This week’s topic is really interesting to me because I had never think about the public art before even though I can feel that every day in my daily life. After see the Runquist Murals, I have some ideas. In my opinion, an important thing of public art is its diversification which means many kinds of work could be public art. As Erika Doss mentioned, “Public art includes sculptures, murals, memorials, monuments, civic gateways, pocket parks, playgrounds, and outdoor performances”, meanwhile, she think this diversification of American public art can represent the America’s diversity, as she explained, “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).

I think public art can reflect the thought of the city and it is a form of contemporary culture. In other words, I think public art means those art works that be created by artist for a certain region. Public art is a sign of the mature development of a city. It increase the city’s mental wealth and positively express the local characteristics and cultural values, also it reflects citizen’s sense of pride. A mature city needs public art, as Doss stated, “…public art was a form of civic improvement and could help generate a shared sense of civic and national identity” (Doss, 4).

In addition, public art have more meanings. It can emphasize some features through change the local scene so that evoke people’s thinking and recognition to some issues.  It also can express the history and values of local region. As Doss described, “grounded in conversation, dialogue, and often debate, public art can serve as a symbol of civic examination, prompting further debates about community needs, hopes and histories” (Doss, 10). Therefore, I believe that public art have a kind of strong power which can change a city’s appearance and influence public mental situation in a long term. It also would be a sign of city and play an important role in building the feature of the city. As Doss argued, “as an instrument of public conversation, public art can become a catalyst for civic and national revitalization. Often because it is controversial, public art can play a central role in shaping and directing community identity” (Doss, 10).

Actually, I have to think about Chinese public art after read this Doss’ article. In some cities in China, public art almost build on the money and the called ‘public art’ just for showing the wealth of the city. For example, some city pursue to build the highest building in China, even in Asia or in the world. They spend a plenty of money to build the skyscraper and there is no mental meaning on these kind of public art and it also cannot show the thinking of city. This kind of public should not be advocated and I think citizens also do not want to see the public art just for showing money.

In conclusion, I believe that public art is extreme important to a city’s development because this is a good way to show the city’s thinking, culture and values.

 

Reference:

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

The words that I chosen are: creativity, inspiration, palette, unique, imagination, passion

In the article ““Computer Graphics: Effects of Origins”, the primary thesis is the relationship between the art and the development of technology. As Beverly Jones stated, “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). So she “hope to establish the relation of specific image, object event, or environment to conceptual frames. These frames exist within art and technology and are present in other forms of symbolic and material culture” (Jones, 21).

Jones introduced three historical example of the development of computer graphics and I want to identify ‘the early years and beyond’. She mentioned the example of Romans. At that time, Romans tried to present three-dimensional image on the two-dimensional objects. They had figured out how to make the art work on the walls to show a 3-D effect. They tried to apply computer technology on this issue. This example provides an illustration to prove that technology is really closely link to art and they cannot be divided. Therefore, Jones emphasis the excellent artists should understand some basic physical principles which can help to support the realistic art works.

I think the best example of application of computer graphics in art is movie. Nowadays, many movies rely on strong computer graphics have made a great success, like Avatar, Transformers, and the Avengers. People go to watch a movie not only for its story and stars, they also want to watch a visual feast. This kind of visual feast cannot be shown without computer graphics. As Slick stated in his article ’10 Films that Revolutionized Computer Graphics’, “spectacular computer generated effects sequences are commonplace in everything from big-budget films, to television, games, and even commercial advertising…Blockbusters look better than ever thanks to a talented army of 3D modelers, animators, render technicians, and warehouses full of the computers that do all the math” (Slick).

 

References:

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

Slick, J. (n.d.). 10 Films that Revolutionized Computer Graphics. Retrieved from http://3d.about.com/od/3d-at-the-Movies/tp/10-Films-That-Revolutionized-Computer-Graphics-Part-1.htm

1. How do you define “spirituality”?

I think “spirituality” is an awareness of self, nature and the universe. It is an inner mental power which is beyond the physical sense. Everyone has different spirituality because each person has different understanding to himself, nature, and the universe. In addition, I think there is no right or wrong for spirituality, and spirituality should not be limited by other outside factors, like religion, race, or nationality. Overall, I think it exists in our inside mentality.

2. Does spirituality differ from religion?

Yes, I believe that spirituality differ from religion. First of all, spirituality is totally come from our inner, but the effect of religion is come from outer. Religion was created by people then spread it to others, but spirituality natural power for everyone. Secondly, religion always tell people what is right and what is wrong, but there is no right or wrong for spirituality. For example, Buddhism tell people eating meat is wrong but spirituality is depended on personal judgments to decide.

3. How do you define “creativity”?

I think “creativity” is a kind of comprehensive ability and only human have this ability. Creativity is an ability to create new ideas and new objects. The differences between creativity and other general abilities are the novelty and originality. The thinking way of creativity is diverging that means no constant direction so freedom to discover unknown things. Overall, I think creativity is to create new things that other people do not know in personal special ways.

4. What is the source of creativity?

I think human’s creativity mainly comes from our curiosity. I think only when a person feel curious to something then he can propose a question then he will try to resolve this question. This process is creation and feeling curious is the first step. As Thomas Edison said, “who lost their curiosity who will lost their creativity”. Driven by curiosity, people continue to explore the unknown and therefore creativity was produced. Overall, I think curiosity is extremely important to creativity. No curiosity, no creativity.

In the video presentation of TED, the speechmaker argued that a plenty of laws restrict the people’s creativity. He quoted three examples to support his argument, talking machine, celestial copyrights, and the ASCAP cartel. Actually, I have to recognize that his argument is correct to some extent. For example, many people like to create something base on some original works but the law does not allow them to do that. This would limit people’s creativity to some extent. However, I think the situation would be worse if we do not have these laws. How can we guarantee the benefits of those original creators without laws? If without these laws of copyrights, who is still willing to create works? So I think the laws are necessary for protecting original creator’s benefits even though it could limit people’s creativity in some extent.

Jane McGonigal introduced that playing online game can help human to figure out the actual problems that are happening in the world, like hunger, poverty, climate change, global conflicts, and obesity. So she suggested people to spend more time on playing online games, its 21 billion hours per week in the next decade. She listed four main benefits of playing game online, blissful productivity, social fabric, urgent optimism, and epic meaning. For her argument, I have a question is that how we can make sure the environment of game is exactly same with real word? As we all know, the real world is much more complex than the virtual game so I doubt the feasibility for resolving the real problems through playing online game.

The reading “Art as Spiritual Practice” mainly discussed the spirituality of art and how do we think when we see an object. As we discussed before, art could express and evoke emotion. Meanwhile, Grey suggested that art is a kind of spiritual practice so this opinion is really similar with our previous discussion that art could be an expression of emotion. This reading introduced a interesting theory that is Saint Bonaventure’s three eyes of knowing. As the article mentioned, the three eyes are “the eye of flesh sees the “outer” realm of material objects: the eye of reason sees symbolically, drawing distinctions and making conceptual relationships; and the mystic eye of contemplation sees the luminous transcendental realm” (Grey, 73). I think the most of us just can apply the eye of flesh and the eye of reason in our daily life. For me, when I look at an object, I almost just focus on its appearance and sometimes would think about the distinction of it with others.

Comparing with ordinary people, an artist must apply the third eye that is the mystic eye of contemplation. As Grey argued, “artists need to be able to see on each level in order to bring technical beauty, archetypal beauty, and spiritual beauty to their work” (Grey, 73). I believe this is a necessary requirement for an artist, and especially for the outstanding artists. An artist needs to explore the deeper meaning of objects so that they can express them well in art form. In addition, Grey think the third eye have the relationship with soul, as he explained, “only 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” (Grey, 82).

Overall, I think applying the mystic eye of contemplation in our daily life is very difficult because most of us do not have the talent of art, and I believe applying the third need the talent of art.

Reference:

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

The first article that I chose is “Why Some People Love Horror Movies While Others Hate Them” that was written by Margarita Tartakovsky. This article mainly introduced the reasons why some people love horror and why some people hate horror movies. According to the article, there are main four factors that could affect people’s attitude to horror movies. The first one is the excitation transfer process which means how you feel after the movie. The second one is different wiring which means people have different wiring so they have different reaction to the horror movies. The third one is novelty which means the novelty of horror movie can attract some people but sometimes some people’s negative emotions can exceed the novelty. The fourth one is the gender socialization which means male and female have different attitude to horror movies.

Tartakovsky’s article pointed out the dual character of horror movies, some people like it but some people dislike it. Carroll’s article also mentioned this problem, as he argued, “It obviously attracts consumers; but it seems to do so by means of the expressly repulsive. Furthermore, the horror genre gives every evidence of being pleasurable to its audience, but it does so by means of trafficking in the very sorts of things that cause disquiet, distress, and displeasure” (Carroll, 275).

Tartakovsky mentioned there are more men enjoy the horror movies than women. She thinks it “might be because men are socialized to be brave and enjoy threatening things… Men may derive social gratification from not letting a scary film bother them” and men usually like to choose horror movies as date movies because “women are more likely to seek physical closeness when they’re scared, and men can show off their strength and bravery” (Tartakovsky, 2012). I am a girl and I asked my boyfriend and he answered men indeed would choose horror movies as date movies to attract girls.

The second article is “The Curious Appeal of Horror Movies” that was posted by Lucy O’Brien. This article mainly discussed current development of horror movies and why people love horror movies. O’Brien mainly introduced two reasons. Firstly, people like to watch the novel things because of human’s curiosity. Secondly, people can increase the relationship with lover through watching the horror movies. During her article, she also mentioned the excitation transfer process that be mentioned in the first article.

In this article, O’Brien said, “We want to see things we wouldn’t usually see in our daily lives, of course. Curiosity is a powerful emotion” (O’Brien, 2013). This argument is really similar with Carroll’s argument that is “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). As we all can feel that each person has curiosity so we always be attracted by novel things. The second reason is relative to the gender socialization that be mentioned in the first article. O’Brien explained that people would shake when they watching the horror movies so it is a good opportunity for man to hug lover so it is the reason why “horror movies are frequently considered to be great for first dates” (O’Brien, 2013).

Overall, I feel very interesting to research the horror and I understand some reason why people love horror movies. I really like horror movies and I will put some horror art consideration when I look the horror movies in the future.

 

References:

Carroll, N. (2002). Why Horror?. In Neill, A. & Riley, A. (eds.) Arguing About Art: Contemporary Philosophical Debates (2nd ed., Chap. 17). New York, NY: Routledge.

O’Brien, L. (2013, September 9). The Curious Appeal of Horror Movies – IGN. IGN. Retrieved August 4, 2014, from http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/09/09/the-curious-appeal-of-horror-movies

Tartakovsky, M. (2012, October 31). » Why Some People Love Horror Movies While Others Hate Them – World of Psychology. Psych Central.com. Retrieved August 4, 2014, from http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2012/10/31/why-some-people-love-horror-movies-while-others-hate-them/

In usual, I like to wear a colorful t-shirt, a short skirt, and a pair of comfortable flat shoes. For the adornment, I wear a silver necklace and a pair of ear rings. I am a girl so I want to be beautiful and gorgeous so I make up every day. I think women should make up and dress up themselves carefully because we need to show our beauty to other people, especially to men. There is a popular slang in China, “there is no ugly woman but only lazy ones”. I believe this slang is totally correct. It is very hard to make up well and it will cost much time to study and practice, so women have to give up something, like time and money, to study how to make up. I think it is valuable because delicate makeup can make me to feel more confident. I pursue comfortable life and this belief also can be reflected on my dress. I like to wear comfortable flat shoes rather than high-heeled shoes even though high-heeled shoes can make me more beautiful. I would not like to suffer pain that be caused by high-heeled shoes because comfort is more important than beauty.  There is no tattoo on my body because I believe a girl should be elegant and tattoo is not suitable for women. My opinion is traditional so I think tattoo always means non-traditional. My style of dress almost keep same from twelve years old to now. The only change is the attitude to make up. I start to make up from I entering the college and I never make up before that. Before entered college, I think I am a student so my most important task is to study well rather than make myself look beautiful. As I entered the college, I recognized that I already become an adult so I want to make me look like more mature, and learning how to make up is the first step.

The core belief in my family is that wearing comfortably and wearing based on family financial situation. No matter for my father or mother, they always put the comfort of clothes in the primary consideration when they go shopping.  As a man, my father do not care much about his appearance, and generally, he just wears an ordinary t-shirt, a pair of jean with casual shoes. This kind of dress makes him feeling comfortable. However, when he working in the company, he would wear business suit because he think it would make other feeling more professional. For my mother, she always wear a blouse, a long skirt and a pair of low-heel shoes. Both of my mother and I do not like wear high-heeled shoes because it is too uncomfortable. In addition, my family will buy and dress according to our income situation. My family is not very much in the past so we just bought and dress ordinarily. But in recent years, our income increased so we bought some luxury adornments. My father wear a Gucci belt and my mother have a LV handbag. They use these luxury adornments not for showing wealth but only for comfort. They think these luxury adornments are delicate and they have relative income level to afford it. I inherited my parents’ values and beliefs, so I also have several luxury adornments after my family’s income increased.

There are some different values and beliefs in my peer community. Some of them like to dress up with some luxury adornments to show that they are rich so that acquired a kind of satisfaction. The adornments on their body often value more than $5000. In their value, money is very important because they think people would admire them for their wealth.  In contrast, some of my peers just like to dress up simple and modest. They do not like to wear luxury adornments because they think the elegant personality should come from the inner rather than be reflected by those luxury adornments. In addition, there are some of my peer like to tattoo because they think it is very cool. They think the non-mainstream adornments can show their differences with others. In their values and beliefs, they want to be different and attract others’ attention.

Overall, I think the personal dress can reflects people’s personality, values, and beliefs. Just as Sander argued, “A person’s physical appearance affects his or her self-definition, identity, and interaction with others” (Sanders 1). However, we also cannot judge a person only based on appearance because it is not accurate.

 

Reference:

Sanders, C. R. (1989). Introduction: Body Alteration, Artistic Production, and the Social World of Tattooing. In Customizing the Body (Chap. 1). Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

The article that I chosen is the “How Food Replaced Art as High Culture” that was written by Deresiewicz Deresiewicz in the New York Times. In this article, the author argue that food is replacing the art as a kind of high culture, meanwhile, he believe that food is not art. Firstly, Deresiewicz introduced that foodism is increasing rapidly in the America as the rising postwar middle class. Today, many young people pursue to the possibilities of career in food and food take up an extreme important position in their eyes.  Just like art, food is also a genuine passion that people like to share with their friends and food also have the characteristics of aestheticism. However, the author argue that although there are some similarities between food and art but food is not art because food is not narrative or representational.

There are some similar and relative points between “How Food Replaced Art as High Culture” and Telfer’s article. First of all, Deresiewicz think chef is similar with artist because both of chef and artist have the genuine passion that people like to share with their friends. As he described, “many try their hands at it as amateurs — the weekend chef is what the Sunday painter used to be — while avowing their respect for the professionals and their veneration for the geniuses” (Deresiewicz, 2012). Telfer also mentioned that cook is artist with creativity, as she mentioned, “the cook who creates such a recipe is a creative artist. A cook can also create recipes by producing variations on someone else’s recipe or on a traditional one, like a jazz composer arranging a standard tune or a classical composer arranging a folk song; cooks who do this are also creative artists” (Telfer 16). Secondly, both of Deresiewicz and Telfer refer the aesthetic consideration of food. Deresiewicz think food take over the characteristic of aesthetics, as he introduced, “just as aestheticism, the religion of art, inherited the position of Christianity among the progressive classes around the turn of the 20th century, so has foodism taken over from aestheticism around the turn of the 21st” (Deresiewicz, 2012). In contrast, Telfer described that no matter cookers or eaters are pay attention to the aesthetic consideration into the food. As she written, “many meals are intended by their cooks to be considered largely in this way- to be savoured, appraised, thought about, discussed-and many eaters consider them in this way” (Telfer, 14).

Although Deresiewicz acknowledged that food have some similarities with art but he argued that food definitely is not art. As he argued, “But food, for all that, is not art. Both begin by addressing the senses, but that is where food stops. It is not narrative or representational, does not organize and express emotion”; he think food do not have the function of expressing emotion and then he give some examples, “An apple is not a story, even if we can tell a story about it. A curry is not an idea, even if its creation is the result of one”; but he also think dishes can evoke people’s emotion just in a very limited range, “Meals can evoke emotions, but only very roughly and generally, and only within a very limited range — comfort, delight, perhaps nostalgia, but not anger, say, or sorrow, or a thousand other things”; as a conclusion, he said “Food is highly developed as a system of sensations, extremely crude as a system of symbols. Proust on the madeleine is art; the madeleine itself is not art” (Deresiewicz, 2012). In other words, Deresiewicz suggested that food is not art but cooking could be art. This argument is very similar with Telfer’s thoughts. Telfer also think food lack the function of expressing emotion but cook can do it. As she argued, “the inability of food to express emotion does not mean that cooks cannot express themselves in their work…cooking can in one sense be an expression of emotion. A cook can cook as an act of love, as we have seen, or out of the joy of living” (Telfer, 26).

The most obvious different opinion between Deresiewicz and Telfer is that Deresiewicz thinks food is not art but Telfer thinks food is a kind of minor art. Telfer thinks food can be a work of art and type of art form, but it is minor rather than major art. She explained that food art is minor because it is transient and it cannot have meaning and move us.

Overall, there are some similarities and differences between Deresiewicz’s article and Telfer’s article. In my opinion, no one is right and no one is true because art is a kind of subject thing so everyone can have special opinion to it.

References:

Deresiewicz, W. (2012, October 27). How Food Replaced Art as High Culture-A Matter of Taste?. The New York Times. Retrieved August 3, 2014, from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/28/opinion/sunday/how-food-replaced-art-as-high-culture.html?_r=0

Tefler, E. (2002). Food as Art. In Neill, A. & Riley, A. (eds.) Arguing About Art: Contemporary Philosophical Debates (2nd ed., Chap. 2). New York, NY: Routledge.