Month: April 2014

Today was a perfect day to “people watch” (that didnt sound creepy at all), as it was 84 degrees on campus. Whenever the sun is out, the school’s population seems to double. There are a ton of “sun’s out, guns out” bros and high shorts, summer-dress wearing girls out and about.  Everyone seems to be laying out on the Memorial Quad or throwing a frisbee around: kind of what one expects college to be. Its pretty ironic since this discussion is about the expectations/assumptions of people based on what they are wearing.  On that note,  there were many  people that I noticed , but 3 stuck out and caught my eye for this assignment.

The first person I notice was a tall male wearing all Nike Oregon gear, from his head to his feet. He also had a pair of  Dre Beats headphones. He also was rockin the classic, clean, buzz cut. He had a certain demeanor about him that portrayed  confidence.   He was also bigger, so it seemed that he valued a healthy lifestyle. It’s hard to put a finger on how an individual feels about certain issues because even if the organization they represent believes in something, the individual is just as likely to feel a different way.  n terms of emotional condition, I believe this individual would feel self confident in their body to be able to play a sport in front of a number of strangers.  However, the individual didn’t seem sad or anything of that nature, so I assume that they are at peace mentally. I assume this person is an athlete for our school because of what he was wearing along with his Oregon Backpack, which definitely gives it away.

The next person I noticed was a girl that was wearing a navy summer dress with white polka dots on them, while wearing flip flops. She was obviously dress for the amazing weather! She was also wearing a black backpack so I assume that she a student going to class. She looked maybe about 5’5”, she was skinny , and had long brown hair. From her demeanor and based on appearance, she seemed happy. I can see her as being very fun, smilely and bubbly. I can’t really say for sure but I would assume she has a supportive family, and that she grew up with strong values.

The last person I observed was a 5’10” Caucasian male. He was a little on the bigger side, had long and somewhat curly, messy hair. He was wearing what seemed to be a dirty or old muggy green t shirt, and beige khaki cargo shorts. Side note, whenever I see people wear a green shirt which  beige/brown khakis, I think they look like a tree. He seem older, maybe about 26-30 years old. I got a kinda of nerdy demeanor from him. I could definitely see him as a GTF for math or economics.  feel his appearance makes him look very relaxed and laid back, friendly, but maybe weird (not a bad thing).

Again, all these assumptions were based on quick observations. I know that I cannot know a person just based on peer observation. My claims are due to the assignment at hand. Don’t judge a book by its cover.

In an article written by Blake Gopnik in the Washington Post, debates weather food can be serious art or not. His article doesn’t exactly state what he believes food to be considered but it does makes many counter arguing points that help try an determine whether food is art.  These are only a few of the arguments that Gopnik touches in support of food as art.

[ “Can’t: There’s no object left over when a meal is finished.
Can So: Music doesn’t last, either. Each time a dish is prepared, it’s a “performance” of a recipe that will survive over time.

Can’t: Its goal is to feed people, so it’s too functional to count as serious art.
Can So: Paintings, photos and videos have their “functional” versions, too. The function is just the scaffold that food-art is built around. ElBulli’s “art” goes way beyond the calories it delivers.

Can’t: It can be experienced by only a tiny number of people.
Can So: You don’t measure an art form by the size of its audience. Way fewer than 8,000 of their contemporaries ever heard most of what Bach or Mozart wrote; almost no one looked at Vermeer in his own day.”   ]

Over the past few weeks, we have studies and discussed what art is and what is art for. To me, I came to the same conclusion with E. Dissanayake, that “Art is not universal”. I believe that this is absolutely true. Art is not universal because there is not just one specific style or concept. Art has and can be define in many different ways. I think that art is subjective because its interpretations are mostly based on the perspective of the viewer. When it comes question whether or not food is art, I believe that it is. Food can be crafted with artistry; convey meaning; be a vehicle or inspiration for some of humanity’s better qualities. Therefore, food is art.

Dissanayake offered a highly informative and critical take on defining art.  A significant piece from her work is the creation of the word “paleoanthropsychobiological” which she uses to define art. The best way of understanding the term is to break it down piece by piece. “paleo-anthro-psycho-biological” First, that the idea of art encompass all of human society all the way back to the Palaeolithic era; Second, that include all human societies which is anthropological ;And third, that it accounts for the fact that art is psychological or emotional need and has psychological or emotion effects.  In Gopnik’s article, he says regarding food can be art because ” It can talk about history, culture, ethnicity, politics, the body.”  To me, this is significant in the argument defining food as art because Gopniks statement matches  Dissanayake’s  description of the word “paleoanthropsychobiological” .

the body = anthro and biological

history = paleo and anthro

culture = anthro and psycho

ethnicity = biological, psycho, and anthro

politics = anthro.

In another reading by Elizabeth Telfer, she makes a point, when considering food as art, that “…tastes and smells can be combined with a judgment…” (18). Telfer is discussing how food is critiqued when it is tasted and due to this, food has a harder time gaining traction when being considered by others who aren’t eating in the present form.  I thought that this point is a good support for Gopnik’s statement within his article when he describes the act of eating at a specific restaurant: “At elBulli, the artistic experience is ultra-intense, concentrated into the few seconds it takes to taste, chew and swallow.” Gopnik believes eating to be an artistic experience, and too believe that Telfer believes then same thing.

If all three authors were to meet, I believe that based on their writings, they would all have the same stance that food is considered art.

 

Gopnik, Blake (2009, September 23). The Big Debate: Can Food Be Serious Art? The Washington Post [Online Article] Retrieved October 27, 2013 fromhttp://articles.washingtonpost.com/2009-09-23/news/36862766_1_elbulli-adri-art-matters

Telfer, E. (2002). Food as art. In Neill, A. & Ridley, A (Eds.), Arguing About Art: Contemporary Philosophical Debates (2 ed., pp. 9-27). New York: Routledge.

Dissanayake, E. (1991). What is art for? In K. C. Caroll (Ed.). Keynote adresses 1991 (NAEA Convention), (pp.15-26). Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.

Food is something that our world considers necessary for human existence, whereas art is often seen as a luxury. And yet those who work in either the sectors of food or the arts (whether it be artists and farmers, patrons and chefs, or arts enthusiasts and foodies) seem to be working along parallel lines to address issues that we face in our modern world. The arts, including painting, sculpture, installation, dance and music, are in part about creating a sensory experience—something for the audience to see, feel or hear. And perhaps more than any other discipline, food has the ability to appeal to all of our senses—a combination of colors, textures, crunches, smells and tastes goes into the making of a meal, and the selection and transformation of those elements is creative. When a creative, sensory form also has the capacity to express philosophies, inspire multiple interpretations, conjure narratives and/or allude to complex meanings, it is art. Food can be crafted with artistry; convey meaning; be a vehicle or inspiration for some of humanity’s better qualities. Therefore, food is art.

In last weeks reading, “What is Art For?”, Ellen Dissanayake says “Art is not universal…”(Dissanayake 19). This, to me, is the perfect quote to reiterate that food I indeed an art form. By are not being bound by specific guidelines, it can be identified as many different things to many different people; its meaning is not universal and food being an art form is subjective. In my mind, art is a form of expression, and what people make for food is a form of art, whether it is making a wedding cake, having a thanksgiving feast, or just making top-ramen for dinner. By not being universal, food has unlimited potential for expression and uniqueness.  Each food item produced is bound to be different from another.

Elizabeth Tefler in this weeks reading, “Food as Art” states, “a work of art by definition [is] a man-made thing, even if the human involvement need consist of no more than putting a natural object in a gallery and giving it a title” (Tefler 12) I completely agree and I think food is legitimate form of art because it is a manner of expression, it can be critiqued critically in more than one way, and also can be extremely unique.

This is Art! Yummmmm!

The term paleoanthropsychobiological, in my opinion , is an accurate adjective of Western art.  Created by Ellen Dissanayake and brought up in the reading,  the best way of understanding the term is to break it down piece by piece. “paleo-anthro-psycho-biological” First, that the idea of art encompass all of human society all the way back to the Palaeolithic era; Second, that include all human societies which is anthropological ;And third, that it accounts for the fact that art is psychological or emotional need and has psychological or emotion effects (p15).

When Dissanayake talks about taking an item and “making special” with it, she states on page 25 that it is to “transform the ordinary into extra-ordinary.”  Her examples of this are when she includes the celebration of holidays, rituals, or even cooking a meal.  I think it relates to art and human survival because in art, the details matter.  By making art special, it further differentiates itself from everything prior to it.  In terms of human survival, I think making special can be tied directly to the fact that if a human does not put in the effort to make their life longer in terms of health or special moments, than the life they live is bland and not full of enrichment.

In her essay, Dissanayake mentions multiple art theories including the Renaissance, modernism, and postmodernism.  The Renaissance period/theory occurred during the 14th and 17th centuries.  During that time, artists began to “replace God-centered with man-centered” (page 16) in terms of subject matter when it came to their work.   The Renaissance saw art transitioning into more proven or realistic realms.  Modernism lasted from around 1880 until 1980.  Dissanayake describes the new art scene as such on page 18: “As paintings became less and less like mirrors held up to nature… viewers could no longer decipher or naively admire them…”  Art in the modern era was an extreme innovation to what had come before it.  Traits like flatness and purity were words associated with the art that was create in this era.  Postmodernism is described by Dissanayake on page 19 as the following “…a declaration of all isms and movements… a radical change of consciousness… that challenges the entire “modernist” ideology.”  Furthermore, postmodernism only promotes the ideas of truth and reality in art.  This theory was developed in the 1980′s and continues to exist today.

 

From the reading, “What is art for?” by E. Dissanayake, there was one quote, in particular, that I wanted to discuss. This quote can be referred to on page 19, where Dissanayake states “Art is not universal”. I believe that this is absolutely true. Art is not universal because there is not just one specific style or concept. Art has and can be define in many different ways. In the past, art was used as a “service of religion” (16).  Art then progressively developed with the “gradual secularization of society, rise of science, social interpersonal changes, emphasis on reason, and great political revolutions” (17). I think what makes art great and ever evolving is the fact that there is no right or wrong way to approach it. Every work-of-art has the ability and potential to be different from every other work before it.

I believe that many people with no talent have become famous and people with incredible talent have become world famous. I also believe many people with incredible talent will never be known. A few days ago, I read an article that said a “canvas painted blue with a white line” sold for $44 million. I find this insane because I could have created the same exact painting, and I do not think that I am artistically talented whatsoever. Or maybe I am? I like to doodle drawings on my notebook. Should I be a famous artist? Who knows?  It is subjective.

I do not see this painting to be a masterpiece but others do see it as one. I think that art is subjective because its interpretations are mostly based on the perspective of the viewer. It behooves us as viewers of art to interpret it with a critical eye, yet that can very often, lead individuals to different conclusions and reactions to a work of art.

Of the activities that I have done today, I can see a somewhat connection between that and my “most important life values”.  Today, all that I have done is homework. I am putting all family, friends, enjoyment, etc., aside to get my homework done.  I do not see how doing homework directly reflects my top values, but I can see where it may indirectly reflect them.  One could argue that by finishing these homework assignments, I am internally thinking about my life values of security, wealth, and enjoyment for the future. One can also argue that my family value can have an influence on whether I decide to do homework or not because they taught me that it was bad not to do well in school.

Of my life goals, there are some that I have not pursued yet. These goals include raising a family of my own, and having a career that can support my family and that I enjoy. First of all, what stands in my way of having a family of my own is that I have not found that significant other to call my wife yet. I also do not have a job yet so I have not been able to accumulate much wealth or financial security. I know that when all things fall into place, I can pursue these life goals and hopefully create/achieve new ones.

For this week’s discussion, we question  ‘”what values are” and how “Personal Values” are developed within each individual.  To me, values are a person’s principles or standards of behavior. It is one’s judgment of what is important in life. It is also the important and lasting beliefs/ideals shared by members of a culture about what is good or bad and desirable or undesirable. Values have major influence on a person’s behavior and attitude and serves as broad guidelines in all situations.

In H. Lewis’ “A question of Values: Six Ways We Make the Personal Choices That Shape Our Lives”, he states a theory that “individual human beings are programmed into their values…by social pressures” (pg. 8, Lewis).

I agree with this statement because we start forming values in our childhood. First we learn to appreciate things that fulfill our basic needs, but we value especially those people that provide them to us. Their behavior towards us then becomes the main reference of what is valuable. Thus, our character and personality are molded/programmed through the attitudes and behavior of the people who raise us. We learn to value the substance of everything they say and do, and what they don’t say and don’t do. This strengthens our overall formation of values. By the times we become young students in school, we start feeling social pressures and the pressure of values that are different from ours, as we relate with other people. This then tests our values taught by our parents, as we start to question whether or not the values we learned are values we want to keep or not.

Through more life experiences, we then develop “basic ways we come to ‘know’ something” (pg. 9, Lewis). The ways we do this are through:

“

1. Sense Experience – gaining direct knowledge through our own five senses
2. Deductive Logic – subjecting beliefs to a variety of tests that underlie deductive reasoning
3. Emotion – feeling that something isn’t right
4. Intuition – the unconscious but nevertheless most powerful part of our higher mental processing capability.  “

And with this basic model, we then create and develop our own values.

 

-Related text: Lewis, H. (1990). A Question of values: Six Ways We Make the Personal Choices That Shape Our Lives. Axios Press.

For my first blog, I wanted to talk about an article regarding center fielder, Matt Kemp of the Los Angeles Dodgers (my favorite team). Over the past 2 seasons, the Dodgers have made big strides towards being one of the best teams in baseball and more importantly , being major contenders for winning the World Series. The Dodgers have all the right ingredients to be winners:  they have elite pitching, great fielding players, a strong batting line up with a balance of speed and power, along with experienced veterans to help guide the team. The only thing that has fallen short of the organization’s expectations is Matt Kemp’s production the last 2 season. After an astounding, “Beast-Mode”, MVP -like, 2011 season, Matt Kemp’s stats have fallen, partially due to injuries. This year, Matt Kemp is supposedly coming in healthier than ever, and is on his way back to his “beast-mode” days. I am a little skeptical because a majority of the time, athletes do not come back the same after serious injuries, although there are some exceptions.

Another issue that the Dodgers face is their out-fielding roster. They have 4 starting caliber outfielders in Andre Either, Carl Crawford, Yasiel Puig, and Matt Kemp, for only 3 positions. Either, Crawford, and Kemp are all former All-Stars and have a great resume. Puig, a rookie last year, took the MLB by storm, putting up huge batting numbers. In my opinion, Puig should not start because of his lack of fundamentals, along with his off the field problems. Crawford is more expendable because he is in the back end of his career, and the fans want Puig to play because he has become an instant star. Kemp is slowly making his way back as he was just announced a starter in the Dodgers home opener today, also because Puig showed up late. We’ll see if Kemp can make it count. With a stacked outfield, I am very interested to see what the Dodgers decide to do this season regarding their outfield issue.

“Live.Breathe.Blue”, Go Dodgers!