Month: February 2014

The primary thesis of Jones article is that the rapid change in technology advancement has ultimately changed our society and transformed our everyday lives. Jones has a good quote in her article that explains this when she says that, “these changes are not simply technical effects. They contribute to maintenance and change of culturally conditioned conceptual patterns in the larger cultural historical context” (51). Technology is constantly evolving every day and when these advancements take place it in turn, effects the way all of society manages their processes.

One of the historical examples that Jones gives when providing an illustration of her thesis is electricity. She states that, “electricity had been considered theoretically interesting but of little or no practical value”(51). By effectively harnessing the power of electricity over the years, we have been able unlock its true potential which has helped us speed up the process of technological growth. She then goes on to explain that through electricity lead the way to microcomputers and other technological advancements.

One of the biggest examples of Jones’ theory that I’ve seen at work in today’s culture is the dampening effect of people’s ability to communicate effectively with one another. No likes to interact in person anymore but rather its all over text and social media. If someone has an argument with someone, they no longer go up to the person and discuss the problem privately but rather blast it all over social media because their too scared to tell them face to face. Natalie Bencivenga, a writer for the Huffington Post, refers to this in her article Has Technology Ruined Our Ability To Communicate? as the “easy way out”. She states that, “we have forgotten what it’s like to confront our issues. It’s safer, more anonymous and less stressful to just text someone when making plans or to break plans…Its easier to break up via email than it is to look anyone in the eye and tell them it just isn’t working anymore” (Bencivenga,1). Everything that Bencivenga refers to in this article is so true and I’ve seen it over and over throughout my life as technology has advanced. People argue over facebook then act like best friends when they’re together or talk trash about a specific person over a group text but then has no intention of saying the issue to the persons face.

We have become so disconnected from one another as a culture and I truly believe that technology has caused this. I mean, how many friends on your facebook page could you really call up at 1 in the morning when you need help and would actually come to help you? Maybe 4 or 5 out the 600 of your so called “facebook friends”. We are losing that ability to communicate with one another on a personal level. I can’t even count the number of times I’ve been hanging out at a party and 75% of the people there will be on their phones rather than actually interacting with one another. It’s sad, and I truly fear for our society because from the looks of it this problem is only going to get worse as kids grow up with technology and never really learn the necessary social skills needed to interact on a daily basis.

Bencivenga, Natalie. “Has Technology Ruined Our Ability To Communicate?” The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 28 June 2010. Web. 26 Feb. 2014. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/natalie-bencivenga/has-technology-ruined-our_b_625302.html>.

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

Its funny to talk about technology with my parents because over the course of their lifespan they’ve seen so much. When my dad was in college he didn’t have Google to go to when he had a question. Instead, he had to find the encyclopedia, dictionary or other form of document to find out the answer. Contrasting that with my current college experience is simply unfathomable. I simply can’t understand how I would have been able to complete any of my projects let alone simply function without the technology that we have today. Jones has a good quote that explains this, “Now daily life is affected by computing…practical and professional communities of advertising, entertainment, publishing…have joined the academic, scientific and artistic communities in using this medium” (56). Technology has simply taken over within the past decade and everyone is getting in on it. We now have multiple social media sites, smartphones, 3-d tvs everything that couldn’t even be dreamed of when my parents were children. In addition to this, I believe that technology has helped everyone increase their quality of life. However, I also believe that this much technology is taking away from the human interaction aspect of life. Over the years I’ve started to notice that some of my friends simply can’t communicate unless its through text or social media. This is one of the biggest problems that I see facing this country when looking at this issue in the opposite light.

1. How do you define “spirituality”?

Spirituality has different meanings for different people. I feel that the generic meaning that most people have for it is the continual practice of your inner religious beliefs. For me, I would define it as the defining strength that gets me through each and every the day. It gives me meaning and a purpose to life. It reminds me that no matter what types of things that happen throughout my life good or bad, God is in control and His plan will work out accordingly.

2. Does Spirituality differ from religion?

I believe that spirituality can indeed differ from religion. For example, before our family turned Christian we were catholic. My parents had been raised catholic their entire lives and that’s all they knew. But for some reason when they went to mass they weren’t feeling anything. They felt like they were just going through the motions as we were told without any true involvement with the creator. Now I’m not saying that this is the case for everyone because everyone is different but in the case of our family we felt that we needed a change and eventually tried out some Christian churches. This is how I believe spirituality differs from religion in some senses. One is more ritual based and the other is more personal based

3. How do you define “creativity”?

For me, I define creativity as the inner source of our artistic nature. As Grey mentioned in our previous reading, we all have the ability to be artists, we just need to see rather than look. Creativity helps us with this because when we define our art whether it be a sport, painting or something else the work that evolves is the physical piece that develops when we receive an inspiration. It’s what helps us express ourselves by taking what we feel on the inside and bringing it to life.

4. What is the source of creativity?

The source of creativity comes from within our spirit when we “see” something and get an inspiration. I also feel that the amount of creativity that we have as an adult is directly related to how we were raised as children and how many times we were given the opportunity to express ourselves as kids. For example, when I was a kid a played with legos every single day. I didn’t need instructions or a map I would just build and let my creativity take over. Most of the time the end result wasn’t a thing of beauty at least to the outside eye but to me it was a master piece. And I truly believe that it was times like this that helped me develop my creative nature and set me up with the creativity that I have today.

One of the really interesting pieces that Grey touches on is the idea of inspiration. He states that, “every artist has his or her own unique process of inspiration…some people receive full blown, detailed images in a flash during the guided visualizations or shamanic drumming. Others may receive only the briefest glimmer or feeling and it is not until their pencil touches the paper that the imagery comes flooding through”(Grey,80). I could not agree more with this statement. As I mentioned earlier in the term my dad is a carpenter and can make amazing things out of wood. But it was not until this certain project that I could see how truly gifted my dad was. I went to a Christian elementary school and the principle came to my dad and asked if he could make the school a life size Bible all out of wood with the stories from within coming alive in the form of shapes and people.

Instantly my dad got what Grey refers to as visualizations. He could instantly see how each piece was going to look and where he was going to place each one. He carved out each piece with premier accuracy and painted everything with intense precision. Each piece was just the way he had envisioned it to be. It was a 6 year project that he worked on and off on but he finally got it done.

In addition, the night before he was going to present it he got another vision of how to make it better. I can still remember him working all night on it trying to make those last minute changes that he believed was going to put it on top. Grey refers to this in his article when he states that, “pressure is a great catalyst. Important ideas can come at the last minute under a deadline. Often as a painting is coming to completion, I will have to change an entire section because an essential insight suddenly arises” (Grey,80). This is exactly what happened to my dad. The deadline approached and all of a sudden he had new ideas of how to improve it. Its funny looking at it now how many comparisons I can draw from Grey’s article and the process it took for dad to complete it. Everything layed out exactly as Grey explained. He had an inspiration, envisioned it, made it, tinkered with it at the last minute, then presented it to my school.

It was such rewarding project to see come together because you could see how passionate my dad is about wood working and the extents he goes to make the details perfect. He’s a perfectionist and you were really able to tell when it was complete.

The first article that I found was a really interesting article that dealt simply with the topic of why certain people enjoy horror movies and while other people hate them. Tartakovsky refers to the research that Ph.D professor Glen Sparks in examination of the horror genre. He explained that there were numerous reasons why people enjoy horror films. A few of these are the excitation transfer process, gender socialization as well as other reasons.

In reference to the excitation transfer process he explains that when people see a horror movie their heart rate, blood pressure, and respiration increase. This means that after the film ends the excitement and mental arousal that the movie brought lingers well after the movie is finished. So if you were having a good time with friends then the positive emotions that you had are intensified rather than the fright of the movie, ultimately making it a positive experience for you. This positive experience cancels out the scariness of the movie and makes you want to go see others. However, this goes the same when your emotions are on the opposite side as well. If you’re not having a good time before or during the time you watched the movie then those emotions are the ones that are heightened, ultimately making the movie worse off.

In reference to gender socialization he suggests simply that men enjoy scary movies more than girls. He states that, “men are socialized to be brave and enjoy threatening things…men derive social gratification from not letting a scary film bother them.” As a guy I can relate to this because there have been numerous instances where my friends and I choose the scariest movie currently out and try and conquer it as a group to kind of show how manly we are. I also choose to go and see these types of movies with girls because it heightens the “manhood effect”. We want to show women how tough we are and by showing that we’re not scared during a scary movie while they themselves are terrified. This leads to the “cuddling effect” as Stark calls is it where girls cling to the guy because he is the source of comfort due to the fact that he’s not scared of the current situation.

Lastly the author states that some people like scary movies simply because they enjoy the adrenaline rush while knowing that they can’t get hurt in the process. Simply stated, some people like to go see horror movies because it’s a safe and unusual way to take their mind of their own current problems.

In conclusion it is really hard to narrow down exactly why certain people enjoy horror movies because there is so many potential options. However, there is one thing that we all seek when we go to see these horror films, and that is the graphic images/scenes that occur. Carroll has a really good quote in her article that states, “many of us seek out horror fictions of this sort despite the fact that they provoke disgust, because that disgust is required for the pleasure involved in engaging our curiosity in the unknown and drawing it into the processes of revelation” (284). This disgust that Carroll refers to is the key draw of these films. It is this underlying pleasure that we seek and receive every time we see one of these movies.

Tartakovsky, M. (2012). Why Some People Love Horror Movies While Others Hate Them. Psych Central. Retrieved on February 13, 2014, from http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2012/10/31/why-some-people-love-horror-movies-while-others-hate-them/

The second article that I found is another interesting article dealing again with the issue of why we go and see horror movies. Why would we want to pay money to watch people get murdered in the most horrendous way and then not sleep for days afterward? Lucy O’Brian states that, “we want to see things we wouldn’t’ usually see in our daily lives. Curiosity is a powerful emotion.” We have been taught our whole lives that the content in these movies is wrong and we shouldn’t be watching them. So, like porn and alcohol, we are naturally curious as to why these things have been labeled bad and we want to discover more.

Another great point that O’Brian refers to is the draw of demystifying the unknown. We as humans know that what we are seeing in a horror film isn’t real and therefore we don’t look at it in a negative light. However, O’Brian states that, “a 1994 study was done where hardcore horror fanatics were exposed to a series of live clips of animals being slaughtered and explicit surgery and 90% of them turned the video off before it reached its end.” This relates to one of the issues that Carroll mentioned in her article when she quotes Hume as saying “the passion, though perhaps naturally, and when excited by the simple appearance of a real object, it may be painful; yet is so smoothed and softened, and mollified, when realized by the finer arts that it affords the highest entertainment” (277). The key word in this quote is entertainment. We go into these movies knowing that they are for entertainment purposes. However, when the people watching the video saw what was happening was real life they immediately felt compassion and disgust as this was happening to a real person or animal.  I believe that this is one of the biggest factors as to why some people are so immune to the nastiness of some of these horror movies. They know that they are not real. When we can separate fake from real, pleasure is induced rather than disgust. But when the reverse affect happens we all of a sudden can’t stomach it.

Overall I believe this article gives some really great insight into why we are so fascinated with horror films and why they don’t disgust some of us as they are supposed to. We know that they are not real which lowers our level of “affection” that is felt when watching the movies. This in addition to the issues mentioned above in the first article are the ultimate key factors as to why some of us can handle and prefer these types of movies over other film genres.

O’Brian, Lucy. “The Curious Appeal of Horror Movies.” IGN.com. IGN AU, 9 Sept. 2013. Web. 13 Feb. 2014. http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/09/09/the-curious-appeal-of-horror-movies

Non-diagetic sound: My example of non- diagetic sound comes right after Riley kisses Buffy on the table and the lights go out. I’m not talking about the mumbling/singing of the child but the music behind voices. You can’t really hear it at first but as it gradually increases you can feel the mood of the clip start to shift. As buffy walks closer and closer to the child’s voice this non-diagetic sound crescendos until it finally peaks as Riley puts his hand on her and his face turns to that of a skeleton/vampire ultimately “scaring” me. I chose this example because I thought it was a good illustration of how quickly a setting can be changed with simply the changing of sound. At one point everything is fine as they kiss and before you know it, as the sound changes and gets louder and louder, you’re on the edge of your seat waiting to see why this random girl is singing in the hallway after the lights went out.  This sound definitely contributed to the aesthetic of horror because without this ascending background music the mood wouldn’t have been right and it wouldn’t have drawn out the suspense for the audience watching it.

Mise-en-scene: My example of mise-en-scene comes again right after Riley kisses Buffy. However, this time it was the position of the camera angle that I felt, enhanced the portrayal of horror in this particular scene. As the Buffy started moving towards the sound the camera solely focused on her rather than on riley or her and riley at the same time. Then the camera zooms out slightly and we see Riley’s figure in the background with him reaching out his hand. Instantly I can tell something is going to happen because up until this point he hadn’t been in the camera shot since the kiss. Then before you know it he touches her shoulder and he turns into a skeleton/vampire. If he had been with Buffy the whole time throughout the scene then the entire scene would have had a different feel. It wouldn’t have felt as suspenseful because we would have been able to see both characters with no sense of where the other had gone. I chose this scene for mise-en-scene because of the way the placement of the camera changed my view of the scene. If the camera had showed the vampire behind buffy originally rather than flashing to it then it wouldn’t have been as suspenseful. However, due to the camera placement the scene was able to build up suspense which ultimately lead to the surprise/fright of the audience when it flashed to the vampire.

Diagetic Sound: My example of diagetic sound comes when Riley breaks open the box and releases everyone’s voices. This allows buffy to gain her voice back and scream which ultimately destroys the vampires. I chose this example (buffy screaming) because I thought this diagetic sound brought slight closure to the horror that had been built up throughout this current scene. In addition, I feel that this current example did not contribute to the aesthetic of horror and rather took away from it because this voice destroyed all of the vampires, effectively bringing the horror out of the scene. However, there were many other diagetic sounds throughout the video that enhanced the idea of horror. I just chose this one because it seemed to do the reverse affect and I found that really interesting.

After taking some time to reflect on how I dress my eyes were opened as to how much my personal beliefs and values showed through in the way I dressed. One of the biggest examples that comes to mind is the cross that I regularly wear to class.  I am a devout Christian and I like to subtly express my belief in non-confrontational ways. In addition to this I am also an avid outdoorsman and hunting and fishing are two of my biggest passions. So I regularly find myself wearing my camo coat to class. I definitely get some strange looks from my peers when I walk in but for the most part they get used to it. I know wearing camo to class isn’t exactly subtle but most of the time its just out of pure instinct that I reach for it. I guess this definitely speaks to my core beliefs and values as well.

However, when it comes to why I make the choices that I do, I honestly don’t really know. Part of it may go back to the values assessment that we had week two where I put family as my top priority. Being a big family person I take on a majority of the traits that my parents have and both my parents grew up loving God and the outdoors so naturally it makes sense that I would adopt these values as well.

Another big factor in the way I dress simply comes from the town that I grew up in. I grew up in a small blue collar town where a majority of its residents work at the lumber mill, as loggers and as farmers. Now I in no way do I want to make it sound like these aren’t good professions but some people wouldn’t view these as ideal jobs. I beg to differ. I’ve worked these jobs before and even though I don’t currently work in them now doesn’t mean that they didn’t have an effect on my value system. I still find myself wearing my old construction shirts to class and flannels from when I worked on the farm. It’s part of my past and it shows where I came from, how far I’ve come and why I’m in college in the first place. It also shows through in my work ethic. At all of those jobs I had to work my butt for everything so it ultimately set me up to succeed in college. Hard work was no stranger to me and looking at myself now I believe that its shown in these clothes that I choose to wear.

Its funny looking back at how my body adornment has changed from when I was in high school. During those days I wouldn’t have been caught dead wearing anything other than A & F, Hollister, American Eagle or Aeropostale. That’s simply just what everyone who was “cool” wore. Back then we all wanted to fit in to the popular crowd so we did whatever was necessary to accomplish that. I guess that also gave some insight on where my values were way back then.  High School was all about joining a specific sector whom you could identify yourself with.  Yet college is the total opposite. I’m now striving to break away from the status quo and just be me without a care of what everyone else thinks of me.

I’ve also noticed that a majority of my friends and the people I hang out with dress the exact same as me. This is definitely no coincidence. I believe that us as humans are naturally attracted towards people who share in our interests. Whether this goes back to the issue of fitting in or not I’m not really sure but its definitely noticeable when looked at from a third person view. Besides the occasional camo that I wear, my attire consists mainly of athletic clothing companies such as NIKE, Adidas, and Columbia. I am a very active person and the more time I spend outdoors the better.  When looking at my peer group almost all of them are the exact same way. For example, my roommate and best friend loves Jordan sneakers and won’t leave the house without a pair on his feet. This speaks to his underlying values of his childhood. As a kid he grew up playing basketball all the way up until highschool but he could never get good enough to really stand out. It was hard for him to give up the game that he loved so much but  he knew that he had no other option. During his run of playing he only wore Jordan shoes and I believe that this is the underlying reason for why he still only wears Jordans. His love of basketball is shown through his shoes and even though he can’t play anymore he can still connect with his younger self through his sneakers. I had no idea how much you could see someones past through their attire but its all so obvious to me now. All it took was just taking a little time to step back and actually look for it.

The first person I noticed was a Caucasian man probably around 6’4 in height and pushing 250-275lbs in weight. He was wearing some really slick beats headphones, sported an Oregon backpack, and had a tattoo on his forearm. When looking at this man I automatically assumed that he was most likely an Oregon football player who played either on the offensive or defensive line. This was simply my assumption do to the sheer massiveness of the guy. It’s possible that he could have played a different sport or potentially no sport at all but this was just what came to mind first. When watching this guy I feel that his values and beliefs weigh heavily towards keeping physically fit, as it was obvious that he has been working out for quite some time. I also noticed that he walked with an extreme amount of confidence. Simply the way he carried himself was enough for me to believe that this man meant business everywhere he went. After writing down my assumptions and dissecting them it was apparent that my beliefs and values tend to lean towards sports. Apparently whenever I see a man who is physically fit I put them into the category of what sports they might play such as if someone is tall then they must play basketball or if someone is medium height but lean and muscular they might play baseball. I had never noticed this about myself before and it was a real eye opener.

The second person that I noticed was a younger kid possibly a freshman with medium height who wore a cross around his neck. It’s possible that he could have been older but my first assumption was that he had to be either a freshman or sophomore based on his physique. He didn’t walk as confident as the first man that I noticed but he still carried himself in a way that was assertive and direct. By looking at his attire, the cross especially, I feel that this kid is religious and possibly a Christian or Catholic. I have seen people where crosses around their neck before and then put it inside their shirt as they go into class or walk into a building but this kid didn’t do either. It was apparent that he was confident in who he was and what he believed and he wasn’t afraid of people judging him of his beliefs. I see a lot of my own values and personal beliefs in this kid because I am a Christian also and I have a gold cross that I sometimes wear to class or around the town. I am by no means flaunting it but it’s just a subtle statement of who I am, what I believe, and what you can expect from me if you decide to interact with me.

The third person that I noticed was a female, probably around 5’2 with pink hair and multiple piercings including a nose ring. In addition, her facial expression was rather distraught as she looked like she was having an extremely bad day. I believe this woman is trying to bring attention to herself and make a statement by forming her body appearance to stand out from everyone else. One of the assumptions that I made was maybe her family life hasn’t been the greatest. Maybe she grew up without a certain parent figure in her life or something of the sort. I could be completely off but I just felt like this lady has a lack of attention in her life and by dying her hair and having multiple piercings that make her “stand out” she can bring herself attention in a different way. I feel that in our culture if someone appears “out of the norm” then we tend to put them in a different category such as “misfit” or “outcast” without completely getting to know the full story. These people could be breaking inside and have no other outlet to express it. So ultimately when looking at this woman, my religious beliefs and values came into play again because right then and there I prayed for her that she would find peace in her life and finish out the day on a high note.

The article that I found comes from the Washington post and is quite thought provoking when deciding on the issue of whether food is art or not. The article is divided up into 4 parts but I’m only going talk about the first one for length’s sake.  In this first part, Palate vs. Palette: Avant-Garde Cuisine as contemporary art, it introduces the reader to a small restaurant just outside of Barcelona by the name of elBulli, which some claim is “one of today’s greatest temples of artistic innovation” (1, Gopnik). In this restaurant is the work of the well-known Ferran Adria, one of the greatest chefs in the world. When asked by one of his critics how good the experience was at elBulli he stated, “I enjoyed it enormously, and it made me vomit.” This is because some of Adria’s dishes consist of fried rabbit ears, embryonic pine nuts, and a Styrofoam box filled with parmesan air. Adria isn’t concerned with the taste per se but rather, he wants his cooking to be like encountering a foreign cuisine.  This brings to light the issue of “contemporary art” and how it plays into the whole role of art as food issue.

Contemporary art is defined as art made and produced by living artists today. However, it has roots going back to the early days of modernism and has gradually evolved throughout the years. There is a specific term that I feel vividly describes Adria’s form of contemporary art, and that’s the species centered view of art. Dissanayake’s species centered view correlates with this perfectly when she states that it, combines modernism’s proclamation that art is of supreme value and a source for heightened personal experience with postmodernisms insistence that it belongs to everyone and is potentially all around us. It does this by thinking of artmaking and experiencing as a human behavior” (Dissanayake, 22).  This is exactly what Adria’s purpose is when making these dishes for his customers. He provides a heightened personal experience with sources of “food” that is all around us in our everyday lives but which may not be instinctively thought of as being used in or part of art. For example, if you were to serve the average person a Styrofoam box filled with parmesan air as mentioned above they would look at you like you were crazy and walk out never to come back. This is what I find so fascinating and which goes back to Dissanayake point of “making something special.” Adria takes these items and provides an outlet for people to experience something that is totally beyond the norm when eating a piece of food. Isn’t that what all art is supposed to do? Provide the viewer with an experience while giving way to a whole new type of world that they may not normally be accustomed to?

Another key point in the article relates with the topic that we currently discussed this week and that is the experience of an “aesthetic reaction.” Now in the article that we read this week Urmson discusses aesthetic reactions only in the positive sense but doesn’t provide insight to a potential negative aesthetic reaction. However, this is where Tefler comes in and provides key insight that accurately describes what Adria is trying to do for his customers. Tefler states that, “an aesthetic reaction need not be a favourable one, and even where it is, pleasure may not be the right characterization of it.” Adria’s goal is not to provide people with tasteful pleasure, but rather to provide them with an aesthetic reaction that they’ve never had before, in some cases this could be the reaction of pure disgust. Now when thought of from afar we would think that an aesthetic reaction could not possibly be one of disgust, but I argue why not, its still using all of our human senses to derive whether the experience that was just had was a pleasurable one or not. Why does it always have to be a favorable one to be considered aesthetic?

Overall, I believe that his article sheds some really interesting light on the issue of whether food can be considered art or not because it could even be argued that the food isn’t really food at all but rather a cultural experience. In retrospect, after reading Teflers article in comparison with Gopnik’s I believe that all food can officially be considered art, and potentially on the flip side, some art could even be considered food. It simply just depends on the type of “aesthetic experience” that was had.

Gopnik, Blake. “Palate vs. Pallete.” Washington Post. The Washington Post, 23 Sept. 2009. Web. 01 Feb. 2014. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2009/09/22/ST2009092203340.html?sid=ST2009092203340>.