Month: February 2014

In this article Jones mentions the possibility that “computer scientists and technologists may assist individuals in the arts and humanities to understand the potential uses for computers” (52), which would imply that those individuals in the arts and humanities would not have considered those applications without the assistance of qualified individuals. This idea brought me to wonder whether the knowledge in relation to computers held by scientists and technologists could be traded for a certain form of knowledge held by individuals in the arts and humanities community. Later in the article Jones discusses his theory that in return for certain knowledge from technological savvy individuals “theorists in the arts and humanities may assist scientists, engineers and technicians in directing the development of new technologies toward cultural goals before technological ones” (52), which Jones implies and I agree holds more cultural importance to the majority of the population, specifically in relation to ethics and aesthetics.

 

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

I realize that there are many differing ideas and definitions concerning spirituality. I personally define spirituality as a general religious belief that shapes certain people’s lives. My personal feeling about spirituality is that everyone has the right to spirituality and their own personal opinion, but I believe people often become “vocally spiritual” or feel as if they need to share their religious spirit with other people which I find offensive. Spirituality involving religion is what I believe often draws people to thinking that they should or need to share a certain preconceived message with the world.

I believe that spirituality is different from religion but includes religion. Religion is a certain set of belief that people are taught in church, while I believe that spirituality takes what a person is taught and makes them personally applicable to a person’s life or experiences. This separation is what appeals to many religious people because although they share their religion with a large group, they have found a way to have a conceived personal connection with whichever deity they believe in.

I would define creativity as a person’s ability to be an original and authentic individual. By this I mean that this person is able to see what other people do or create and complete minor alterations that in some cases make the original action or object unrecognizable. I believe creativity is a representation of a person’s intelligence and abilities and that it takes a certain amount of effort for some people to be creative while creativity comes natural to certain “gifted” creative people.

I’m not sure if there is one specific source of creativity, a person could draw their creativity through exposure to creative objects such as art during their childhood or are driven to be creative through certain life events. There is speculation that creativity is genetic, I’m not sure if there is precisely a gene that predetermines a person’s ability to be creative but I would argue that a child’s exposure to art is a pretty good indicator of whether they will be considered creative or not. What I mean by a person being driven to be creative due to certain life events is that it is not uncommon for people to turn to creative means such as art and music after experiencing traumatic events. It would not be unusual for a person who was previously not classified as creative to become creative after a life-altering event.

 

 

In this chapter Grey discussed the process that an artist goes through when choosing a subject for his art and how this process affects how the art will be viewed. I had considered that there had to be a certain appeal to a subject or person in order for a person to take the time to create a work of art based upon this person or thing. Grey suggests that “seeing occurs when our attention is arrested by a person, object, or scene” (72), meaning that the artist truly sees an object when their entire attention is drawn to one solitary thing and is able to see the shape of the thing while being able to know the meaning of the thing. It is also argued that “when an artist encounters an artistic subject, love opens all his or her eyes” (Grey 73), which would mean that the artist has to feel a certain attraction (in this case love) for something to designate enough importance to it for it to become a work of art. I would argue that someone does not have to love a person or object to create artwork based on the subject, they could also create art based on a popular object or location knowing that there are customers willing to provide monetary compensation for such pieces of art. The second step of the process an artist takes to create art would be when “the artist scans the subject, seeing now more with the eye of reason” (Grey 73), meaning that the artist is able to focus solely on an object, person or scene and not pay attention to the surrounding. I would argue that this step is very important in order to keep the representation of the subject in the art genuine without outside influences. Another idea presented by Grey is that there is a distinct difference between being able to see deeply and the ability to understand. It is argued that in order for a person to see something deeply one must “transcend the egoic boundaries between the self and otherness of the world, momentarily merging with the thing seen” (Grey 72), meaning that one has to identify personally with the subject being portrayed. While I agree that this ability would allow the artist to portray the object in a genuine manner, I don’t think it is necessary for a viewer to place himself or herself in the subject’s place in order to fully appreciate a work of art.

 

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

Hess, John P., (2009). ‘The Psychology of Scary Movies’. Filmmaker IQ. Retrieved February 11^th, 2014, from http://filmmakeriq.com/lessons/the-psychology-of-scary-movies/.

This article by John Hess states that horror movies do not actually activate areas of the brain associated with fear, instead they activate “the part of the brain associated with planning, attention, and problem solving” (1), which would also imply that the areas of the brain (such as the hypothalamus) that are associated with pleasure are not activated by horror movies. John Hess cites psychologist Glenn Walters who believes that tension, relevance and unrealism is what draws viewers to watch horror movies. The article considers that ideas of philosophers such as Aristotle would suggest that audiences watch scary and violent movies because of the catharsis felt through “purging their negative emotions” (Hess, 3), this is pleasurable due to the fact that society does not allow many ways of releasing these emotions such as aggression. Hess disagrees with this theory because he believes that scary and violent movies lead viewers to be more aggressive not less aggressive. Another theory discussed in this article was Excitation Transfer theory that states that the negative feelings that build during the scary movie actually intensify the positive feelings the viewers feel when the hero succeeds at the end, which would imply this theory only makes sense if the hero actually does triumph at the end of the film.

The article by John Hess and the chapter for this week by Noël Carroll both discuss the idea that viewers watch horror movies because of the “interest that the plot has engendered in how certain forces, once put in motion, will work themselves out” (Carroll 276). Hess discusses this idea in his Excitation Transfer theory where it is discussed that “the negative feelings created by horror moves actually intensify the positive feelings when the hero triumphs at the end” (4), both of these ideas and theories suggest that the viewers interest in how the film will end accounts for why audiences choose to watch horror movies. Carroll believes “the disclosure of the existence of the horrific being and its properties is the central source of pleasure in the genre” (282), meaning that knowing that the source of terror exists and will ultimately be confronted is what causes the audience to experience pleasure while watching horror movies.

Another shared concept in the articles discussed is the fact that horror movie’s popularity is “driven by curiosity. It engages its audience by being involved in processes of disclosure, discovery, proof, explanation, hypothesis, and confirmation” (Carroll 279), meaning that the audience becomes invested in the storyline of the horror movie through being involved in the discovery of the ‘monster’ and source of horror as the storyline progresses. Hess however believes curiosity impacts the popularity due to the fact that “horror exists outside of the everyday existence of normal behavior” (3), meaning that audience members are intrigued by horror films because the events and acts seen in the film are not normally seen or experienced.

 

Begley, Sharon, (2011). ‘Why Our Brains Love Horror Movies’. The Daily Beast. Retrieved February 11^th, 2014, from http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/10/25/why-our-brains-love-horror-movies-fear-catharsis-a-sense-of-doom.html.

This article by Sharon Begley discusses why viewers and their brains derive pleasure from horror movies through scientific explanations. Begley argues that although audience members crave the feeling of being scared, they crave being safe while being scared, meaning the audience members know that they are safe while watching the events taking place on the screen. This article cites multiple articles that attempt to quantitatively account for why certain people crave and enjoy horror films while others do not derive pleasure from the experience of watching a scary movie. Begley hypothesizes that this need for excitement could account for why the horror genre is so popular among teenagers and twenty years olds, since the desire for intense experiences is predicted to decrease with age. John Edward Campbell believes that middle-aged viewers experience enough horror from their everyday life and do not feel the need to go out of their way to experience the feeling of fear. Begley also believes that the pleasure derived from a horror film is from the catharsis experienced throughout the experience of the scary film.

Both articles discuss theories about what drives certain people to watch scary movies. Begley cites a study performed by Fischoff that states that people with “relatively calm, uneventful lifestyles…seek out something that’s going to excite them, because their nervous system requires periodic revving” (2), meaning that people who live relatively boring lives are the people more likely to regularly view horror movies. While Carroll argues that people may choose horror films because they “savor the revulsion in art-horror-but not for the sake of fascination- are metaresponding to their own revulsion” (291), this response could be due to the satisfaction of withstanding the shock and fear of the film much like an endurance test.

Begley states that “the stronger the negative emotions (fear, worry, anxiety) a person reports experiencing during horror films, the more likely he or she is to enjoy the genre” (Begley 5), meaning that a scarier film will be perceived better by the audience than a film that fails to scare. Carroll believes that “the pleasures derived from art-horror are a function of fascination, which fascination compensates for the negative emotions engendered by the fiction” (291), meaning that without the fascination that is created during a horror film, the negative emotions generated would cause the viewer to not enjoy the experience of watching the horror movie.

Both articles discuss the idea that audience members enjoy horror films because the films represent the unusual or things that have been repressed by society. Carroll states this when she says, “one wants to gaze upon the unusual even when it is simultaneously repelling” (286), meaning that a person is enthralled by the images shown in horror films even though they are uncommon and not commonly seen. Begley mentions Freud’s idea that people find horror appealing because they represent and show “thoughts and feelings that have been repressed by the ego but which seen vaguely familiar” (5), although this could be true in some cases Begley believes that this psychoanalytic explanation for why some people enjoy horror films is outdated. Begley believes that a common moral code accounts for the appeal of horror films, “horror films thus appeal to people who like predictability and neat ends, hold the ethical relativism” (6), meaning a person who appears ‘evil’ is going to face an unfortunate end while the ‘hero’ or innocent character will most likely prevail.

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

In this episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer an example of the use on diegetic sound would be in Buffy’s daydream during her lecture at the beginning of the episode. This scene shows Buffy walking down a dark corridor towards a little girl in a red dress singing an ominous chant that contributes to the aesthetic of horror for the video by foreshadowing events to come in the episode. Another example of diegetic sound in this episode would be the voice emitted from Riley’s boss’ computer since she also lost the ability to speak, while this does not add the aesthetic of horror it does demonstrate the impact that the people of Sunnydale losing their voice has on the ability of the people in control of its safety to operate.

An example of the usage of non-diegetic sound would be the background music that played as the building with the large clock is shown and a creepy character can be seen opening a box that appears to take the people of the town’s voices. This adds to the aesthetics of horror by informing the audience of the severity and intensity of the situation the characters face. An example of non-diegetic sound use that does not contribute to the aesthetics of horror in this video would be at the beginning of Buffy’s daydream where she dreams that she is kissing Riley and background mood music can be heard. The music that plays in the background when the floating characters exit the previously mentioned building and descend upon the town adds to the aesthetic of horror because the choice of music informs the audience that the presence of these characters is something to be feared.

In this episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer the fact that the characters lose their voices causes them to express themselves through other creative forms. An example of mise-en-scene in this episode that contributed to the overall aesthetic of horror would be when Riley and his friend were trapped in the elevator and believed they were going to be killed because their voices couldn’t be verified. The characters’ expression of panic during this scene added to the sense of suspense and horror at the thought that these major characters could die. Another example of mise-en-scene in this episode would be the way the characters that stole the town’s voices float above the ground and the way the characters that walk on the ground move as well as look. These aspects contribute to the aesthetics of horror in this episode by showing the viewers that these characters are not normal and allows them to conclude that they are evil and have bad intentions that cause the audience to feel suspense when these characters are shown.

Whedon, Josh (Writer), & Whedon, Josh (Director). (Dec 14, 1999). Hush [Television series episode]. Mutant Enemy Productions (producer), Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Los Angeles, CA: Warner Bros Studio.

I believe that some of my personal beliefs and values are supported and expressed by how I dress and adorn my body. An example of this would be my choice of tattoos on various areas of my body; I believe that a person’s choice of tattoos displays a personal reflection of how they perceive themselves. The reason I say that this is a person reflection for me is because I choose locations for my tattoos that are not easily visible to the public. I have chosen those locations, because each tattoo I get I get for myself and not for the purpose of other people seeing my tattoo. It isn’t because I fear the image that is attached to people with tattoos, I just believe that tattoos are personal and it should be up to the person with the tattoos to decide if they want them shown. My tattoos choices have changed over the years due to the fact that I no longer live at home and have more freedom to choose the amount of tattoos I am allowed to have. I highly value my comfort level and therefore choose what I wear based on how comfortable I will be depending on my activities for the day. The fact that I also value my personal health above the value of clothing also means that on occasion I will wear my workout clothes for convenience to ensure I have the opportunity to exercise that day. These outfit choices show my personal belief that “high fashion” is overrated due to its inconvenience and impracticality levels. My choice of clothing has changed over the years due to me living alone and choosing all my clothes and reaching the age of maturity where I realized that what you wear does not affect who you are as a person.

I was raised to value how other people viewed you only if it immediately impacted you, such as a potential employer or an officer of the law. This personal value is another reason why I take the extra care to choose my clothing according to whether my tattoos will be covered in certain important situations. My family (mostly my mother) believed that one tattoo was acceptable, but tattoos in excess would just hinder the possibility of a serious career later in life. I respected my family’s belief while still at home, but after leaving for college made my own belief and value system that did not limit the amount of tattoos I could get. My choice of clothing reflects my belief that a person should feel comfortable in their clothing while not revealing themselves to an extreme level. My belief about not wearing revealing clothing was instilled into me as a child; my mother always taught me that the level of respectability shown in your attire reflects how much a stranger will respect you. I have continued to follow and adhere to my family’s beliefs about clothing mostly out of convenience and habit, I don’t really see a need to change what I have been doing the majority of my life and don’t see that it is hindering me expressing my own individuality.

Here in Eugene I believe there are a wide variety of beliefs and values within the community, but looking at the University in general there is an obvious core belief and value system that is widely accepted. The fact that large margins of students here at the University of Oregon are from California (mostly the “bay area”) has made how the student body’s beliefs and values are expressed through clothing and body adornment not native to Oregon. There is a general consensus in the student body that clothing that is more expensive is more socially valuable and acceptable. The sorority and fraternity system and their uniformity of clothing options, i.e. the females choice of Uggs, leggings and sweatshirts, display this value system and how it has been distilled and portrayed throughout campus. My peer community’s beliefs about body adornment appear to be “shock and awe”, viewing body adornment options as a way to separate themselves from the masses of students, or as a way to fit in.  What I mean as shock and awe is that some people invest in forms of body adornment simply for the reactions and judgments that they would receive from the public. The belief that forms of body adornment would set someone separate from the masses would mean that the person would have to choose an uncommon form of body adornment in order for them to be seen as an individual on a campus such as University of Oregon with a large student body. A person who values fitting in with their peer community would most likely invest in a common form of body adornment such as ear piercings, belly button piercings and small common tattoos.

The first person I observed through people watching was a girl in my class who appears to have her arms, legs and chest covered in tattoos. I noticed that the tattoos visible on her chest appeared to be Halloween themed, while the tattoos on her lower body seemed to not follow a specific theme. I believe that the fact that her clothing allows her tattoos to be visible shows that she values her individuality and desires to be set apart from the norms of society. Through the clothing this person is wearing I would assume that she is about a junior or senior in college and possibly did not grow up in this area. I make the last assumption because the clothing she is wearing is not commonly seen in this area but I have seen television shows and movies with the east coast as the setting that have actors wearing clothes similar to what she is wearing. Her clothing displays to the public that she is in good physical health due to the fact her muscles are visible and she appears thin. The fact that I made these assumptions would suggest that I value physical health and believe that tattoos are a form of body modification that represent a person’s desire to be original and allows a person to demonstrate “one’s disaffection from the mainstream” (Sanders 2).

The next person I observed was a man walking around campus with gauged ears and tattoos visible up his neck as well as numerous facial piercings while wearing all black clothing. I believe that through this man’s choice of clothes he is showing that he is “overtly discontented with the status quo” (Sanders 4), which leads me to believe that his choice of all black is a strong indicator of his anger towards the social norm. I think that the man’s choice in piercings and tattoos also symbolizes and outwardly represents the man’s desire to be outside of normal society and to identify as an outside in western culture. Through the man’s outward appearance I assumed he was in his mid 20’s and has lived a life that has left him disenfranchised with society and it’s expectations. The assumptions I made about this man just from a passing glance shows my value of being considered “normal” by society and my belief that the forms of body modification shown on this man would lead society to not accept him as normal. My assumptions also show my belief that the majority of the people displaying the extent of body modification this man was showing indicates the man’s discontent with society.

The third person I saw was a woman dressed in concealing clothes with no apparent tattoos and only her ears pierced with small diamond earrings in her ear. I believe through her conservative clothing she is showing that she is a respectable member of society and does not want to be excluded from society. Her choice of piercing her ears and having small diamond earrings I believe is “for decorative purposes and considered conventional” (Sanders 8), I think she chose to pierce her ears because it has become a norm in society. I also believe that her outward appearance shows that she has not had life experiences that have left her angry or disenchanted with society. Her appearance and conservative choice of body adornment also leads me to believe she is emotionally sane and healthy. The assumptions I have made about this woman shows my belief that a person dressed in clothing that is considered normal are accepted by society and have no desire to be seen as outsiders. My assumptions also show my value for a “normal” society that adheres with social norms.

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.

Gopnik, B. (2009, September 29). The big debate: Can food be serious art. The Washington Post [On-Line Newspaper]. Retrieved January 30 from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2009/09/22/AR2009092203137.html.

I found an article that discusses the issues brought up by ElizabethTelfer in The Washington post titled The Big Debate: Can Food Be Serious Art? This article brought up the common arguments about why food is not considered “serious art” along with the counterarguments about why food should be considered art. The article written by Blake Gopnik focuses on food created at an elBulli minibar and uses specific examples from this food venue to counter arguments against food being defined as a serious art form.

In Food as Art Telfer brought up the question “how can there be works of art which are destroyed by the very activity, eating, which is necessary for contemplating them” (17), which is also brought up in the article in the Washington post. Gopnik counters this question by mentioning that music too does not last and “each time a dish is prepared, it’s a performance of a recipe that will survive over time” (1), Telfer supports this idea in the reading by saying that the mistake people make when trying to decipher if something can be considered art is thinking that the object has to be a structure. Tefler continues to say that “the aspect of it (the food) is relevant to aesthetic appraisal is not the structure, which is destroyed as soon as the dish is started, but the combination of flavours, which runs right through the eating like letters through a stick of rock” (18), meaning that although the dish doesn’t last, the flavor of the dish carries on through the memory of the person eating the dish.

Another common issue brought up by Telfer and Gopnik is that food’s “goal is to feed people, so it’s too functional to count as serious art” (Gopnik). While the definition of art in the classifying sense brought up by Telfer was “ a thing intended or used wholly or largely for aesthetic consideration” (14), there are many chefs who create their food with the intention of their hard work and art to be recognized by the people eating the food, “a meal that claims to be a work of art is too complex and long-drawn-out to be understandable in terms simply of feeding” (Telfer 14). Gopnik counters this issue by bringing up that “paintings, photos and vidwos have their functional versions too” (1), meaning that he believes that the creator created their work of art with a function in mind, much like food being made to nourish. Telfer also mentions that “the aesthetic value of food depends not on its nourishing properties but on its taste and smell” (19), meaning that food can have a function (such as nourishing) and appeal to the people viewing the food aesthetically.

An issue addressed by Telfer but not Gopnik is whether taste and smell can discriminate as well as senses in the eye and ear. Telfer begins by questioning whether it is possible to determine if the true limitation in the senses is in the eater’s perception of the food or in the food itself. She concedes, “that our sense of smell, at any rate, is less highly developed than that of many animals. But we can still recognize a huge range of different smells and tastes” (Telfer 20), meaning that as humans we are able to retain memory of certain tastes and smells that allow us to appreciate food as an art form. The reading continues by saying that if this limitation did exist it would suggest “not that there cannot be an art of food, but that such an art must be simple” (Telfer 21), which would imply that through our limitations as consumers our lack of sensitivity of our palate hinders food from being categorized as art. An issue addressed along with the discernibility of the senses is whether food has inherent sequences that can be repeated, Telfer argues that “food does allow of systematic, repeatable, regular combinations: the cook creates the possibility for them, which the eater then realizes” (21). This argument is referring to the ability to repeat a dish due to the availability of the recipe, which would allow the eater the ability to discern the flavors on multiple occasions and determine whether they believe it to be a work of art.

In an earlier reading by Ellen Dissanayake she defines art being “an inherent universal (or biological) trait of the human species” (15), I would argue that it is an inherent trait of the human species to express oneself much like what chefs do through their cooking. Telfer’s statement that “ a cook who creates such a recipe is a creative artist” (20), supports the claim that food should be considered art because chefs are considered artists expressing themselves through their choice in ingredients and how they are prepared.

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

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.