Art & Human Values

Richard Koman’s piece, “Remixing Cutlure: An Interview with Lawrence Lessig”, explored the controversies of copyrighting.  Copyrights were implemented as a form of legal protection, ensuring that the copyright holders received appropriate recognition and financial benefits.  Komon recognizes the importance of copyright, but at the same time believes that it has turned into a “strategic opportunity to exercise control over the future of content development and distribution, and not so much as a way of protecting copyrights.” (Koman) People who are trying to create small documentaries of their hometown are unable to afford the legal costs of the strict copyright rules that 20^th Century fox can afford.

Koman included a great analogy relating a butcher to the copyright industry.  A butcher spends his entire life dealing with cut-up meat.  This is the only way he knows how to make money by slicing up meet and then distributing its portions. When he comes across a racehorse, his first instinct is to cut it up and distribute its parts, because that’s all he’s ever known. Of course, from an outsider’s perspective we recognize how much more valuable a racehorse would be hole than in tiny little pieces. This is the parallel he draws with our culture. It is not beneficial for society. “If all content is locked in these little separate containers and you have to seek permission to do anything with it, then a huge potential, both economic and social, will have been lost.” (Koman)

Instead of discouraging creativity, copyright industries need to create a method to “distinguish between content that needs the benefit of an exclusive right and content that doesn’t”. (Koman) Now that you have a better understanding of the copyright dilemma, what is your opinion? Do you think congress needs to take the time to re-write a copyright law allowing more room for remixing and creativity? If not, why do you believe the copyright law should remain unchanged?

Jane McGonigal’s talk, “Gaming Can Make a Better World”, examines a whole new approach to gaming. She highlights the four reasons people are attracted to games; blissful productivity, social fabric, urgent optimism, and epic meaning.  Essentially, “people feel like they aren’t as good in reality as they are in games”. (Jane) Games are filled with all sorts of positive feedback and allow people to achieve goals they believe they are incapable of doing in real life, or as Jane puts it, they experience “epic wins”.  She claims that gamers use games in an attempt to escape real world suffering, which definitely makes sense. Her goal is to motivate people to funnel their gaming energy into more productive games that may help solve world issue.  I completely agree with her, if everyone transitioned the time they spent playing world of war craft to brainstorming ways to save the planet, we could easily solve some of our major world problems. Unfortunately, I think that what Jane stated earlier is also true, that people revert to video games as an escape from the horrors of reality. If this were the case, why would they escape to an electronic world that mirrors their own? Additionally, how exactly are we going to convince all these gamers to shift gears to more productive games?

How do you define spirituality?

There is no universal definition of spirituality, which is one of the reasons spirituality is so complex.  I believe there are numerous types of spirituality, but for me personally, spirituality is the quest to find the meaning of my personal existence.  It is an introspective form of cognition that allows people to analyze their internal experiences of life.  For instance, spending time to contemplate different relationships, values, morals, ect., that are important to you. I think meditation, communication, and certain physical activities can help achieve spiritual mindsets.

Does spirituality differ from religion?

Absolutely. Religion and spirituality may seem similar, and in some aspects overlap, but in general they are separate entities. Religion leaves little room for creativity. From my understanding, religion provides a structure for moral and principled guidelines. It provides the answers, so to some people it is considered a spiritual source of comfort. At the same time, at least in my experience, religion is exclusive.  Religion has been a blessing in many situations, but at the same time have causes violence, wars, discrimination and often pain and suffering.  In a sense, I see spirituality as the religious beliefs people generate for themselves.

How do you define creativity?

Creativity is the product of imagination.  It is unique innovative thoughts that people come up with on their own.  As we live our lives we receive stimuli from the outside world that spark original thoughts and ideas. Creativity is limitless, and can be expressed in art, writing, speech, sports, in anything really.  Just the other day I listened to a pod cast about a surgeon who managed to completely reconstruct someone’s jaw with a portion of his fibula. Creativity is one of the main factors that set us apart from other animals. It allows us to evolve and progress at incredible rates, because we are constantly approaching the world at new angles and perspectives.

What is the source of creativity?

I would have to say the source of creativity is the mind. Specifically, creativity is the product of independent thinking in combination with stimuli from the outside world.  Along with that, I think the willingness to be creative comes into play.  Ingenious ideas probably aren’t going to come to you while you are watching a movie on the couch.  One thing I found interesting though was that for the longest time scientists believed creativity stemmed from strictly the right hemisphere of the brain.  Recently though, more and more studies are suggesting that the left hemisphere plays a significant role in the process of creativity as well.

In Grey’s book, Art as Spiritual Practice, Grey examined the spirituality of art on an incredibly deep and sensual level.  I could tell from the first couple pages that he is an exceedingly spiritual individual, who is closely in tune with his personal emotions and feelings towards the art of seeing.  If anything, I found that I had a difficult time connecting with Grey’s perspectives on ‘deeply seeing art’ because art isn’t the soul purpose of my existence.  With that being said, he did make me think of art in a different way, and I was able to connect the most with the end of the chapter when he examined the context and meaning of art. For instance, “viewers interpret a work of art through the filter of their worldview, the knowledge and experience conditioning their mind.” (Grey, pg 102) I completely agree with this statement. When I first examine a work of art I appreciate it for it’s obvious characteristics; color, shape, texture, etc.  As I learn who produced the work, what it’s titled, and the history or inspiration of the work, I often become more intrigued and connected to it’s beauty. Additionally, he talks about how “the viewers’ life experiences will load their eyes and color their interpretation of the painting.” (Greay, pg 102) Similarly, I agree that the difference life experiences and perspectives people have collected will help shape their spirituality and connection with pieces of artwork.

 

References:

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

As I filtered through different articles online, “Why Our Brains Love Horror Movies”, one stood out to me.  Unlike many of my friends, I actually despise horror films, and I felt like this article did a good job at pointing out why people tend to be drawn to horror films.  For instance, people in general live calm, uneventful lifestyles, and therefore they look for something external to revive their nervous system.  Not everyone needs excessive excitement stimulation though, and a study found that people who score high on sensation-seeking measures tend to enjoy horror films more.  Age also plays a factor in explaining interest in horror films. Begley explains that teens are “more likely to look for intense experiences” (Begley, pg 1). As people grow older, they choose not to engage in as many activities that make their heart race because they experience enough scary real life experiences. Older people were also explained as having stimulation fatigue.

Additionally, Begley pointed out that people are drawn to the predictability of horror movies. For instance, the girl who sleeps with her boyfriend almost always dies, and that people who pick up deranged hitchhikers tend to wind up dead as well.  Begley also brought attention to the consistency of happy endings. I found this fact interesting because whenever I think of watching a horror film I always think about the fear and suspense I associate with it, but they definitely do tend to have happy endings. Therefore, horror films appeal to people who like predictable movies that have happy endings. Although some people are drawn to horror films because of the film’s predictability, Carroll discusses how people are also attracted to horror movies because they are curious and intrigued by the limitlessness of the film.  There are no definitions or proofs to help understand the complexity of some of the monsters.  Specifically, “monsters thus arouse interest and attention through being putatively inexplicable or highly unusual vis-à-vis our standing cultural categories, thereby instilling a desire to learn and to know about them”. (Carroll, pg 7)

Another article, “Why Are There Horror Movies”, written by Norman Holland, delved in on why exactly people are drawn to horror films. Disgust was the main emotion Norman addressed. People enjoy disgust, tragedy, and ugly things because they are able to learn from them. By watching ugly and painful things we can gather meanings we were unable to form in our everyday lives. Holland then quotes Aristotle’s cognitive answer, “somehow the cognitive payoff counterbalances the negative experience.” (pg 1) Disgust was also a major emotion addressed in Begley’s reading. He explains how people don’t crave disgust, but it is an affiliation of disclosing the unknown. Thus, “we are attracted to, and many of us seek out, horror fictions of this sort despite the fact that they provoke disgust, because the disgust is required for the pleasure involved in engaging out curiosity in the unknown and drawing it into the processes of revelation, ratiocination, etc.” (Carroll, pg 10)

Although Holland examines disgust in the cognitive sense, he doesn’t buy into it. Instead, Holland suggests a different answer, evolution. The first example he provided was stumbling across a car accident. Almost everyone would crane their necks and try to get a better look at the destruction beside them.  Fear and disgust are signs of danger, and evolution has made it so humans key into signs of danger in an effort to maximize chances for survival and reproduction. This explains why people seek out fear in the real world, but evolution doesn’t suggest why we look for fear and disgust in works of art.

Next Holland turns to Fueud’s concepts as an explanation; “if our brains sense a sudden de-mobilization of energy mobilized for some action in the outer world, when that energy is released, we feel pleasure?” (Holland, pg 1) Holland believes that humans turn to literature and movies in order to have our emotions stimulated, whether it be in pleasurable or un-pleasurable ways.  Specifically, there is a release of psychic energy due to the fact that we do not have to act in response to the emotional signals. Before people enter a movie theater they know they may experience fear or disgust with the horror film, but they also know that pleasure will be felt because they don’t have to do anything about their emotions. This was Hollands final argument, and although it does make sense, I find it makes humans seem rather pathetic.

 

 

 

References:

Begley, S. (2011, October 25). Why Our Brains Love Horror Movies. The Daily Beast. Retrieved February 17, 2014, from http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/10/25/why-our-brains-love-horror-movies-fear-catharsis-a-sense-of-doom.html

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.

Holland, N. Norman Why Are There Horror Movies? (n.d.). Retrieved February 17, 2014, fromhttp://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/is-your-brain-culture/201001/why-are-there-horror-movies

A good example of non-diegetic sounds was the morning after everyone in the town got their voices extracted. At first the scene was entirely silent, but then as the characters one by one discovered their voices were gone the music in the background becomes louder and louder.  I thought the music definitely enhanced the suspense in the scene by starting off quiet and slowly increasing in volume.  The sound was not coming from anything visible on the screen but was added to the movie to help set the mood.  It almost seemed as though the music reflected the emotions of the characters, and as they became more and more panicked, the music also became more and more panic like.

A scene I found overly suspenseful and full of diegetic sounds was when the two men were trapped in the elevator that wouldn’t let them out because it was voice activated.  From the minute they stepped into the elevator I noticed that all of the external sounds from the scene were enhanced. For instance, the shutting of the door, as the elevator went up the shaft, the siren that signals an intruder, even the buttons were loud when he was trying to punch in the override code.  The sources of all the external sounds were clearly visible, but in reality they probably would not have been that loud.  I think the enhanced sound was almost necessary for making the scene more thrilling for the viewer.  Additionally, I appreciated the comic relief following the scene, “In case of an emergency, use stairway”.

Towards the beginning of the episode I noticed a scene that captured the concept of mise en scene. It was when the group of girls were sitting in a circle for some sort of school meeting and at first the camera was zoomed out so you could see the full circle of girls, and then it slowly zoomed in and rotated around the circle to enhance the dramatic effect of the gathering. It is clear when watching this scene that the director put in special consideration of the camera placement and framing during the scene.  I’m not sure what the director’s intentions were, but I found that the spiral effect of filming the circle of girls, and how the clips would jump from one girl’s face to the next, just added to the absurdity of the entire meeting. Specifically, it made the girls seem overdramatic and theatrical.

 

References:

http://is-cc-media.uoregon.edu/media/CRN/2009/huette/Buffy_EP_Hush_lo.wmv

The way a person dresses and customizes his or her appearance I believe is greatly influenced by the environment they grew up in.  In my case, I grew up on a farm with three older brothers.  For the first twelve years of my life I looked and for the most part acted like a boy, but I did this because I valued that quality of life. I wanted to wear athletic clothes because I loved playing sports and I definitely looked up to my brothers so I didn’t have a problem wearing their hand me downs. Not to mention my two best friends were tomboys so I never felt pressured to dress in feminine attire.  I even cut my hair short for two years in elementary school. Looking back on my elementary school and middle school years, I feel incredibly lucky because I never once was bullied or ridiculed for dressing the way I did.  My best friend, who also could care less, ended up moving to Washington in 7^th grade and she had to completely redesign her wardrobe because she was immediately shut down and harassed for dressing like a boy. This is why I think the culture/environment you are exposed to plays a major role in personal expression.

Towards the end of Middle School and throughout High School I began to dress in more feminine clothes. I got my ears pierced, grew my hair out, and started wearing makeup, but still compared to the rest of the girls stood out as being a little rough around the edges.  It’s funny because my friends and I all kind of made that transition together, even though we didn’t blatantly talk about it, I’m sure we influenced each other.  I also think my family influenced my choice of clothes as well. My mom is arguably the least materialistic person on this planet, and my brothers never went shopping, so I didn’t really value buying things. I would even find myself feeling embarrassed for wanting new things because I felt like a greedy consumer.

During my freshmen year of college I met one of my closest friends who happened to be the polar opposite as me but we became incredibly close friends. We’ve lived together for the past three years and I have to say she has definitely influenced my sense of style.  I wear flashier things now, which still isn’t saying much, and I have gotten a couple more piercings.  Overall, I really appreciate organic, rather ‘dull colors’, as my friends put it.  They tend to roll their eyes at my choice of going out clothes but I have to say, in my opinion I would much rather wear something cozy. Unlike many cities, I do feel like Eugene is it’s own bubble full of random styles, aka, people can wear whatever they want.  Sander’s talks about how western society limits the body piercings and tattoos people can wear while still fitting within the mainstream norms, but I feel like Eugene is an exception. I wouldn’t think twice if I saw someone with random body piercings or tattoos, its just part of the local culture, which I’ve now been exposed to for four years.  What’s odd is when I have friends who come from out of town, or even when I talk to people from other cities, and they comment on how odd people dress around here, because to me it seems normal. There have definitely been times were I wear things I wouldn’t think twice about in Eugene to other cities and I can tell that people are evaluating me and judging me because of my attire.

In Sander’s first chapter he addresses how a person’s appearance affects his or her self-esteem, identity, interactions with others, and even how others view them.  In general, I think this is absolutely true and I don’t think people realize the extent in which people judge off external appearances. I’ve definitely noticed that on a very minor level I assume the role of the clothes I’m wearing. For instance, when I wear one of my soft fuzzy sweaters I tend to be a little more quit and relaxed, if I dress up to go out I tend to assume a more sassy outgoing role, and when I wear my leather jacket with boots, people seem to be a little more intimidated by me, regardless of my 5’1” stature. Sander did say one thing that I didn’t fully agree with, “Attractive people express more feelings of general happiness, have higher levels of self-esteem, and are less likely than the relatively unattractive to expect that they will suffer from mental illness in the future.” This quote kind of irked me a little. The society we live in definitely makes life much easier for attractive individuals, but some of the happiest, most outgoing, loving and caring people I know wouldn’t be considered attractive by societies standards.  Additionally, I have a couple friends who are drop dead gorgeous and I have to say they seem more insecure than the others. People are drawn to them because of their appealing appearance, and it makes them question whether people want to hang out with them for their good looks or because they are fun and interesting.

 

References:

Sanders, C. R. (1989). Introduction: Body Alteration, Artistic Production, and the Social World of Tattooing. In Customizing the Body (Chap. 1). Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.