For this weeks assignment I went ahead and watched the video about the Amen Break with absolutely no idea what I was getting myself into, but I am so pleased that I watched it! I am an advent supporter and lover of dance music and have been for quite a few years now. Although I support all sub-genres of dance music, I honestly cannot stand jungle or DnB (drum and bass) for the simple fact that it has always sounded the same to me regardless of differing artists. I know a lot of people like to think that about all forms of dance music, and to someone who has not spent a lot of time listening to it and and finding the differences in each sub-genre I could completely understand why. It was so interesting and enlightening for me to learn that a 6 second sound from a song made in 1969 is the basis for just about every (if not all) jungle and DnB songs, as well as a lot of late 80s early 90s hip hop songs. I’m curious if there are any other genres from either the 90s or now that anyone else has noticed the same break sample being used?

After reading Beverly Jones piece the primary thesis that I see is the relationship between “specific image, object, event or environment to conceptual frame” and how these frames “exist within art and technology and are present in other forms of symbolic and material culture”(21).  Meaning that in such things as games or computer graphics there is an influence or connection to art and artistic creation.

An example that Jones speaks of in the early years of computer graphics in correlation to her thesis that stuck out most to me was when she explained some of the early digitally computed images of the 1960s. She talks of how these images were usually done by engineers and technicians who were hired by the government, and that not all images served “technological research or practical purposes; some were done in ‘spare time'”(23). She then goes on to say that in using a kind of technology like computer graphics as an engineer or technicians in their spare time was a reflection of “a desire by individuals not trained in art to produce aesthetic imagery”(23). When one is to think of an imagine in aesthetic perspective it then becomes more focused in the sphere of art, rather than the functionality of technological innovations such as computer graphics.

When I think about her thesis in modern day technology the best example I can think of is 3D printing. 3D printing has been on the rise in the last couple years for the immense amount of scientific and medical advances that this new type of technology is making. I have personally seen the use of one of these printers in a science class I took this last fall here at UO. The class was a green science class focusing on the use of plastics and polymers and the kind of future we could create in using more renewable and biodegradable resources in substation from the many non-recyclable plastics that we as consumers use. 3D printing uses a type of material that could be melted down and used over and over again to create new products for consumer use. Not only can a printer like this be used in the science and medical field, where I believe it had its start, but it is making advances in the art world as well.

I read an article from the Huffington Post called “14 Ways 3D Printing Has Changed The Art World” that goes into detail about many ways that 3D printing has been influencing the art world. In the first paragraph the author Katherine Brooks says “A 3D-printed portrait of President Obama dominated a few headlines last week, as the Smithsonian Institution welcomed the three-dimensional sculpture like no other into its presidential collection. The boom in additive art has been building for several years, capped off now by a major art museum’s acceptance of the art-meets-science medium. In fact, it seems no corner of the art world remains untouched by 3D printing’s growing influence, from architecture to dance to painting to music.” She goes on to speak of even things like 3D stop-animation in which characters are printed and photographed over 4 weeks to create only 2 seconds worth of footage. A combination on multiple platforms of technology, art and science.

Source: Brooks, K. (2014, June 30). 14 Ways 3D Printing Has Changed The Art World. Retrieved November 23, 2014, from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/30/3d-printing-art_n_5534459.html

For this weeks assignment I was really unsure of what we were going to be diving into. After watching the TED talk (which I watched a total of four times) I am still so unsure of what all of this means. Hearing that gamers in the year of 2010 spent 3 billion hours a week playing video games astonished me. And to follow that up with the suggestion that we should increase that SEVEN times in order to help world issues like hunger, poverty, climate change, global conflict and even obesity shocked me. To be quite honest even after watching this TED talk I can’t make much sense of Mcgonigal’s reasoning. I think that through the means of technology many of these issues can be helped, maybe never fully solved, but definitely on that track. I do not see most, if hardly any of the gamers of the world being the next generation to make a difference however. I give Mcgonigal credit in her research and optimistic view of the gamer population, but I’d really like to know where her research and steps in her 10 year plan to make a difference through gaming stands now 4 years later.

Speaking personally it is really hard for me to define spirituality. I think that everyone has a different definition and that we are all spiritual beings in our own way. The best definition I can give is having faith in something or someone whether they be real or not. I feel that many people think that you have to believe in a certain religion or some being bigger than yourself in order to be spiritual, but I personally believe that you don’t have to believe in anything more than what you know to be a conscious being. One example I try to use myself is being mindful. The core teachings in meditation is being mindful of your breath and being aware of your surroundings, and although many people place meditative practice with buddhism, I don’t believe it means you have to practice or believe the buddhist religion. I myself do not claim to be buddhist or do I even practice meditating like I should. I think that the act of just being mindful is a spiritual one in its own, and something that everyone should be more aware of. To be mindful means you are focusing on what you are doing here and now, and if we can focus on what we are doing now, and have faith that what is meant to be will be, then in that sense I am transcending past myself and letting life run its course.

I absolutely think that spirituality differs from religion. I used to be a very dedicated Christian and a follower of Christ for quite some time in my life. I would attend church every Sunday, youth groups on Monday nights, and dedicate my summers to attending and working and Christian affiliated camps. These were some of the greatest experiences of my life, and I made some of the best friends I could ever ask for, but there were so many things happening within the Christian religion that I now see and disagree with. For myself, I was made to believe that certain acts were sinful, and although we are all sinners we should strive to not do these things and always pray and ask for forgiveness if we do them. Religion was always about doing things with the thought of Christ in mind. For a while it felt like if something was going wrong in my life it was because I wasn’t dedicated enough time to Christ or asking him for forgiveness for sinning, and then in turn sinning made me feel like a bad person and made me feel awful for what I was doing. Religion to me felt like I was in chains. Now that I’ve stepped away from the Christian religion I live my life the way I choose to and I don’t feel bad about things like drinking with my friends. Now I feel more spiritual than I ever did, because my life has its ups and its downs, but without the shackles of religion reigning over me, I have experienced so much more in life and have seem myself in a much more transcended level of awareness to the world.

Defining creativity is also tough for me, but I think I would best describe it as a process that we go through to solve problems and construct new things. Creativity is something that we all have inside of us in my opinion even if we may not consider ourselves as being artistic. For example, how many times have any of us been put in a situation where we had to find a solution or get something done and instead of doing it the way we’re told to we do it our way or a new way. That took time to create and be creative in our way of thinking.

Defining the source of creativity is even more of a challenge because I think there are many different paths in which creativity can come to be. I feel that creativity takes inspiration or a reason to feel inspired because it eludes to the definition I gave of being a process. In order to find the source of creativity I think we need to dig into what it is that is inspiring us to most to want to go through the process of being creative and design the pieces of work that we do or solve our issues is ways we wouldn’t normally.

When I first read what this weeks lessons were going to based around I was really intrigued. At first I thought that we would be reading or watching presentations on how art is based around religion (like angelic figures or paintings based around God from the middle ages), but was surprised after doing the reading to see how much Grey focused spirituality in his artwork around the types of spiritual awakenings he had through things like smoking DMT, and being educated in the power of understanding the 7 chakras. I’ve spent quite a bit of time watching documentaries and reading about people, especially artist, who have taken hallucinogens and captured its power to turn it into something fantastic or revolutionary. Francis Crick even admitted to being high on LSD when he first deduced the double-helix structure of DNA.

My favorite part of this chapter from Grey’s book was the section about inspiration and how he described how each artist has their own unique process that they go through in becoming inspired to create their next piece. He says that “Inspiration is the most mysterious step in the creative process. The artist is possessed by a create force, overtaken by a vision and driven to create. Inspiration is beyond reason”(82). I really love the way that he way that he makes sense of inspiration by exalting it to this type of higher being. Like spirituality in a way. I think that being spiritual does not always mean that you have to believe in the same higher power, or to believe that a higher power exists, but being spiritual is believing that there are things even in yourself that can transcend you that is bigger than you’ll ever be able to understand. Like inspiration, it is “beyond reason” as he puts it, as if it is beyond ourselves and something bigger than will ever know. Inspiration is in all of us and comes from many different sources and ways of thinking, but I personally believe we will never fully understand or know those sources.

This weeks topic was one that I found great interest in learning about because to start, I hate most horror movies. Some of them (specifically any having to do with spirituality and witchcraft) actually terrify me to the point that I can hardly sleep at night after watching one. Even the smallest creak in the floor or rush of wind outside and I am wide awake, sweating and covering every bit of me with my blanket like its some sort of magical shield that will protect me from the “thing” thats out to get me. But, what’s funny is that I am the biggest fan of American Horror Story (all seasons) and Boardwalk Empire. Boardwalk Empire is not scary in any sense, but it does give you that tense feeling at times before watching someone get brutally murdered by a gun to the face or slashing of the neck. So why is it that I feel this sense of excitement and interest in such shows like Boardwalk Empire and American Horror Story where they take creepiness and murder to an all new level, but hate every other kind of horror?

In the first article I read called “Horror Movies: Why People Love Them,” by Leslie Fink she discusses three reasons for having the desire to watch these horrific films and TV shows. I want to focus mostly on the first  reason that she explained which was desired effect. She spoke with social scientist for the Oxford University press, Jeffery Goldstein, whom suggested that “we watch [horror] for different reasons, which include enjoying the adrenaline rush, being distracted from mundane life, vicariously thumbing our noses at social norms, and enjoying a voyeuristic glimpse of the horrific from a safe distance.” Then going back to the article by Noël Carroll I remembered how he mentioned that “the horror story is driven explicitly by curiosity. It engages its audience by being involved in process of disclosure, discovery, proof, explanation, hypothesis and confirmation”(279). To me it seems that both Carroll and Goldstein are suggesting the same thing about horror here: that curiosity may have killed the cat, but it has yet to kill any of us who find enjoyment in watching horror. Adrenaline rush, distraction from life, a glimpse of horror from a safe distance, all a means or reaction to being curious.

The second article that I read was called “The Psychology of Scary Movies” from the website filmmakeriq.com. In this article the authors talked about 8 different theories based around our attraction to horror. They included Carroll’s theory about how we are attracted to horror because of curiosity and fascination, but also included theories like: psychoanalytic, philosophical (through a process called catharsis), Excitation Transfer, Dispositional Alignment, Sensation Seeking Scale, Gender Socialization theory, and finally societal fears. I think the theory that I found most interesting in all of these, in comparison to the theory of curiosity and fascination that Carroll put forth is the idea of societal fears. David J. Skal came up with this idea and bases it around the history of horror films and how in the time period they were created there was a type of societal fear, most likely political as well, that cause this kind of horror film to be extracted into the community. The kind of examples he gives of this are how in the 50s there was a rise in mutant monster films, most likely based around the type of nuclear testing and warfare that was being threatened in the late 40s and majority of the 50s. In the 60s there was an increase in zombie horror films, which could be associated with the Vietnam war and the types of gorilla warfare people were seeing then. And in the 70s when movies like Nightmare on Elm Street were created it could be in association with the mistrust in authority after incidents like the Watergate scandals. It is not a theory that I believe is fully complete, but in some cases makes much sense. Like in recent years with movies like 2012 and I Am Legend. I think that in a lot of places in the world we have this fear of apocalypse or the world ending, and although this is not a fear of murder, or ghosts, or demons etc. it is still an idea that causes us to be fearful. In turn these movies were created and even high remarks by critics. It seems to me that these two theories could work together as one. As humans we are curious to the types of horrors that we feel we will never experience, but also ones that seem entirely possible due to current societal fears.

Sources:

Fink, L. (2009, November 6). Horror Movies: Why People Love Them. Retrieved November 9, 2014, from http://www.livescience.com/7949-horror-movies-people-love.html

The Psychology of Scary Movies. (n.d.). Retrieved November 9, 2014, from http://filmmakeriq.com/lessons/the-psychology-of-scary-movies/

The scene that I picked for the mis-en-scene example is when Buffy and her friend are in their dorm room talking about Buffy’s relationship with Riley. The set design seems really on point with what a dorm room would look like and the way that her and her friend are dressed they fit the part of college aged students in that time. The only sounds that are coming from the scene are those from them talking with one another and the sound of the refrigerator door closing, meaning that the sound was diegetic. The lighting seems to be slightly darker which I think adds to the darkness in the scene since Buffy is unable to admit her true self to Riley.

The scene that I picked as the example for both diegetic and non-digetic sound is the scene that shortly follows after Buffy and her friend discussing Riley when you see the man and woman who were planning to meet come together. You hear her knock at the door followed by them talking to one another and then the sounds of them kissing(diegetic). To follow that we are introduced to what looks to be the outside of a clock tower being brought into scene with dark, ominous music(non-diegetic). We hear the clicking of the clock (diegetic) then hear the sounds of a creak as this grayish-green dead looking hand opens a box. The ominous music follows as from scene to scene we are introduced to houses and people asleep and whispers of voices carry as a fog like cloud comes from about each persons mouth and travels to its resting place inside this deathly creatures box.

I think in the second example especially all of the sounds, the costumes and makeup and the special effects added to the horror of what was to come next in this episode. We do not know from just this scene who this scary creature is, but we do know that he is not good and whatever his box is collecting is something that it shouldn’t. In the first scene I think that the costumes, make up and set design were really adding to the story that the show Buffy surrounds, but did not necessarily add to any “horror” within the show.