Author: tvandy

After finishing up one of my finals on Thursday and needing a place to come down for a little bit I decided to take some time and head to the knight library to visit the development of the arts and sciences murals to help clear my mind. I first went to the west stairwell and viewed the Development of the sciences. Now for a majority of my life I have had really no appreciation for public art because I personally had no use for it. It never struck me as intriguing. However, I was able to connect with this piece and eventually developed fascination for it. I found this piece so intriguing because of the simple yet amazing way it walked you through the world’s science history and pictorially portrayed a conversation. Doss has a quote in her article that states “the dynamics surrounding public art reveal an ongoing American commitment to meaningful conversations, which are the cornerstones of an active democratic culture”(1). Now even though this piece didn’t verbally speak to me it spoke to me in other ways and allowed me to make connections to some of our course work topics. It starts from the bottom in the stone age with the discovery of fire and goes all the way through the modern period with Albert Einstein and the modern control of power. Seeing this progression through time gave me some good perspective into how far we have actually come in the world of sciences and ultimately allowed me to make the connection between this and our week 8 topic of technology. The development of the sciences opened the door for the development of technology because without one we wouldn’t have the other. For example, without science we would have never had electricity which gave power to phones which, through technology, then led to smart phones. Now entire countries are connected by these hand held devices and its only going to keep expanding as technology and science continue their advances. Seems kind of strange looking back at where we started with the building of fire and now talking to a different part of the world with a little device in the palm of your hand.

After viewing the development of the sciences for quite some time I then ventured over to the east stairwell to look at the development of the arts. This one was quite interesting as well because it also provided the viewer with a visual timeline. This one start off in the earliest primitive period with the first cave painting and shaping of earthenware. The viewer can then track the progression all the way to the modern arts which are represented by Shaw, Bernhardt, and others. This piece touched me on a more personal level because I was able to relate this progression of the arts with the topic that we discussed in week 3 which was finding the true meaning of art. The example that I used during that discussion was my father and the American flag that he built all out of wood. At the time I didn’t view this as a piece of public art because I thought the term “art” strictly meant the weird sculptures and paintings you see outside of museums. Now, after going through this class and reading this article I am in shock as to how blind I was. Doss states that, “traditional forms of American public art include figurative sculptures displayed in public spaces…often these are erected as monuments or memorials to important national figures and moments” (2). This describes to the T the purpose of my dads flag carving. He wants to present this piece to the freedom tower in NYC as a tribute to those that lost their lives in 9/11. His traditional piece of public art was a calling that he felt that he must do as a patriot of this country. He needed closure and upon completion of his piece he was provided with it.

Looking back at my original views of public art makes me sick wish that I hadn’t have been so blind. Public art is the key essence that portrays what America is, freedom and the ability to express our views without being prosecuted. Doss’s article goes on to talk about the controversy that public art brings to the table but I say let it be. As Doss says earlier, it reveals an ongoing American commitment to meaningful conversations, which are the cornerstones of an active democratic culture. If we want to remain an active democratic culture then we must not infringe on one of the very cores that keeps this together, the freedom of public art.

Purpose, Feeling, Values, Beauty, Free

Lessig brings up an amazing point in his article Comparing Cultures. Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy that I can refer to first hand in a majority of the classes that I’ve taken here at U of O. Lessig states that, “most students come from an essentially RO education(fueled by professsionals). For four years, they’ve sat in large lecture halls, with a professor at the front essentially reading the same lecture she’s given year after year…the class is a forum within which that argument happens. Students don’t listen to lectures. They help make the lecture”(85-86). A majority of the classes that I’ve had here during my stint at the University of Oregon have been organized in this fashion. The teacher gets up there, reads off his slides, tells us what we need to know, then ends class. There were no discussions of any sorts simply him talking in front of the class. Naturally kids start tuning out, getting on their phones, and opening up laptops etc. This is simply just not an effective way to teach anymore. In order for students like me to learn the material we need to be engaged.  The classes that I’ve learned the most in have been structured with more of an RW style of teaching where the teacher starts the conversation then encourages students to chime in and state their opinion of the topic and what they think it means. This leads to one thing which leads to another and before you know it the entire class is getting involved and everyone is learning. I feel that more of an emphasis needs to be placed on this style of teaching as opposed to the old RO style because this is simply the way that our generation learns. Times are changing and in order for universities to continue to provide the best educational value for their students they must evolve teaching styles to meet the ever changing learning styles of its students.

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.