October 2013 – Christopia

People Watching People

I took over an hour today to people watch. At first I was concerned that it would be weird but then I realized that most all of us do this on a regular basis unknowingly. At the Market of Choice I was able to find a few people to analyze and try to speculate what their beliefs were. The first person I saw was actually sitting in a dining booth in front of me and looked almost bored. He was wearing a pretty worn out jacket, had dreads, and was had a smartphone in his hands. If he wasn’t texting someone I would have considered this man being homeless, because of the tattered clothing and hairstyle. I think he could have had or is having a rougher life just because people don’t usually dress in such clothing unless they had to. I feel Eugene does have more people who dress in this way so he could have just been wearing a look. From his appearance I would assume he probably has done drugs or at least smoked cigarettes. He didn’t seem angry but again rather bored so he could also have been waiting for someone. I feel he probably wasn’t religious but I never like to assume that towards people. I think he was a nice person who has been through some rough times.

The next person who I analyzed was a woman who was about 50 years old. Based on the location of Market of choice I assumed that she had enough money to shop here because she was buying groceries to eat. She was an average looking woman with nice clothing. She had a nice blue shirt on tucked into a light tan skirt that went to her feet. Based on this outfit I assumed that she was most likely on the modest side and probably had a respectful and genuine personality. I feel as if she had a family and could have been religious based on the necklace she was wearing. I couldn’t tell what it was but it was a small beaded necklace with a figure on the bottom. She also had a shorter hair cut which for me makes me already feel more comfortable towards her. This could be because of some family members of mine who also have short hair but she looked friendly none the less. I think she has a successful career and a family based on how nice her purse was also. She easily could be a teacher or child care manager based on how she smiled.

The third person was someone sitting outside with his dog. He was more than likely homeless and I could watch him from the inside window of Market of Choice. This man had much worse clothing the first man I described. He didn’t have a sign which I would usually expect. But it looked as if he was just sitting there for much of the day pondering what he wanted to do next. His clothing was all browns and tans except for his black scuffed boots. He looked content and at ease from his facial expressions. I couldn’t tell what is hair looked like because it was tucked inside of his beanie but his shortened facial hair was a darker brown. He looked tan which would bring me to assume he has been exposed to sunlight often which also makes me feel he is still homeless. He had a nose piercing and but had surprisingly white teeth. I know Eugene has a pretty diverse crowd and I would put him in the younger homeless group. I feel like he might travel a lot because his backpack looked pretty well organized with straps and bags. None the less he seem like he would have had family issues or possibly never had a family but he seemed composed and sane which can be uncommon for homeless people. He didnt have a dirty face but I feel like he could have done drugs before. He was a man on his own but I think he was okay with it because he didn’t look concerned. he’s still able to feed his dog so hopefully he will be off of the streets soon.

The Feelings Belonging To Taste

The article “A Matter of Taste” by William Deresiewicz is a post from the NY Times that explains the reasons why people may come to consider food as art and then gives an opinionated but thoughtful reasoning to why it should not after all be considered art. Deresiewicz goies on to say that food hasn’t become implemented with art, “but that it has replaced it.” He also goes on to say that food as art is costly in the senses of time, knowledge and money. He makes a point that food has grown extremely far away from the simple diners and grocery stores. There has become organic food booths exquisite cuisine restaurants and campus food festivals. Now days Deresiewicz points out that Food to the growing population in America has become an expressive art, a way to communicate, and live healthily. This to me is showing how food in todays society has developed into many different aspects of our lives that go beyond the simple fact that we eat when we are hungry. Deresiewcz explains how art has always been a passion that Friends can share between each other. This phenomenon according the Deresiewcz has been integrated into the realm of food also. Friends get together friends talk about food, and are passionate about food in ways beyond satisfying hunger. Deresiwicz then goes on to say that a shared passion and stimulation of human senses isn’t enough for food to be considered art. There are many fields that art has and food simply doesnt cover them. Some of these as Deresiwicz explains are the lack of ability of food to tell stories, are to express an idea. There is also a point about the lack of ability for food to encourage a number of emotions that art can pick at. Some these including sadness, anger and sorrow. I am going to add Lust, into this list because this to me sets them apart completely.

Another connection that food has tied with art is that “It has developed, of late, an elaborate cultural apparatus that parallels the one that exists for art, a whole literature of criticism, journalism, appreciation, memoir and theoretical debate.” This is a good point that shows how food as art is going through similar cultural respect as art often does and has gone through. With our societies high regard for food in art Deresewicz mentions that it is becoming its own religion in many respects. This point has also been brought in one of our readings “What is Art For?” by Ellen Dissanayake. She basically backs affirms Deresewicz’ point that “Art has become if not a religion, an ideology whose principles were articulated by and for the few who had leisure and education enough to acquire them.” This is the connection to how our schools are now teaching students to become experts in this area and are beginning to implement these skills into as many aspects of our life as possible. There was a funny excerpt however that talked about France Italy. Both of these countries I would assume hold much respect for the gourmet quality of food. But in both of these countries eresiewicz points out that art as a movement still holds a higher respect and cultural need. Contrasting this to American culture might seem silly that America could possibly have a higher respect for food as art then these countries but this argument is not fully negotiable. Thomas Cole, Norman Rockwell, and Gilbert Stuart which are all famous American painters may argue that American culture is seen as an underdog to other art enthusiast countries.

““Eat, Pray, Love,” the title goes, but a lot of people never make it past the first. Nor do they have to. Food now expresses the symbolic values and absorbs the spiritual energies of the educated class. It has become invested with the meaning of life. It is seen as the path to salvation, for the self and humanity both(Deresiewicz)”

This quote to me also expresses how food doesn’t have the ability to last more than the amount of time we have to look at it and savor it. After that there is only a remembrance of how the food provoked our emotions. Plus no plate is the same so the ability to relive an emotion elicited by art is impossible compared to a painting or sculpture that can be revisited. Thus making food into this symbolic value that can only be revisited by our memories. This quote also establishes that food has gone through the steps necessary to become a religion excepted by Americans. It is absorbed it is tough and it is invested in many aspects of life and humanity. Although there is this acceptance of food and art as a religious practice Deresiewicz still makes points that with the lack emotional variety food can not be established as an art. From one of the readings called “Food As Art,” Telfer states “that good food can elate us, invigorate us, startle us, excite us, cheer us with a kind of warmth and joy, but cannot shake us fundamentally in that way of which the symptoms are tears or a sensation almost of fear” (26). This is a quote in compliance with Deresiewicz’s ending paragraph. It gives food as art credit for eliciting emotions but sets a drawback that it is incapable of eliciting certain emotions such as fear that true art has an ability to do. Meals can evoke emotions, but only very roughly and generally, and only within a very limited range .Food can bring fourth emotions such as “comfort, delight, perhaps nostalgia, but not anger, say, or sorrow, or a thousand other things. Food is highly developed as a system of sensation”(Deresiewicz). This basically sums up and supports the writings of Telfer in “Food As Art.” I think it is safe to say that art as food provides simple sensations where as fine art releases thoughts and feelings sometimes beyond what we know is possible.

Deresiewicz, William (October, 2012). A Matter of Taste [On-Line Newspaper]. Retrieved 27 Oct 2013. <http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/28/opinion/sunday/how-food-replaced-art-as-high-culture.html?_r=0>.

Art and Food

The connection to food and art is an interesting subject that I think should stay as simple as possible. Urmson described a work of art as “an artifact intended primarily for aesthetic consideration”(18). I would put cakes and desserts in this category only because they are intended to look at for longer than a few seconds. The fact that in most cases we eat food that is in front of us as quickly as we can seems to disprove my desires to stare at the food and appreciate it. Pictures of art on the other hand is an entirely new category that works. I also think that the argument about how “it is inappropriate to look at food aesthetically because this is treating a means as an end, and assuming food to be positively good when it is merely necessary”(19). I think that this matter humbles food enthusiasts to a nice level. As a cook in a gourmet cake shop I can say there are few foods that actually should be considered an art piece. The rest of the food should be considered as simply meals to live off of. That is not to say that there aren’t certain plates of food that are far more aesthetically profound. I think that art is a very hard to put a boundary on without sounding disrespectful to people’s interests. However in the essay, “What is Art for?” Dissanayake’s finishes it up by stating that “art-like activities exist in all societies and all walks of life.” This is important because describing something as art-like has a less aggressive meaning. I think “art-like is a good description when comparing food as an art. It gives credit to artistic capabilities of food plates, but keeps it in a category that also excepts how food will always be a necessary functional of human survival. Food can look very artistic but it appeals much stronger to other human senses (taste, smell, hunger) to have art as it’s description.

Art As A Movement

Ellen Dissanayake coined the term paleoanthropsychobiological as an adjective to describe the multiple aspects of art. “Paleo” describes how art is inclusive to all of human history. “Anthro” relates art to human cultures. “Psycho” demonstrates art as an emotional need with psychological effects. The “biological” part of this word describes that art is connected to an overruling habitual trait of our human species that is natural and comfortable.

Dissanayake uses the example of ‘making something special’ by incorporating it into the important section of our lives. Being important describes a “fundamental human productivity or need.” This is a characteristic that humans natural place value on and Dissanayake explains how art is incorporated into one of these needs. When someone makes something special it is an action that wouldn’t normally have taken place on an everyday basis. Keeping this in mind, creating art takes effort and skill that people don’t necessarily partake in regularly. No art piece will be exactly the same or take the same amount of time, effort, or ingenuity.

The movement of art through time is categorized into to different eras and movements. Dissanayake describes that in medieval times, the arts were kept connected only to religion and not for aesthetic purposes. It wasn’t until The Renaissance that these religious values were replaced with techniques that displayed “beauty, harmony, and excellence. Modernism was the next biggest movement and change that took place in the eighteenth century. It developed a new definition of aesthetics in which artists could distinguish “principles such as taste and beauty.” In the mid twentieth century another standard of art was founded called abstract expressionism. I think this is still the most art that we see today being sold and displayed. To Dissanayake , Abstract expressionism is a more elaborate abstract practice of art where artists tended to use words such as “Flatness, Purity, and picture plane.” This shows how art was becoming more specific and in a sense more special. We gave multiple aspects to a word and behavior that started out as a simple act in religions. Art is still growing and changing which makes me curious to what new paths art is going to take in the future.

A Palaeoanthropsychobiological Critique

The article, “What Is Art For?” Does a great job at re-describing the meaning and value behind the word “Art.” It brings art back to early stages of human development and compares our current basic societal view of art to a more complex and holistic approach. Although this approach seems wholesome and just, I do have a couple thoughts that challenge Dissanayake writings. Dissanayake explains that “Although behavior made special need not be aesthetic or artistic, when one exerts control, takes pains, and uses care and contrivance to one’s best the result is usually called artistic or aesthetic”(23) I think this definition can be applied to almost everything that we consider to be art.

However I do question what we consider a picture or image taken from a camera or online as, being art. Is it the act of taking a photo in a specific place and time that gives the definition of art? Or is it the subjects or images the photo is composed of that gives it a definition of art? For example, if someone were to take a picture of an Italian sports car with a backdrop of a beautiful sunset, would the car get the appreciation of art because of the time, care, and pain spent building it? Or would the fact that the photographer took time to capture that specific image of the car and sunset be the reason of credible artistic value. Also keeping in mind that an italian sports car alone to most viewers would probably be considered a work of art and craftsmanship. I don’t know if this picture’s association with being artistic could be granted to both aspects, but then again how does a simple picture of a beach seem more beautiful and artistic. Maybe there are more emotional ties to art than we think. The fact that we can appreciate a picture that simply captures a piece of nature in time makes me think that art is in a way almost impossible to define further than biological human interests and satisfactions.

Prioritizing My Life Values

Faith

Family

Friendship

Health

Security

————————————–

Integrity

Independence

Enjoyment

Loyalty

Personal Accomplishment

Wealth

Location

Wisdom

Service

Leadership

Creativity

Personal Development

Expertness

Community

Power

Prestige

Today I awoke from a short nights sleep and drove back to my home town to participate in a family tradition of making apple cider. My grandparents started this a thousand years ago and I anticipate it happening every year. I then drove my girlfriend and roommate back to school in Eugene. The most applicable values from my top 20 would probably be, family, friendship, enjoyment, and loyalty. Comparing my top five personal values to the activities that occurred today I would say that family applied the most here with friendship also. Family was the reason that I drove back to my home town. I did find the whole day enjoyable but I would have to say that it wasnt because I was able to get messy and take home some apple juice. Seeing my grandparents and family always makes me happy but I like that we were able to all engage in an activity that we like to do. Friendship applied because I was able to bring my friend and girlfriend home and joke around with them before doing more homework.

I think I inherited Faith, Family, and Friendship from my family and all of which I can say are still applicable today. I do see less of an influence that they make on these being my values, but they are definitely still my top values. I have a goal of being successful in school and living a life that involves the least amount of stress as possible. I don’t exactly know how this is going to happen at the moment but then again that is why they are goals. I would say that the things that stand in my way of these goals would be a job that pays enough to have a comfortable life and a job that is not stressful. I really hope that someday I will find a place that I will want to wake up every morning and go to. I am not a very picky person but there is one thing that I don’t like and that is stress. As far as my values go I dont really see them changing any time soon.

Assignment-2 Post-1

“The initial question” was a very detailed and interesting writing sample that stimulated me to immediately question my own reasons of belief. The article’s style did manage to make me slightly nervous about the quality of research done. One example is how, much of the material for this article consisted of questions asked and answered by Lewis H. This article was although very eye opening and insightful. I think it is important to study the reasons why we do things in detail. But when it all comes down to life applicable behaviors Lewis asks, “If we establish a framework for sorting through values, and keep it as objective as possible, will it help us in our lives?” After all the research I agree that this is what matters. Maybe understanding and manipulating personal values will change who we are? Or could this act of understanding happen to make one a better person for themselves. In this article Lewis explained that many people were unsure how to respond to the informational overload of the value systems. When I cant give a fully unbiased reason to why I believe something it makes me uncomfortable. Not being able to control something so seemingly easy is bewildering. I also agree with Lewis when he says that personal values are as essential as food and air. I also feel that “without a clear set of personal values it is hard to live a satisfying life.” To me this talks about all the reasons we work, learn, exercise, and have fun. although they are not as explained as possible the fact that they are there is acknowledgeable. For example without an inner drive caused by emotion to do homework, there would be no reason or urge to do it. This article brings up so many good points about inner belief systems but once again makes me feel so small in respect to the unknown parts of existence.

Gravity, A movie filmed without gravity

http://www.sfgate.com/entertainment/movies/article/Gravity-thrills-with-visual-grace-4866413.php#photo-5272161

Mick LaSalle created a post on SFGate about the breathtaking movie Gravity, filmed with Sandra Bullock and George Clooney. The setting for this movie takes place in a location that most people can only visit in their dreams. After reviewing his post I have put Gravity on my must see list for a number of reasons. Just when it seems that movie editing couldn’t become more accurate and entrancing, Gravity uses the newest 3D film technology to surprise audiences with the most realistic, and visually acceptable space movies to date. When I first saw a preview for Gravity weeks ago, I was a slightly worried that casting such familiar actors/actresses would make the movie seem too unrealistic. After reading the SFGate post, Mick LaSalle brought to my attention the reason why these familiar faces were casted. There is a considerable amount of isolation between actors and the audience due to the bulky space suites. This made casting familiar actors/actresses necessary in order to create emotions in the audience that are usually initiated by facial expressions and hand gestures. I am curious to see if this technique will work in keeping me connected to the cast. For Only being 90 minutes, this movie is said to deliver a convincing story. So much so that viewers say it is easy to forget that Gravity is not actually filmed in space. Since I was a young lad I have always been mesmerized by the vast size and unknown content of space. This makes me and any other person who finds them self staring up on a clear night perfect candidates for Gravity. Go see it for yourself!