we combined them?

People have for a long time separated and compartmentalized different areas of study rather than recognizing how they all work together. The author states, “educational institutions remain rooted in origins and prior practices. Among these origins and practices are the separation of intellectual disciplines” (Jones, 22). The author then goes on to talk about how “although most institutionalized education remains inside disciplinary boundaries, the most innovative research in many disciplines has become transdisciplinary” (Jones, 22). Take for example biochemistry or neurochemistry. If you study just biology you gain some knowledge, but if you combine chemistry, you learn so much more about biology, and same with neurochemistry. Computer graphics is like this. You can create your own graphics which would be called art, but when you combine it with computer technology, you get amazing things that we have never seen before. Another form of technology as art are laser shows at concerts. People create beautiful light shows that compliment music at concerts and sometimes people choose to go to these shows more for the laser show than for the actual music.

I thought the author had a very interesting view of artists and what makes them tick. Artists are just trying to share with everyone in their own way how to explain their view of the world. The Creative Process Steps almost say this in a way. I thought this was interesting, and I totally agree with it in that “[For viewers] to understand is to see through the rough image made by the artist’s hand and recognize the transcendental archetype that is the empowering source behind the image” (74). I didn’t really like how the author shared about his time smoking DMT. It almost gave me the feeling that he was supporting taking hard-core psychedelic drugs in order to get an “aha!” moment. When they say, “I was in my future painting and was being given an experience of the state in order to better create it” (79). He is basically saying that he needed to have hallucinations in order to make an awesome art piece. I think that’s a little messed up personally. I have met quite a few people who think they need to take drugs in order to have “spiritual” enlightenment and experiences and I think it is really sad. People should learn to get in touch with their spiritual side without the help of substances unhealthily changing your neurochemistry. What I really liked about this article is it gives people a taste of what life is like for an artist. They have a hard job because finding their true inspiration must be the hardest part of it all. The author states, “Artists must remain open to the tumultuous ocean of potential inspiration, the entire spectrum of consciousness, and yet reduce or essentialize that infinite ocean to a few flowing strokes from their own fountain, providing tangible evidence of inner discovery to the outer world” (80). There are so many possible subjects in the world and so many problems to try and portray, how could you choose which ones you would like to use? Then to have the pressure of your art being called legitimate or not when “the scale of legitimacy is the way that society interprets or confers success upon the work of art. The art object is related to or classified according to the preexisting definitions” (88). What if you as an artist do not agree with these preexisting definitions? Art has evolved a great deal in the last century or so and preexisting definitions of art have been challenged, so how does an artist go about changing preexisting definitions exactly? The next challenge for an artist is probably harder than finding inspiration I could imagine, is finding support and gaining success. It is a tough world to live in as an artist. I thought it was very interesting how the author kept mentioning chakras and energy pathways in the body. It is very similar to the meridian system in Chinese medicine that is used during acupuncture. These energy pathways don’t exist in theory, they have been found scientifically to actually be there. I think the author was right that “the chakra system is simple and has the virtue of visually tying spirit and mind to body” (94). I think the artist’s view of art is very new-aged and different. Most people would think this person was a major hippie, but I think there is something behind what they are saying. There’s a lot about the body that we will never understand, but we also will never understand creativity in people and how artists create. I think they have a point in tying the spiritual part to how artists function and create.

I wish I could say that there are many beliefs that go into what I wear and my body adornment. But realistically the only beliefs I really think about with my visual representation is about freedom. I think it is important for people to have freedom of expression in the way they dress. I think fashion and body adornment is a huge way people like to express themselves. Each and every person has their own distinct sense of fashion, even if people buy the same clothing items from the same stores, every single person has their own way of pairing it with different clothing items that makes up their sense of style and makes it different than the way anyone else wears that same item. Everyone should be able to wear whatever they want, but in reason. I think that skimpy clothing is definitely looked down upon by most of society. I personally agree that people, especially women should find their sense of style in a way that is classy. I don’t believe this because society looks down upon it, but because women should respect themselves, and dressing risqué I feel reflects a lack of self-worth in most women. They don’t appreciate or value themselves enough that they want attention and try to gain it in the only way they think is possible for them. I think body adornment in the forms of tattoos and piercings are the same way. Some people like to express themselves in the forms of writing, painting, or music. Other people like to put images or words that mean something to them in a place that is always close to them, will never be lost, and will never be forgotten: on their skin permanently. I have to say, for me personally though I use body adornment not for beliefs but for fashion’s sake. I have piercings myself. One of them, I got almost as my own rite of passage for turning 18, and also because I thought it looked cute. My other ear piercings, I got because again I liked the way they looked. The reason I do not have any tattoos is because I am afraid of the permanence. What if I hate the way it turns out? What will it look like on my skin by the time I’m 60? What if the tattoo I get represents something of value to me now, but my values change when I’m older and it no longer represents what I believe in? I am in the process of trying to live a life free of regrets, so I think that’s the main reason I have not gotten any tattoos. I think the reasons for why I make my choices have changed over the years very simply from being impulsive to now thinking through my actions and choices and thinking about the consequences of each and every one of them. I no longer get piercings out of impulse because I think it would look cute, because since I have had a few infected piercings, I think about the possibility of a new piercing becoming infected. I don’t get tattoos because of the permanence and there are possible consequences of me regretting it.

There were some very conservative core beliefs in my family when I was growing up. Tattoos were a definite no. I got my first ear piercings when I was six years old, and I loved them. When I became a teenager, I wanted a double ear piercing, but I was told I was not allowed until I turned eighteen and became an adult. With clothing, my parents obviously didn’t want me wearing clothing that made me look much older than my age. Most of the time, my parents didn’t have a problem with me wearing inappropriate things because I was a tom-boy pretty much until I got to high school. My parents told me I couldn’t wear things if they were too short, too low cut, the usual. They had a lot of help keeping me in check since I went to a strict private school. No cleavage was allowed, dresses and skirts had to go to the knee, shoulders could not be shown, things like that. For the most part, I knew what was appropriate and what was not and my parents beliefs became my own with regards to clothing.

I think the core beliefs and values of my peer community are definitely more flexible than my parents. My generation has made more risqué clothing more acceptable than my parents’ generation had. Skirts have gotten shorter, dress necklines have plunged, heels have gotten taller. My mom used to tell me that when she was growing up the only women who wore thong underwear were prostitutes. Now, many women wear them so they don’t have the horrible and infamous underwear line. I feel I have a more relaxed set of beliefs than my parents because they have been shaped from my peers. I have more piercings than my parents did, I wear more revealing clothing than my parents did, but not quite as much as some of my peers.

Article 1:

Sine, R. (n.d.). Why We Love Scary Movies. Mental Health Center. Retrieved August 2, 2014, from http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/features/why-we-love-scary-movies?page=3

Sine’s article “Why We Love Scary Movies” talks about the many reasons psychologically and physiologically people watch scary movies. I enjoyed reading this article because I am a Human Physiology major and this personally interests me. Sine talks about something called the “horror paradox” and how psychologically, it doesn’t make sense why people like to watch scary movies because “most people like to experience pleasant emotions” (Sine, 1). They can actually cause prolonged psychological trauma on people some time after watching them, especially with children. Sine asks the question if the feeling of fear and suspense you get when you watch horror films are the same as if you yourself were getting chased in real life. The specialist, Glenn Sparks, professor at Purdue University, says that physiologically, it’s not the same if you were actually being chased versus if you were watching it in a movie. Some physiological occurrences happen when watching a scary or suspenseful movie: increased heart rate and blood pressure, drop in skin temperature, sweating on the palms of the hands, and muscle tension. Surveys have showed that the scarier the movie, the more the viewers seemed to enjoy this. One theory for this by Sparks has to do with how it is still in our human instincts for boys especially would have their rites of passage and dealing with scary things was just a way into manhood. Another theory says that kids want to watch scary movies because adults frown upon it, but for adults who like to watch them, it may just be out of curiosity or “as a way of coping with actual fears or violence” (Sine, 2). Sine goes on to talk about the psychological effects that linger after watching scary movies. This is because memories from the movie are stored in the part of the brain called the amygdala which helps generate emotions, and watching scary movies may elicit the same reactions as with real trauma. The last thing Sine talks about is how it’s still unknown why people like to watch films like Saw with a lot of gore in them.

I think the main purpose of both the assigned reading and Sine’s article is why do people like watching horror movies? Part of what Sine says it’s most likely just curiosity, the assigned reading seems to mention as well when Carroll states, “it is not the tragic event in itself that imparts pleasure, but rather, the way it is worked into the plot” (Carroll, 277) and that “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). What they are trying to say is that, if it is worked into the plot cleverly enough, it sparks curiosity in the audience, and if there is enough curiosity, the viewers feel invested in the story and want to see the ending. In Sine’s article how they couldn’t find an answer for why people like to watch movies with gore in them, I think the assigned reading has a pretty good theory for it in that, “we are attracted to, and many of us seek out, horror fictions of this sort despite the fact that they provoke disgust, because that 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). The thing that is different about the two articles is that Sine’s article approaches the subject with a medical scope finding answers physiologically and psychologically while Carroll’s article approaches it theoretically and philosophically. Carroll always seems to the idea of curiosity.

Article 2:

Calvo, A. (2013, October 28). Filmmaker Magazine. Independent Filmmaker Project. Retrieved August 2, 2014, from http://filmmakermagazine.com/76622-so-you-want-to-make-a-horror-film-on-jump-scares-and-other-basics-of-fright/#.U9xrQvldVQA

The first thing Calvo gets into is that in order to make a good horror film, you need to learn about the psychology of it. He says, “to really scare our audience, we should focus more on understanding our collective fears and weaving them into our stories so we can exploit those fears with established cinematic techniques” (Calvo). People over time become desensitized, so one can increase shock value, however this could create more of a disturbing film rather than a good scary film. The atmosphere should be carefully set up in order to set up an interesting plot to make the audience curious. You can rely on isolation of the characters and good cinematography. This way, you set up an eerie tone in the film. In order to intensify the suspense of the plot, you can use dark lighting and shadows, seeing someone or something behind the character, having the main character go to a place that they shouldn’t be, or primal nightmares like not being able to scream or run away. Jump scares should be added where something pops out should be accompanied with non-diagetic sound. He goes through things like the basic jump scare, the Faux scare, and a variety of reveal scares that can all do the trick. In writing screenplays, you have to think about character-driven versus plot-driven stories. Plot driven stories seem to be more timeless.

This article is a lot different than the assigned reading article. The assigned reading talks a lot about why people watch horror films, whereas Calvo’s article talks about the essential things you should have when making a good horror film. When Calvo talks about how important it is to set up the atmosphere and write good plot-driven stories in the screen plays it is very similar to when Carroll talks about how “once a tragic, unsettling event is housed in an aesthetic context, with a momentum of its own, the predominant feeling response, in terms of pleasure and interest, attaches to the presentation as a function of the overall, narrative structure” (Carroll, 277). A lot of what Calvo says should be in a good horror film agrees with Carroll’s overall take home idea of the article in that if the audience is curious enough, they will enjoy the suspense and horror in a movie. Calvo stresses creating curiosity in the audience through many different methods in order to create a good horror movie.