Technology appears to be limitless; constantly improving in new ways that seemed impossible just years ago. The author described such improvements in the medium of computer graphics as “dramatic and rapid” (Jones 21). One of the clearest examples that exemplifies the advancement in computer graphics is the video game, Super Smash Bro’s. This game was originally made for the Nintendo 64, with pixel-characters, but is now made for the newer, more advanced gaming systems and much more detail in the visuals of the game. A question that I arrived at after reading this article refers back to page 27, when the author discusses the idea of screen less theaters, meaning movies would become a virtual reality experience. My question is wouldn’t something like this have potentially dangerous mental effects on a person? Offering someone an escape from their reality to a virtual one that feels just as real poses the risk of attachment to the virtual reality, especially if one is unhappy with their current life.

1. I would define spirituality in two ways; the first way would be having the belief that there is a greater power at play that is greater than oneself. My second definition of spirituality would be having awareness of your purpose and meaning in life. My first definition stems from religions, while my second definition is from personal experience. My aunt, who passed away 3 years ago, was an extremely spiritual person. She believed everything happened for a reason, people had a path that they are meant to take in life, among other faithful beliefs. She was not, however, religious by any means.
2. My second definition adequately answers the question of whether or not spirituality differs from religion. I think that when one is religious, they are spiritual because they believe in this higher power. I think it can differ because one can be spiritual by believing in miracles and destiny, but not necessarily a God. I would argue that there is no correct answer to this question, because it depends on the reasons behind why someone is spiritual.
3. I define the term creativity as the use of one’s imagination to produce original ideas. Creativity is unique to individuals; for an artist, creativity is present in their artwork, but in a doctor, creativity is present in their solutions to difficult health problems. There can be many forms of creativity, just like there are various forms of spirituality. Differences in creative thoughts just depend on the person, their background, and their way of thinking.
4. I would argue that the source of creativity depends on the task at hand, or as the author stated in the reading, the formulation step in the creative process. As an artist, one would become creative about a subject to create a piece of art. As a researcher, I think the use of the cognitive thinking is involved, assisting in problem solving by arriving at creative solutions. Both types of situations would use the creative process to come to their conclusions.

In the reading, The Mission of Art, the author characterizes the differences between looking and deeply seeing. With looking, or observation, we glance upon things casually, and chances are we won’t remember those types of moments. For instance, walking to class, I see dozens of other people, but I am not focused on them at all. If I look in someone’s direction that I am unfamiliar with, it more like I am looking through them rather than at them. However, when I see an acquaintance in a crowd of unfamiliar faces, that’s all I see. The author stated, “When deeply seeing, the object of our contemplation enters our heart and mind directly” (72). Applying this quote to my scenario, my object of interest would be my friend that I am passing on my way to class.

A question that I had from the reading regards chakras. I am confused as to what the energy is that they mediate. Is it referring to spiritually energy, for instance, good and bad vibes? The author refers to something as “subtle energetic vibration” (95), but I was confused if this was an actual scientific thing.

There are many arguments as to why people enjoy watching horror films. In the article, “Why disaster movies can cheer us up”, author Ariel Leve begins by examining the differences between the expectations one has a child versus that as an adult. The simple version of it is as a child, we have unrealistic expectations; we believe in fairy tails and happy endings. As we grow older, those expectations shift to more realistic things, such as things not working out the way you want or planned. She connects these expectations to disaster films, which involve situations such as natural disasters, by stating that people like to have a means to handle uncertainty. What this means is that it is enjoyable to see things work out in the worst types of situations. For example, in War of the Worlds, aliens invade Earth and capture and devour humans, attempting to annihilate them all. This is a genuine fear for some, and in the film, a father saves the world from further destruction by taking out the main alien. His entire family ends up surviving and making it across state lines, and for many viewers that gave them a sense of relief that if something like this were to actually happen, there’s hope for survival. Specifically, the author states that “It offers us a little security in an insecure world.” (Leve). Another theory that the author suggested is that there is an effect called “downward social comparison” that comes into play with these films. Downward social comparisons refers to when people feel bad about themselves or their lives, but then feel better once they view a film where someone is doing a lot worse then them.

Lucy O’Brien, author of “The Curious Appeal of Horror Movies”, brings different arguments to light when it comes to why horror appeals to us. She begins by explaining how there are so many more reasons why horror should not be successful, such as low budgets, unknown actors and actresses, not kid-friendly, and most people do not have the stomach for them. One theorist that she introduces suggested that everyone is fundamentally insane, and viewing horror films allows us to purge on that insanity. While this is one theory she suggested as a possibility, her main thought was that the enjoyment was powered by curiosity. In a study conducted in 1994 on horror fanatics, participants were shown a video of real life gore, such as slaughtering animals and surgeries. The study concluded that 90% of the participants were unwilling to watch the entire film. The difference between this film and horror movies is one main thing, and that is that the video they were shown was real. It appears from this that we enjoy abhorrent fiction because it is unrealistic. Seeing terrible things happen to living beings is not enjoyable, nor should it be. The enjoyment is triggered by a curiosity for the unknown.

In the reading, author Noel Carroll viewed this debate from various perspectives. He focuses on more monster horror, which is closely related to the points suggested in the article by O’Brien. Monsters are unknown because they do not exist, at least not the monsters Carroll refers to in the reading. Because these things are unknown, people become engulfed in the idea of “what if?”, which is what might drive the enjoyment in horror. Specifically, “…horror story is driven explicitly by curiosity.” (Carroll 279). Carroll and O’Brien both argue that there is a desire to learn about things that are so unknown to us. Like the study concluded in O’Brien’s article, people who enjoy horror do not enjoy real life horrors and tragedies, which is why I would argue that this contradicts with the point in O’Brien’s article that stated that everyone may just be fundamentally insane. To me, that would indicate that people enjoy watching any type of horror instilled on others. In relation to the disaster films article by Leve, Carroll brought up a different perspective on it, explaining that because those situations are plausible, but unrealistic, it gives many a sense of relief that it has not happened to them. This is closely related to the term of downward social comparison; people would be cheering themselves up at the expense of others troubles. I think Carroll failed to bring up the point that Leve did, in that people can also relate to these films, and they feel like their situation is okay because they are not alone. I don’t believe there is any one reason as to why people enjoy horror films, however I would argue that curiosity is the strongest reason to me.

Carroll, N. (2002). Why Horror?. In Neill, A. & Riley, A. (Eds.) Arguing About Art: Contemporary Philosophical Debates (2nd ed., pp. 275-294). New York, NY: Routledge.

Leve, A. Why disaster movies can cheer us up. (2011, August 9). Retrieved February 16, 2015, from https://psychologies.co.uk/culture/why-disaster-movies-can-cheer-us-up.html

O’Brien, L. (2013, September 9). The Curious Appeal of Horror Movies – IGN. Retrieved February 16, 2015, from http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/09/09/the-curious-appeal-of-horror-movies

In the episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, there were many examples that contributed to the aesthetic of horror for the show. A strong example of non-diagetic sound to me was the scene at 13:24. The mood of the show is immediately shifted from the light conversation the two male characters were engaging in. The mood was changed through the use of mood music, specifically very deep, ominous tones which creates a dark, creepy atmosphere. I would also argue this scene is a strong example for mise-en scenes. The visibility of only the hands, accompanied by the eerie music gives a strong sense of mystery. The added lighting and well as the pale makeup on the mystery hands resembled moonlight, giving the scene a unsettling vibe.

As far as diagetic sound, finding an example that contributed to horror aesthetics was difficult. This is because the evil creatures in this show stole their victim’s voices, therefore there was no sound. However, the scene at 32:45 had me on the edge of my seat. As the victim ran from the creatures, although you couldn’t hear her scream, you could hear her running and pounding for her life on the doors. This created an extremely suspenseful moment, as well as terrifying because the creatures are extremely disturbing. The creatures themselves in every scene are examples of mise-en-scenes. Their pale makeup and permanent smiles, as well as the floating and use of props develops a sense of fear in the audience, allowing aesthetic reactions to occur in response to the horror.

Throughout my life, I have always been very indifferent regarding body piercings and tattoos. I have experienced a variety of situations where I have enjoyed a piercing or tattoo, as well as times where I have disliked them. My opinion on the subject is dependent on the reasoning behind the alternation. Non-permanent alterations, such as clothes, hair, and makeup, are much more socially accepted and common in the United States. As Sanders stated in Customizing the Body, “At the simplest level, clothing and fashions are adopted in order to display symbolically gender, social status, role, life-style, personal interests, and other identity features” (Sanders, 4). I often view these types of alterations as self-expressive. When it comes to more permanent body modifications, such as piercings and tattoos, I tend to make the conclusion that the person receiving these modifications is seeking attention. However, making this conclusion depends on the reasoning behind the modification.

Personally, I don’t think making permanent adjustments to your body is ever a good idea, but especially when they are made to your face. I know this belief is due to my mom, who has always been supportive of anything I want to do with my body, with the exception of piercings on my face. When I first came to the University of Oregon, I noticed many girls had nose piercings, and to me it was an attractive look, so I highly considered getting one. I remember my mom getting extremely worked up about the fact that I was going to put a hole in my face. It wasn’t the piercing that bothered her, just the placement I had chosen to get it. She had taken me to get my ears pierced a couple of times, and she had even offered to get me a tattoo, but the difference was that I could hide my ears with my hair, and a tattoo with my clothing. I now understand her opinion on it; it wasn’t that she didn’t like the look of the nose ring, but rather she knew others may not like it and she didn’t want that to negatively affect my lifestyle. She was afraid I wouldn’t be taken seriously, and while that was her opinion, I fell into agreement with her.

Another value I adapted from my family was to not act on impulse. This required me to think on choices that resulted in permanent outcomes, and an easy way to do that was for me to think to myself, “10 years from now, would I be asking for the same thing?”. This way of thinking has prevented me from getting a tattoo. There have been many moments where I have deeply considered the idea; something as simple as a short quote that made me feel better. I knew if I were to get a tattoo, I would place it on a hidden part of my body that would be covered by daily, casual clothing. What stops me is thinking back to 10 years ago, which would make me 12 years old, and asking myself what kind of tattoo I would get as a 12 year old. The tattoo selection I would have had at 12 would have been soccer balls and the name of my elementary school crush, which are very different from my current goals and interests. From here, I think into future, and that maybe by the time I’m 32, the quote I got permanently inked onto my body at age 22 will be meaningless..

While I choose to use this thought process in regards to body modifications, I understand the desire to do it. As I stated in the beginning of my discussion, I often view wild tattoos and piercings as a cry for attention; however, I do believe there are deeper reasons for them. Referring to the PowerPoint presentation, there are various reasons for people to alter their bodies in permanent ways, one being the shock value. This is closely related to my belief that these alterations are an attempt to receive more attention. In my people watching assignment, I talked about a woman who had various facial piercings and facial tattoos. I don’t think there could be a better example of shock value, and I also don’t see another reason for this woman to do that to herself. While I don’t agree with this reasoning, I do understand it.

Another reason, which is a more positive opinion on the matter, is for representation of something. I’m not sure how this would relate to piercings, but with tattoos, the tattoo often represents something of great importance to a person. What tattoos could represent is endless; from grief to motivation, or even something more specific. These are the instances where I feel I am more accepting of wanting to make a permanent make on your body; a constant reminder of something important to you. I have a close friend who had made many mistakes in her life involving drugs. She cleaned herself up, and today is living an extremely healthy lifestyle. She has the date she entered a rehabilitation facility tattooed on her chest, near her heart, which she claims represents the day she decide to live.

I have no doubt that my family values influence the way I judge body modifications. I grew up with a very small family, and most of the older generations were on the conservative side and looked down upon any permanent alteration to your body. My mom was the family member to branch out; while she didn’t alter her body in any permanent way except standard ear piercings, she was much more accepting of what people chose to do. My opinion is most closely related to hers, but I would argue that I am even more open to it. There’s many things I don’t agree to doing to myself, but that doesn’t necessarily mean I care if other chose to do so. I think people have a right to express themselves however they chose, I would just argue that many people think of these expressions in only the short term, and neglect the long term consequences.

I chose to people watch outside of Caspian’s Mediterranean Café, sitting in their outdoor seating area facing 13^th Ave. Being near campus, I was bound to see a lot of students, but I also saw what I believed to be homeless people, as well as simple Eugene citizens. One citizen that specifically stood out was a woman who had her entire face tattooed and pierced. I did my best to glance at her tattoos, which appeared to be some sort of tribal marks, accompanied by multiple facial piercings. As far as students go, there was a large variety that passed by in the hour. Focusing on gender, many women altered their bodies in non-permanent ways, such as makeup, nice clothes, and hairstyles. Many females also had piercings; mostly ear but I saw a few nose rings as well. As far as the men went, they had a larger variety in hairstyles, both facial and head hair. Overall, the majority of men were dressed in casual pants and t-shirts, with a few who were dressed more business casual. In my opinion, the woman with facial tattoos and many piercings is insecure and self-conscious, and she covers herself up to hide it. I feel that because she did not carry herself well, she did not appear well off, nor emotionally stable. My judgments on this woman show that I am uncomfortable with making permanent adjustments to my face like she had. Due to the fact that I am uncomfortable with it, I assume that there is something wrong with her, something that caused her to do that. In reality, she may be the opposite of the conclusions I made about her, and I don’t know the real reason she altered her face in such a way.

This article raises the question on whether or not food itself is art. Author William Deresiewicz explains how the 21^st century appears to be an introduction to ‘foodism’ as a form of culture. He distinguishes how Americans are discovering their senses, specifically he states that they are “learning to value pleasure, distinguish subtle differences, and make fine judgments” (Deresiewicz, 2012). He established that these sensory responses are key in appreciating art, but indicates concern in the fact that Americans have become too absorbed in the foodism culture. According to the author, what started out as a similar passion among peers has spiraled into an obsession with food. Rather than just appreciating it, they immersed their lives in; he even shared a quote from a former student of his, stating, “food is everything!” (Deresiewicz, 2012). Because of this, the author argues that food is not becoming an art, but has replaced it. He compares America to Italy and France, explaining how both these other countries have a strong focus on food, but place a higher value on art. The author concluded his article by characterizing the fact that the food itself should not be considered art, but rather what goes into the finished product; the craft of cooking being the art.

Both Tefler and Deresiewicz distinguished that aesthetic reactions are a necessity in establishing something as art. Deresiewicz argued that these sensual reactions to food were new to the 21^st century, and believes that Americans have taken the foodism culture too far. He even introduced a sense of concern, stating specifically that “Here in America, we are in danger of confusing our palates with our souls” (Deresiewicz, 2012). Tefler (2002) argued that works of art must be intended for aesthetic consideration, and that in many cases food does not fall under that category (p. 14). A chef must intend for his food to be savored, which is a compelling argument against the fast food industry. The title itself, “Fast food”, exhibits both how the food is prepared and how it is to be consumed. Those who are purchasing fast food are not in the market for a savory meal that they can analyze and discuss. In Deresiewicz’s definition of food as art, fast food by no means falls under the category of art because he believes the art is in the preparation and cooking itself.

Tefler (2002) also debated whether cooking was an art, and she brought up a very interesting example that contradicted many conclusions that were made. She introduced the scenario where a chef at a restaurant chain creates a delicious, homemade pie, but is later turned by the thousands (p. 17). By her original definition, the pie would be considered a work of art, but the manufacturing of thousands of these pies strays from the art of cooking. Tefler argues that these would still be considered works of art. Deresiewicz would argue otherwise, specifically because he believes that in order to view food as an art, it is what goes into the food that allows to be become art. Mass-producing pies would not fall under Deresiewicz’s definition of cooking as artistry.

Tefler (2002) brought up another point towards the end of her debate, explaining that food itself can’t be viewed as a work of art because in order to produce an aesthetic reaction, it must physically touch parts of our body (p. 19). She follows this statement by explaining that such a requirement may be too crude to be art. I disagree with this point because there are many cases where food just has to be in front of you to generate a sensory reaction. For example, a place that serves handmade pasta would remind me of my trip to Italy with my mom, which would fill me with positive reactions. I would not necessarily have to eat the food, or even smell it. Just the fact that I could establish a relationship between the food and a memory is art to me.

Overall, I agree with Deresiewicz’s view on food as art. While I do not feel I have enough knowledge to determine whether American’s have become obsessed with the idea of food as art, I do agree with his opinion on establishing what food is art. The process that goes into making something is what is important, because that is where the intensions are established. Like Tefler (2002) stated, art needs to be created with the intention of invoking an aesthetic reaction. When a chef’s only concern is the customer’s happiness and satisfaction with their meal, the chef becomes an artist in the craft of cooking.

Deresiewicz, W. (2012, October 27). “A Matter of Taste?” Retrieved February 1, 2015, from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/28/opinion/sunday/how-food-replaced-art-as-high-culture.html?_r=0

Tefler, E. (2002). Food as Art. In Neill, A. & Riley, A. (eds.) Arguing About Art: Contemporary Philosophical Debates (2nd ed., Chap. 2). New York, NY: Routledge.