• GOALS
• How do you define “spirituality”?
• Does spirituality differ from religion?
• How do you define “creativity”?

              What is the source of creativity?

 How do you define spirituality?

         The general term of spirituality is related to religion. I believe there are a variety of definitions of spirituality. But I think the basic meaning of spirituality goes along with Greys idea of looking vs. seeing. It is a term that, I think represents how we cannot see directly with our eyes. It relates to the idea of Oscar Wilde “ Things are because we see them, and what we see, and how we see it, depends on the Arts that have influenced us. To look at a thing is very different from seeing a thing. One does not see anything until one sees its beauty. Then, and then only, does it come into existence” (71).  This quote I think defines spirituality and how looking is quite different from actually seeing and understanding.

 Does spirituality differ from religion?

I think spirituality isn’t exactly the same thing as religion but it does have religion involved. I think spirituality is how they act on those beliefs and Religion is specifically what they are taught through the religion. Which in a way provides the flexibility of religions, and that’s what people tend to enjoy.

How do you Define “creativity”?

I think Creativity is pretty much the imagination of an individual and how someone uses their originality. They use that in away to express themselves. It can come through singing, dancing, drawing, Even playing soccer on a field. Such as someone decides to do a specific move like a Mara Dona or a rainbow around someone on the field. They don’t know how they decided to do it, but they used their creativeness and originality to get around the other player.  Creativity is such a broad term I don’t think you can narrow it down really.

Someone using their creativity, on the field.

What is the Source of Creativity?

 I don think anyone has the same creativity. It Comes from within I believe. Due to the fact that everyone has different ideas. Everyone has creativity though. Some have better creativity then others. But in the end I just think some people don’t know how to express their creativity like others do. Some people might kind have some ideas but don’t know how to put them together or express them. That’s why the creativity of people appear differently to others.

Reflection:

In this artifact, I explained the differences and similarities involving spirituality and religion. I said that spirituality differs from religion, because spirituality is based on how people act on what they believe. Religion is what is taught at a young age. In the end, I think spirituality is based on more of how you act on the the beliefs that you were taught. I really enjoyed this assignment because it gave me the chance rely  on my own beliefs and feelings for spirituality and religion. It gave me a chance to think about what I actually thought. 

When it comes to spirituality and Creativity, I don’t really consider my self as either of those. So this assignment i thought was very helpful, because i have never even thought about before. Its cool to actually look at the differences between Spirituality and creativity and realize whats different about them. You realize the differences, but you were also given the chance to learn what actually binded them together. I really enjoyed realizing what my values were and this assignment made me realize how I defined my self.

Some people find creative tasks such as knitting to be a very spiritual experience.

Future: I think learning the differences between spirituality, religion and creativity will really help when some one is looking and observing a piece of art. I think this artifact will benefit me in my life, when i get the chance to explore more art in the future.

Next Page

Main Page

CUROSITY

Horror genre in films and televisions have evolved and grown over the years. When I watch horror movies I usually end up not wanting to look. So what exactly makes me watch it? Movies like The Shining, paranormal activity, The Walking Dead, The exorcism and so many more. Horror has the intention to instill people with fear, yet everyone including my self still want to watch it. Why is that?

In the first article I found it’s called Why do Some Brains Enjoy Fear? Which is the science behind the appeal of haunted houses, freak shows and physical thrills. This certain article is interviewing Dr. Margee Kerr who is a scare specialist. And the question that was asked; what fear was and why some people enjoy it so much. What happens in our brains when we are scared? Is it different when were scared in a fun way or versus being actually afraid. This article stated that “to really enjoy a scary situation, we have to know were in a safe environment”. Watching scary movies is all about trigging different responses and getting the adrenaline, endorphins and dopamine flowing! But when triggering these certain responses you need to be in a safe place. That is the difference of being actually scared more then just the fun way. Horror movies allow us to be scared but not a real scared for your life scared, more of a controlled scared. This fake form of fear lets us get away for some time and enjoy fear that really poses no real threat to any individual. The Adrenaline, endorphins and dopamine all start flowing, but in a safe way which allows us to enjoy it. Both of the two articles Carrolls and the interview with Dr Margee Kerr suggest that the people who love horror are the ones who know that it just a movie, there is no possible way they can be harm. They are all in a controlled environment while watching this film. Horror films are all about the unknown, but while feeling safe. Horror films are all based on curiosity, trying to find the unknown. Being Safe in a environment allows you to have the curiosity which relates back to Carrolls article. The difference between people hating horror films and not is the unknown and the curiosity of the unknown. One of Carrolls  main ideas is that ‘Monsters, are the natural subjects of curiosity” (Carroll).

The Second article I found was called Why Some People Love Horror Movies While Others Hate it by Margarita Tartakovsky. The first thing she explains is the excitation transfer process which you get while watching a horror film. This is one of the ways why someone would enjoy a horror film because the way it makes them feel after the film. There are negative reactions and positive reactions but the spark of it sticks with you for time after the film. People have different wiring, and you might have a different physiological reaction if your more sensitive. Tartakovsky said “about 10 percent of the population enjoy the adrenaline rush.” He also explains why some people turn to scary movies because of novelty. Sparks happen in horror films when you say “you don’t see that everyday” Which means that in horror films you get to see things that isn’t the norm. Like I said in my discussion topic, You don’t see little girls in real life singing creepy songs, you see them singing fun songs like ring around the rosie. This whole article explains why people do and don’t enjoy horror movies, which I think some of the main reasons tie back to the Noel Carrols article, Why Horror.

One of Carrols ideas that ties back to Tartakovsky is that horror story’s is driven explicitly by curiosity. “It engages its audience by being involved in processes of disclosure, discovery, proof, explanation, hypothesis and confirmation.”(Carroll) Which compares to what Tartakovsky said. “Since danger disrupts routine, curiosity about change is important for survival.”(Tartakovsky)  I think both of them have a main point that horror films create curiosity. Curiosity keeps everyone coming back for more and searching for that unknown.

It’s interesting that in the end, I related both of the articles to the theme curiosity. Both articles main ideas I found all revolved around curiosity of the unknown.

Ringo, A. (2013). Why do Some Brains Enjoy Fear. Atlantic Media Company. Retrieved on February 17,2014 from, http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/10/why-do-some-brains-enjoy-fear/280938/

 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.

Tartakovsky, M. (2012). Why Some People Love Horror Movies While Others Hate Them. Psych Central. Retrieved on February 17, 2014, from http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2012/10/31/why-some-people-love-horror-movies-while-others-hate-them/

Non-diagetic example

There is a mix of non-diagetic and diagetic sounds through out this Buffy episode. The one that I noticed first started at 15:44, was a non-diagetic sound, which appeared as mood music. Both characters lose their voices and figure out that they cant speak. When they figure out this, you can imagine they have fear. The fear is not shown through their voices but the background music that was playing. There are a lot of instruments. A violin is playing and it sounds almost creepy. The violins are playing screechy noises and its not pleasant to the ear. Everyone is in the stage of FEAR. And the music in the background does a great job portraying that. The background music adds the aesthetics of horror. It does this by informing the audience of the fear of the specific situation.

Diagetic Example

A diagetic sound from the Buffy Episode is the basically the main part of the video. Its any two characters talking or having a conversation. It is any actual sound.  The conversations between characters tell us what’s going on the in the story. When the boy and girl talk in and out of class is a diagetic sound. Buffys’ daydream in the beginning of the episode is a diagetic example. Showing Buffy walking down a dark hallway walking towards a little girl chanting shows the aesthetic horror. It shows aesthetic horror because it’s for seeing the next episode.

Mise-en-scene

I think the first scene with Buffy and riley about to kiss is an example of mise-en-scene. Where there kissing on the table, and everything around them disappears in the audience. The way this scene was edited, it influenced this scene in a big way. The elements helped express what the scenes purpose was. The Frame just closes in on them, closing out the whole rest of the environment. The background is darker and everyone disappears. The ascetic horror is a big part of the actors’ performance. Having the camera so close up and always on Buffy helps tell the story. The position of the camera sets up the mood and sense.

People Watching.

As I sit in Starbucks, I first notice a girl that has similar taste then I personally do. She wore Nike leggings; Nike shoes and an Oregon black zip up that has a green O on the chest. She generally just looks like an athletic person, which is why I think I noticed her first. She has strawberry blond hair that is put up in a straight ponytail. She doesn’t look much taller then 5’4 and is around 20 years old I would guess.

Looking at her appearance and what she where’s I assume she probably is on a sports team just like me, and most likely is more like me when it comes to culture and religion. Dressing like the way she did, I assume like me that she is hard working, dedicated and fit. She looked fit and toned which makes me think she is an athlete. She was also eating carrots and rice cakes with peanut butter, which are all healthy snacks, which makes me assume she watches what she eats. Her face expressions make me think she is laid back and easy going because she seemed like she was laughing at everything. In general I don’t really think any of these are bad assumptions to have. I think since I categorize myself with her so I am not assuming the worse. But I think some people might assume, skinny, really healthy eating= anorexic. Which is an awful stereotype to put on someone I think.

The next guy that I saw, he was sitting next to me reading the newspaper, looked like it was politics. This tells me that he likes to keep up with society and today’s news. This also tells me that he seems knowledgeable and enjoys being educated. He was an older guy and I assume he is around his 40’s. He has a watch on that looks pretty expensive, along with a nice suit, shoes and slicked back hair. His appearance makes him look like he is a successful man and a well off person. I would most likely think he is Rich and has tons of money, but I think that’s just a typical stereotype people have. I think he is similar to me in a way, because he seeks education and he obviously works hard at what ever he does. I realize that all of these assumptions are based on all of what he is wearing.

I see a Caucasian college male, probably nineteen or twenty years of age, rummaging through his stuff frantically trying to find something. From his posture and what he is wearing I can tell that he values a laid back lifestyle. He appears to be wearing a ‘golden state’ jersey so I am assuming he is from a stable middle class family from somewhere in California. Also, from what I can infer about his speech, he much also value education and seeks a higher quality of life. Due to the aforementioned basketball jersey as well as the backwards hat, I’m assuming he may be an inconsiderate jerk despite his alarming vocabulary. Granted I’m using mostly physical features to build this stranger’s character shows that I value general stereotypes that my peers might notice as well. In retrospect, I’ve come to realize that we, as a society, fall back on stereotyping complete strangers.

There are so many different assumptions and stereotypes to have, some are better then others. Its crazy to see how by just looking at one person for a little while what you can come up with or figure out about them. But in general, I don’t think its right that people judge people by only there appearance.

The Big Debate: Can Food Be Serious Art?

Is FOOD ART?

 In the article “The Big Debate: Can Food be Serious Art? They bring up both sides about how food can be art, and how it cannot be. It is from a newspaper called the Washington post. The way they bring up both sides of the argument is very simple and easy to follow and I think attracts the readers. Through out the article they explain why food can be art, and then immediately right after the statement they show the other point of view. They show the counter argument. I think since this subject is not universal and there are a broad variety of opinions, I think it is good that they show different point of views and they don’t narrow in on one side of it. It makes the article more interesting by seeing both sides; it brings up more knowledge and thoughts. It brings up sides of the argument that you never would of thought of.

In the big debate, they explained that food cant be art because how a meal is just one thing after another. They counter argued that by saying it can be art by saying how even most music calls on a tonal plot to keep the audience involved, as well just like food. In the article of Telfer “is Food Art”? also brings up an argument like the one in the debate. She explains  “Suppose a chef working for Marks and Spencer creates a superb pie, which is then turned out by thousand. Are all the pies works of art? Or is the abstract recipe the only work of art?” (17) which relates back to the debate of the article that a meal is just one thing after another. This argument I consider more the abstract recipe is the actual piece of art. The repetition of the food making over and over again shouldn’t be considered art. I think personally the repetition of making the plates of food over and over again takes the art out of it because you don’t put that “astethetic” taste into all of the plates made anymore.  In the Telfers article, she explains that aesthetic reaction is necessary for something to be considered art.  Our reaction to aesthetic is, “ based soley on how the object appears to the senses (Telfer,9). I think after meal after meal, or pie after pie that reaction comes like more of a routine, so it shouldn’t be considered art.

In this big debate: Can Food Be Serious Art? Another argument it brought up is that food cant be art because big fancy restaurants main goal, are not all about serving art. They only care about the status and money of the restaurants and how to keep them successful.  In Telfers article there is a similar argument to this argument. When she brings up when people or even restaurants in this case have different purposes like the success instead of the actual piece of art is not considered an aesthetic reaction but should be called a “non- instrumental reaction” instead. A non-instrumental reaction is when you don’t care about the benefit of others. (Telfer 10)  You’re happier about the actual success of the restaurants then the art. Relating to this argument, I think restaurants that are chains and fast food restaurants are under this “non-instrumental reaction” category, not the aesthetic reaction category.  The fast food and chain restaurants only care about the success of there own food and don’t care about the actual quality of it. The restaurants that take time to bring out the food to their customers and care about each plate falls under the aesthetic reaction instead of the non- instrumental reaction.

In the end, the reason I like this article is because this article I found does not end with a conclusion with an actual answer of “is food art”.  This article correlates with my opinion of the subject. I think there are different points of views and different thoughts and I don’t think it will ever be ever universal. They both bring up great point of views. By showing the different points of views, it shares the knowledge of both points of views to everyone.

(2009 Sept 23). The Big Debate: Can Food Be Serious Art?” [Washington Post]. Retrieved Feburary 02, 2014 from <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/22/AR2009092203137.html>.

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.