Category: Assignments

When I first look at the murals side by side, I notice the difference in the base of the tree. In the science one, the body at the bottom seems to be hiding its body from the rest of the tree because it looks like it is in the fetal position.  The reading claims “the figure at the base of the tree represents humanity rising to erect posture of thinking being” (Marsuka). However, in the art mural, the man at the base of the tree is facing upward towards its people. In the reading, it says that the “figure at the base o the tree is a symbol of universal human aspiration to create things of beauty” (Marsuka). This can be related to the spirituality lesson we had because art was connected to spirituality and religion because it can tell a story about the development of human kind. These two murals seem to reiterate the long-known tensions between science and art. Art, Runquist seems to be saying, is spiritual and religious, telling the story of the birth of human kind. Contrary, science, Runquist seems to be saying in his mural when comparing the base of the tree, is a thing of fact and the mind, which does not seem to connect society as a whole. I think this because when I first look at the images, the way the man at the base of the tree is postured shows whether he is accepting human kind or if he is rejecting others and thinking internally.

The next thing that I noticed when looking at these murals is the similar layout of how the painting was painted. Both the art and science picture has eight mini-sections that seem to connect within each box. An evolution of human kind can be seen throughout both images because when you first look at the pictures, the humans seem to become more and more developed as you progress from the base of the tree to the top. However, the development each is showing differs. The “Development of Art” mural shows how art has progressed throughout human history. It starts with “the earliest primitive period: cave painting, sewing” and then moves into “sculpting… weaving… builders” in the Egyptian and Later primitive period (Marsuka); next comes the development of “drama, music, stained glass, and goldsmith” in the Greek, Medieval and Renaissance periods (Marsuka). Finally, the top portion of the painting shows modern day art, such as the development of “campus art… cinema and radio” (Marsuka). This reminds me of one of the first units we had where we talked about what is art. Dissanyake talked us through the different theories of what art is, and I think this would be a perfect pairing to Runquist’s “Development of the Arts” mural because each theory coincides with a section of this painting. The top part of this mural I would classify as post-modernist art, which I think is one of my favorite theories of art because it talks about how art is up to the interpretation of the beholder.

In the science mural, Runquist used a similar technique as used in the creation of the art mural. The only difference in the science mural is that instead of documenting the progress of art throughout history, they are documenting the changes of science. In the Stone Age and Iron Age, man used “natural weapons such as clubs” which then turned into weapons made out of “metal” (Marsuka). This seems to go along with the primitive period in the art mural. Egyptian, Greek and Renaissance times led to “discovery of… hieroglyphics [which] gave a means of recording human thought… astronomical discoveries gave knowledge of earth… and the invention of paper making [and] printing” (Marsuka). This shows how, like the art mural, this time period of history marked great development in ways of communicating and exploring the unknowns. Finally, we see developments in “power…chemistry…and control of power” in the 18^th-21^st century (Marsuka).

This shows how as humans’ evolved, great achievements and developments were made in both art and science. I think this is my favorite part of comparing these two murals. It shows how as humans evolved, developments in different fields led to the improvement of the human race as a whole. I think it is cool that Runquist took two competing fields and compared them in a unique way that really shows how although people think there is such a difference between art and science, when they look at the big picture (or overall mural zoomed out) there is not much difference between the two.

Maruska, B. (2013). A response to the runquist murals. Retrieved from http://blogs.uoregon.edu/runquistmurals/

In the article, the author claims that the most important thing he wants to see in his children’s development is “I want to him to be the sort of person who can create by remaking” and by remaking, this means changing things one has already heard in order to put their own flare onto the story. I think this is really interesting. Unlike most education which just wants the learners to just regurgitate the information they hear, Lessig finds it more important to be able to absorb information then make it your own. This seems to be very crucial in the concept of remix art because it is taking something already known and putting a little twist on the original to make it new. I would like to ask Lessig, even though you like when someone takes in information and spits it back out in a unique way, how do you think the original artist would feel if their work is being changed into a remix?

 

If I was an artist, this is the collage that came to mind. I incorporated nature and elements of nature I find beautiful, which I would want to convey if I was an artist.

After reading Jones’ article about the influence of technology and computer graphics in society, one thing he brought up really stuck with me. He talked about how some people set limits on success: “examples express the tendency to set limits of ‘the possible’ based on previous experience, knowledge and conceptual frames” (Jones 21). This made me wonder, why do people set limits on how much they can succeed and accomplish? Why does society tell you you can only achieve as much as others, and not much more? I feel like this quote shows that people would rather stay the same and do not believe that can they can achieve the unexpected because previous generations tell them there’s a limit to how much you can succeed. So my question is, why did this thought process come to be and why does it still exist in our society?

In the article, “Computer Graphics: Effects of Origins,” Beverly Jones talks about the influence of technology and computer graphics in society.  His main thesis is art and computer graphics reflect the origins and prior practices of our culture. He argues that although the reflections and origins may “fade or become more evident… be deemphasized or emphasized” old cultural patterns do not completely disappear with the rise of new technology (Jones 21). To support his thesis, in the middle of the essay, he says that “new [computer graphics] users bring additional assumptions and considerations of… technique [to the field]… however, some traces of the origins… remain in these” new ideas (21). Throughout the article, it talks about how the origins of art remain in computer graphics, in many aspects of our daily life. Since everyone uses graphics and multimedia to enhance work in the fields of education, communication, entertainment and many more, Jones’ claims it is hard to categorize computer graphics as a unique field that does not influence others parts of society. Jones’ also claims “both scientific and artistic sources rely on culturally embedded patterns of reality represented by varying degrees of abstraction in symbolic and material culture” (29).

Another reoccurring theme in Jones’ article is the idea about limits. Not math limits, but limits society puts on its growth and development. While discussing the early advancements of technology and its beginning stages of becoming embedded in society, Jones’ talks about how people originally did not believe that technology would become such a prominent force in today’s culture. They set boundaries that they did not think could be broken: “these examples express the tendency to set limits of ‘the possible’ based on previous experience, knowledge and conceptual frames” (21).  While reading this section and seeing how limits are set, I think that Jones’ is trying to challenge the audience, asking them to reflect quickly on themselves. He seems to indirectly be asking, “Why do we set limits?” Why, as a community, do we try to set boundaries regarding how far and how successful something new can be? One of the historical connections Jones includes in his work in the connection to people setting limits on how successful computers and technology would be and Mercedes Benz motors: “early market predictions of the Mercedes Benz Corporation… limited the number of potential automobile sales to the very low number of trained chauffeurs then available” (21). Jones believes that Mercedes Benz underestimated the amount of cars they could sell because they underestimated how many people actually knew or could learn how to drive. This company set limits on their potential success like many people does and this is exactly the same as when people did not expect technology to become so important. But guess what, in current day, everyday life revolves around computing and the use of computers and technology (26).

People seem to set limits on goals because they are afraid of the unexpected. Dani Shapiro wrote that “the job- as well as the plight, and the unexpected joy – of the artist is to embrace uncertainty, to be sharpened and honed by it” (Popova). I think this connects to what Bones’ believes, that computer graphics has been so successful because it consists of a workforce or people who are creative and risk-takers. They embody the beginning of society’s mindset of achieving the unachievable and accomplish the unexpected. This mindset has allowed for such great advances and has allowed technology and computer graphics to become such a powerful force in today’s society. Because the people who founded the computer graphics field and who stuck by their origins and used creativity and imagination to their advantage, technology has become so important in our society. Computer graphics is a way for people to try new things, while pushing the limits of society because they know that “uncertainty is where things happen. It is where the opportunities – for success, for happiness, for really living – are waiting” (Popova).

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

Popova, Maria. “Stop Making Plans: How Goal-Setting Limits Rather Than Begets Our Happiness and Success.” Brain Pickings RSS. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 Nov. 2014.

1. What is spirituality? The dictionary definition states it is “something relating to or affecting the human spirit or soul as opposed to material of physical things, while also relating to religion or religious beliefs.” To me, I think spirituality is the abstract beliefs that we believe in because we want them to help provide comfort in the unknown. For me, this exists through belief in God and also how nature is a major part of our life. Although some may not share this spirituality, each person’s individual definition of spirituality makes each one unique. Spirituality is a way for people to express their individualism while also connecting them to others who share similar beliefs.
2. I think spirituality differs from religion in a few ways. First, I think religion is more of a concrete form of spirituality. I think religion has more rules to follow, since religion is normally used to categorize and connect a wide range and variety of people. I think religion is similar to education because it tries to help explain things that people are curious about and have no other way to explicitly define them. Spirituality on the other hand is more of individual’s beliefs that are trains of thought; things that help lead people toward their religion. I think spirituality is a way of self-expression, while religion is a way of people to connect and bond with others.
3. What is creativity? The dictionary definition states it is “the use of the imagination or original ideas, especially in the production of an artistic work.” In my opinion, creativity is how individuals express their thoughts that are unique to themselves. Creativity is a major factor in art, because it allows the artist to be inspired to create whatever they form. I think creativity also connects with spirituality because both are forms of expressing individualism. Both act as a mean for an individual to separate themselves from others and declare their independence.
4. I think creativity comes from the mind. It comes from individual thought and from a culture that promotes individuality over conformity. It comes from individuals’ thoughts, maybe even dreams. However, even though it comes from within a person’s mind, I think it is influenced by external factors. I think a big external force that acts as a source for creativity is nature. Since nature is created by a bigger force and has been here much longer than we have, it is a stimulus for creative thoughts.

After watching the video presentation that documented four different artists’ techniques and unique styles, I was able to learn a little more about how art has a deeper, bigger meaning. Ann Hamilton is a textile artist. I found it really interesting when she said that her favorite part of textile art is how so many individual threads must come together in order to form the whole product. All of these threads depend on one another and are almost codependent. She claims there is a constant tie of lines in art to threads of a textile product, and these threads exist everywhere in all art forms. I thought it was really interesting when she brought up how textile art is a metaphor for social interaction, which is a beautiful thing. She also claims that art is trying to make things visible that are not always visible. This reminds me of spirituality because although you may not be able to visibly see what you believe in or what is directing how the world exists, it is still there. And art is a way to express this. Another artist the film talks about is John Feodorov. He is focused on nature and its interaction with the Western culture. He uses animals and trees to show how nature is imbedded into Western society, even though sometimes there is disconnect between society and nature. I think this could connect to how art expresses spirituality because it is revealing the ambiguity of nature because art is attempting to show where the spirit lies. This is pretty cool I think because these two artists are trying to reveal things that they feel exist but may not always be visible in society.

The first article I found was called “Why Do Some Brains Enjoy Fear?” In this article, Allegra Ringo discusses why some people enjoy horror, because of the fear associated with it. Ringo claims that people want to “challenge themselves and their resilience and dare each other to… face the scary scenes and abnormalities” that are related to horror (Ringo). Another reason Ringo believes people enjoy fear and watch horror films and enjoy art-horror is because “humans are obsessed with death; we simply have a hard time wrapping our minds around what happens when we die” (Ringo). This is similar to Carroll’s argument that people enjoy horror because it promotes curiosity. Carroll claims “we are attracted to… horror fictions… because that disgust is required for the pleasure involved in engaging our curiosity in the unknown and drawing it into the process of revelation” (Carroll 284). We enjoy horror because we, as humans, are curious about things we do not know. Since people as a whole are very interested in the afterlife, we use monsters and horror characters such as zombies, monsters and ghosts, to symbolize this uncertainty about what happens after we die. Carroll’s work also argues that “what attracts us to… horror… is the whole structure and staging of curiosity in the narrative, in virtue of the experience of the extended play of fascination it affords” (288). This is similar to Ringo’s argument because since most horror films and artwork are creatures that are related to death; this can show that death is something we are really curious about as a whole society. Finally, most horror characters are disgusting looking creatures, such as vampires, zombies, corpses, and ghosts. Neither is appealing to the eye. This relates to Carroll’s belief that “one wants to gaze upon the unusual, even when it is simultaneously repelling” which horror characters can be considered (286).

The second article I found was called “Why Do We Watch Horror Films?” This article summarizes Anthony Rivas’ perspective on why we enjoy horror. Rivas says that some people enjoy horror because it addresse[s] archetypal fears and takes them on a psychological ride. People that are “high sensation-seekers enjoy morbid curiosity in general and horror movies in particular” because it gives the body a sense of exhilaration (Rivas).  Carroll claims, “the disclosure of the existence of the horrific being and of its properties is the central source of pleasure in the genre” (Carroll 282). Both Carroll and Rivas agree that the story being told in horror is a crucial characteristic of the horror genre; the way the story is being told evokes a sense of anxiety and thrill in the audience, which is why horror can be so pleasing to some. Finally Rivas’ quotes Ph.D. Paul Patterson, who believes we enjoy horror because “it turns largely on the idea that something outside of our understanding [is] threatening us” (Rivas). This means that people enjoy horror because it gives a sense of thrill and genuine fear, in a safe and controlled environment. Because in the end, horror is not real. These monsters do not exist in real life and they cannot seriously put us at risk.

In conclusion, Carroll, Rivas and Ringo argue that people enjoy horror because of the curiosity associated with it and its psychological thrill that is causes in a non-threatening environment.

 Works Cited

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.

Ringo, Allegra. “Why Do Some Brains Enjoy Fear?” The Atlantic. Atlantic Media Company, 31 Oct. 2013. Web. 5 Nov. 2014.

Rivas, Anthony. “Why Do We Watch Horror Films?” Medical Daily. 22 Oct. 2013. Web. 4 Nov. 2014.

 

An example of diagetic sound is around 2:15, when the main character finishes kissing the boy in the classroom, the sun has gone down and these two end up all alone in the school when it started off in a full classroom. All of a sudden, you hear a faint girl’s voice whispering and singing in the background. The blonde girl gets up and starts to try to see where it’s coming from. The voice is kind of creepy because it is high pitched and coming from an unknown place. She also is singing about how a man or something is coming to take people away and he will kill them, and the victims will scream but will not be heard. This contributed to sense of horror in the video because my heart started to race when I heard the sound and could not find where it was coming from and then finding out it was a little girl who seemed almost haunted increased my terror.

An example of non-diagetic sound is around 15:00 the scary man in the building with the clock closes a box and takes what seems to be spirits or souls from six people. Then when they wake up, they try to talk, but nothing comes out. All the voices and vocal sounds have disappeared. The film uses background music full of string instruments to enhance the drama of how the town cannot speak. The music gets louder and louder as the people try to talk and become more animated when they try to speak. This is an example of non-diagetic sound because the music is not actual sound coming from the film, but rather in the background in order to make the audience more anxious. This contributes to creating horror because the music has a scary tone to it, which seems to mimic what the people are trying to say even though their voices cannot speak.

An example of mise-en-scene is around 22:30, when the possessed, evil characters arrive. They are in costume – wearing all black suits, but their makeup is an example of mise-en-scene. Their faces are wrinkled and their eyes are deeply shadowed. They have big, scary teeth that look almost fang like. Their hands are similar to the outline of skeletons, with bones really sticking out. The abnormal makeup and fixed facial expressions cause horror because they are frightening to look at. Their attire looks normal. But their faces are no. Because of this, it helps the audience feel fear and know that they are evil. So, the mise-en-scene I chose was the makeup on the evil characters because it allows the audience to be afraid and nervous of what the “evil gentlemen” are doing.

When doing this people watching assignment I noticed that the people my eyes focused more on were those who were dressed in socially different clothing. The people who did not conform with society’s norms for what to wear are those that standout in crowds compared to other people who conform with society’s expectations on what one should wear. One person that stood out to me was a boy in my dorm. When he walked by me, he was in all plaid pajama-like clothing. It was 9am and he was still in these clothes. My first assumption was that he had just woken up. One thing I thought about when I saw this kid was that he had not taken the time to get changed from when he woke up. I think he may value sleep more than taking time to try to make himself look better. Another person that stood out to me was a girl who seemed to be in her early twenties. She had bright purple hair, nose rings, multiple ear pierces, and she was wearing fishnet leggings underneath jean shorts, with fishnet arm sleeves and a bright pink shirt. At first, I thought this was very weird. I assumed she was odd because she was wearing contrasting colors, fishnets and shorts when it was cold outside and that she was somewhat rebellious because of all her piercings. A final person that stood out to me was a middle-aged man. He had many tattoos and wore ragged clothing. In my opinion I think he values being rebellious because he has covered his body in art through the use of ink and tattoos. I also assumed that he was homeless because he was carrying a ragged bag on his back and he did not look like he could afford other clothing. However, this may not be the case. I may just be assuming this because his clothing was not totally in tact. This assignment showed me that at first glance, I can be judgmental based on how others dress because they do not dress like what I am used to seeing, which is preppy, well-put together clothing that fills the New England atmosphere that I have grown up in. But, this assignment has helped me make a personal goal to try to not judge what others are wearing because they are different than what I would wear.