Power
Original
Detailed
Perceptive
Creative
Vibrant

In one episode of Ted Talks, Lawrence Lessig talks about the Laws That Choke Creativity. He mostly focuses on the issues of copyright law and shows how the ability to “remix” or use small segments of other’s creations allows us to creatively express ourselves. He compares it to ASCAP and the way that competition was able to bring the broadcasting arena to a new set of standards. He believes that we need to bring this idea into affect again, allowing remixing to use copyrighted material. My question in response to his speech is, how would we be able to regulate this. Copyrights are in affect for a reason, to avoid piracy. How would the government be able to allow one and not the other.

-Correctly identify the primary thesis of  ”Computer Graphics: Effects of Origins”:

When Beverly Jones begins writing about her ideas and deductions on technology and art, more specifically digital art, she brings in many important points and themes. She focuses in on one, however, as she states, “old cultural patterns do not die. They may fade or become more evident; that is, they may be deemphasized or emphasized.” She brings the theme more toward the technological argument in stating that “computer graphics from 1945 to the present are examined to reveal cultural patterns embedded in their material and symbolic form… these embed patterns may have existed in art, technology or other aspects of material and symbolic culture.” (Jones 51) Essentially she is saying that in digital art we see that there are both computer cultural and social cultural patterns that shine through the artwork that comes out.

-Identify one of the three historical examples Jones provides as an illustration of her thesis:

One historical example of this thesis is found in the Second West Coast Computer Faire in 1978. Talk focused around projections that were made for “application programs with many operational branches could assist in the design process” (Jones 53). This is showing both the computer cultural patterns and social cultural patterns shine through the idea of digital art. The computer cultural patterns come when “completed design in the form of digital data could be used to direct mechanical production” (Jones 53). The theme of computers being use for logical expression is used to direct mechanical process, which fuels creation of cultural ideas formed in creativity.

-Provide a compelling and accurate illustration of Jones’ thesis at work in today’s culture:

In today’s culture one can look no further than the use of the Adobe suite. Our culture has turned to this feature to reshape design and general use art. Posters, cards, banners, and countless other designs utilize the tools of Photoshop, In Design, or Illustrator. The applications use the original computer patterns of logical processes to actually implement a design that is made by people’s imagination. Through it all the initial themes of computers and cultural ideals stay constant today when looking at how technology is combined with artistic creations.

In her Ted Talk: Gaming can make a better world, Jane McGonigal speaks video games’ effect on people and how they can be used to make the world better. She insists, “if we want to solve problems like hunger, poverty, climate change, global conflict, obesity I believe that we need twenty one billion hours of online gameplay a week” (McGonigal). She goes on to tell that gaming is a way to learn the skills to fight these problems and eventually work on these. Her mistake, however, is when she moves on to her proposed solution using this. She proposes several games that she has created and they are not online video games at all. The games are simply real life possible scenarios that created in order to prepare people for the potential results of problems and do not actually solve the problems themselves.

1. How do you define “spirituality”?

-Spirituality is ones beliefs and recognition of things that are greater than one’s self. The idea that idea that within someone is more than just bones, muscles, and neural connectors that make up a human but a greater being that dictates personality and connections with people on an emotional level. Spirituality is understanding that there is more to an object than just the physical or meta-physical, but another important aspect that cannot be measured in the physical realm but a spiritual one.

2. Does spirituality differ from religion?

-Yes spirituality definitely differs from religion on many points. Religion is a set of guidance and rules that set a way of living to be different from other ways of living. Spirituality, however, has to do with the actual beliefs, connections, and ideas instead of just merely the actions. Many times religions require spirituality as a part of the rules and guidance but it cannot be governed by the religion, because spirituality is a “heart” issue while religion is a head issue.

3. How do you define “creativity”?

-Creativity is the ability to make something out of nothing. To go further creativity is the ability and extent to which someone can take openness and create a result that has intricacy and uniqueness. An example is when given an open prompt to craft a story, creativity is how and to what detail the story is made. Did the author include a general and generic story that is still very open to more information or did the story have a backstory and go further in describing the detail of what is happening.

4. What is the source of creativity?

-The source of creativity is personality, uniqueness, and overall personalization. The more individualization that someone can bring into a creation the more “creativeness” that person will have. Creativity is creating out of the nothingness. When creating people need to bring in everything that they can to whatever they are creating. Without individualization the person will not be able to create much because they are only able to bring in the common trends and not those along with anything that they may bring on their own.

While reading Art as Spiritual Practice by A. Grey I was struck by a concept that I have heard before and wholeheartedly agree with. I read about how “there is a vast difference between looking and seeing” (Grey 3). This is one of the most important concepts that people grasp in life. The fact that people can be present in the physical but not completely be present from a mental or connection standpoint. When we understand this point we can discern better why some people react one way but others react a completely different way to the same thing. In art this can be a huge determinate of how someone reacts to a piece.

“To see deeply and understand are different from mere looking or observation” (Grey 5). So when a person goes to a gallery and looks at a painting and does not “see deeply” or understand the intention of the painting or the underlying stresses in the brushstrokes that person has a skewed view of the painting. They may think the painting is shallow or not have a good view of it, but this is not because they have not looked deep enough into the piece.

This brings me to a passage in the Bible in Mathew 13:13 when Jesus is talking and he says, “They look, but they do not see. They listen, but they do not hear or understand.” He is speaking of the way he talks in stories and that those stories have so much more depth than just the story at hand. Instead the stories convey a point that he is trying to get across. This is the same with artwork. A picture of a boat could be so much more important than just the boat itself, but instead about the troubled seas that surround the artist and the steady navigation of the captain.

Article 1:

When looking at Medical Daily, a medical heath website, I read and enjoyed a evaluation similar to the one we read about horror. The article Why Do We Watch Horror Films? Some Want To Understand Archetypal Fears While Others Crave The Psychological Ride by Anthony Rivas, addressed what it seemed to: why we find enjoyment in horror. Within its bounds the article mentioned the oxymoron that is finding enjoyment of watching what, in person, would make people uncomfortable. This is very similar to the reading Why Horror by Noel Carroll in objective.  “Why are horror audience attracted by what, typically (in everyday life), should (and would) repel them?” (Carroll 1). I may times have wondered this question and the articles make some extremely interesting points as to why.

Anthony Rivas’ article details two main theories on why this is phenomenon is true in society. The first is the idea that in horror movies people “address their archetypal fears”. The concept is that many people “want to understand what our population fears as a whole” (Rivas). With this understanding people are able to more easily identify with the rest of society and this is something people long to do. The second idea is that other viewers are there for the “psychological ride.” Here we find a more scientific reaction to the on screen or in word action. “People who seek higher levels of arousal thoroughly enjoy the response [in horror] — their bodies have to intense experiences” (Rivas).  Rivas talks about how these are typically people who have larger reactions to dopamine and enjoy things like skydiving or bungee jumping. I think this reaction has more traction but Anthony has missed one critical idea that Carroll brings in her article.

The author of the horror has as much to do with the love for excitement in horror as the consumer. The author creates a situation where concluding the unknown is important to the viewer. “It is not that we crave disgust, but that disgust is a predictable concomitant of disclosing the unknown, whose disclosure is a desire the narrative instills in the audience and then goes to gladden” (Carroll 10).

Article 2:

In an article on Live Science, Horror Movies: Why People Love Them, Leslie Fink takes another view of how people seem to continue watching and in fact enjoy watching movies that make them cringe. The Article starts by talking about how the Halloween holiday brings them out more than any other time, and the movies seem to continue on from then. The article then goes into one of its three subsections about why people enjoy the horror and thriller genre. The parts are as follows: the Desired Effect, Just Plain Suspense, and In Your Brain.

The first two take a more social approach and try to use forms of psychology to explain people’s actions when it comes to horror. The latter takes a more medical approach in describing the effects that end up making our decisions. The main philosophies of the first two sections are mostly centered on the ideals of “suspense, adrenaline rush, being distracted from mundane life, vicariously thumbing our noses at social norms” (Fink). A release from the status quo being almost an all-encompassing group for why people might enjoy horror, from a social standpoint. Really the main point Fink makes in the first two sections is that people want to believe for even a small amount of time that their life is more exciting than it really is, even if that is in a negative way. The most interesting point about almost any report about horror that I read is that no one actually believes that we enjoy it because the actual content is appealing. Carroll exclaims this when she says that “it is not the tragic event itself that imparts pleasure, but rather the way it is worked into the plot” (Carroll 3). From a social position we do not really enjoy the ugliness of horror but instead the other aspects surrounding the ugliness.

In the final section Fink brings in a point about the medical and emotional aspects of horror’s affect on us. Fink tells that “fear is not a biological reaction, but an emotion derived from both deep-seeded evolutionary factors” and that because of that “once an emotion is aroused, it is so hard for us to turn it off” (Fink). We start the emotion of fear and that makes us want it to happen again.

-Rivas, A., (2013). ‘Why Do We Watch Horror Films? Some Want To Understand Archetypal Fears While Others Crave The Psychological Ride’, Medical Daily. Retrieved February 16th, 2014, from http://www.medicaldaily.com/why-do-we-watch-horror-films-some-want-understand-archetypal-fears-while-others-crave-psychological.

-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.

-Fink, L. (2009). Horror Movies: Why People Love Them. On Live Science. Retrieved February 16th, 2014, from http://www.livescience.com/7949-horror-movies-people-love.html

At 13:22 through 14:44 in the Hush episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer is the focus of the article.

Mise-En-Scene

-This point in the movie actually has an example for each of the three criticism terms all wrapped into one scene. As for the example of mise-en-scene, the lighting all of the sudden turns to darker areas as it signifies that something mischievous is happening. The man who enters on the screen, only his arms can be seen but they are decrepit and seem to not have been taken care of for years. These costume choices give an impression that extends beyond the normal person on the show. He comes in and is trust into the “bad guy” role simply by the lighting, what you see of him, and the framing of the shot that does not allow the audience to see the rest of his body until his horrendously creepy face is revealed. The mise-en-scene aspects add extra personality to the character that will set him up for the rest of the episode.

Non-Diegetic Sound

-To start the scene the music begins to swell and increases until the music screams when the man’s face is revealed. The music is not intended to be a result of the actions on screen but instead a helping effort to enhance the importance of the moment. The music draws the viewer in to the action, exclaiming that something is happening. This scene is one of the first times that the director uses a non-diegetic and this makes it much more important as to the effect on the episode.

Diegetic Sound

-Throughout the episode what seem to be the souls of the many slip out of the mouths of the people at night and fly toward a box that was opened by the man. These “souls” or “whispers” have a quiet wind sound as if they are actually physically moving through the air. They also have whispering voices that slightly make a noise as they fly to the box. The diegetic sound is clearly coming from the “souls” or “whispers” and a sound that is coming from something on screen. The sounds coming from this gives the objects more life as to that this not just an unnoticeable occurrence. To the contrary, this would be viewable to anyone had they been awake.

The reason I chose this scene as the example for all three of the criticism terms is because not often do all of the terms work together in such harmony.

Usually my style is really understated more than anything else. I like to keep my hair short and wear jeans and a sweater, jacket, or sweatshirt without a hood and I mostly stick to flat colors like grey, green, blue, or white. I do, however like to splash in a little bit of something else to keep it stylish. Usually that comes in the form of shoes, as they are something that I have a strange affinity for. I don’t often wear any other jewelry other than a watch and with that I basically complete my “understated” look. This is what I look like when I am in a normal day-to-day outfit or situation.

When I am at a business function or classy event however, this all changes. My style goes from understated to classic but “stand out” style. If an event or function is asked to be formal or professional dress I take the time to find a suit or outfit that will be in the “dress to impress” category. Usually that means that the suit will be fitted very well in a slim or modern cut and either a shirt or a tie that has a sold or close to solid color, but the color will be one that stand out from everyone else. My shoes will rarely be black or subtle as well, but instead a light brown or some sort of wingtip that will make people take notice. My dress in these situations does not stay the status quo. I do this to make others notice me in a room crowded with other regular suits.

These two styles reflect the main sides of my personality and core beliefs almost perfectly. One side of my personality is the type to keep my head down and do what needs to be done without needing any affirmation or needing everyone to know what I am doing. This side is the understated style that comes out most of the time in normal situations. The idea of a quiet humility comes mostly from my deep belief in Christianity and partially from my family. In Christianity there are many themes of humility and working to the fullness of your ability. Not demanding attention from others in order to garner praises and affection. A security that I do not need to care about what others think as long as I know what I am doing is right. My family shares this belief and because of that I grew up in a fairly conservative home and our dress reflected that. This fuels the understated look that stays mostly around the solid colors and very little ostentatious clothing.

The Bible does also talk about taking care of the bodies we have been given and I do believe this extends to clothing and jewelry as well. This explains why you will not find any tattoos or piercings in my usual ensemble. That is not my only reason for not having any tattoos or piercings however. I also spend great deal of time looking forward to the future before doing things that have long lasting effects. Tattoos are something that I do not personally believe age very well as is the same with piercings, and because such, I do not partake.

When it comes to business and formal events, these are something I frequent as a future businessman. I am constantly surrounded by others who are striving to be on top and work very diligently to do so. Because of this I am constantly involved in a healthy competition to be noticed by companies and higher ups. This almost contrasts my initial core beliefs, but somehow they are both satisfied very well in the business world. This healthy competition causes my second style that is better said by the wording “dressed to impress.” I have a very gregarious personality and my intention with being noticed is not to be noticed for my work or to be prideful in myself, because I am “so great.” Instead I want to be noticed as someone who they met. I want the people at these gatherings to remember my as someone they have met before and hopefully as someone who they got along with. Dressing to impress actually helps this a lot. Many people at these events go through meeting a great number of people, and if you have one more thing to set yourself apart from the rest makes a big difference in the chances you will be remembered. The way that I dress to impress in formal and business settings are usually in direct relation to this idea.