MCAAD250, Spring'15

Bottom Left: Responsibility and Accountability

Bottom Right: Resilience

Second Row Right: Independence and Interdependence

Second Row Left: Self Awareness

Third Row Left: Goal Orientation

Top Left: Appreciation of Difference

Top Right: Tolerance of Ambiguity

Keywords:

Creativity

Expression

Innerness

Unique

Senses

*Click image for full view

I think that this type of collage can be consider artwork because I am taking my thoughts and showing them in a creative and artistic way. It is the intent of the person making the art whether or not it can be considered art. Just because I am taking different images that I personally did not create does not made that this work is not original. It is like using found objects to create sculptures. I do think though that I would need to give credit to the original creators if I was to publish this work for reason other than educational purposes.

In Beverly Jones’ article, she talks about how their is a connection between art and technology and how it has change the way art can be produced. In her thesis she states that “by reviewing specific works and what appear to be underlying conditions and assumptions that shaped these works, I hope to establish the relation of specific image, object, event or environment to conceptual frames. These frames exist within art and technology and are present in other forms of symbolic and material culture” (21).

She then uses historial examples of how art and technology have intertwined in some way. She talks about “…early market predictions of the Mercedes Benz Corporation, which limited the number of potential automobile sales to the very low number of trained chauffeurs then available” (21). It shows how technology can be wrong sometimes even though our society has put so much trust in it.

In todays culture, technology is becoming even more popular and especially in the arts. It has become a new medium as Jones explains in her article as well. She states that “electronic and photonic art forms have been and will continue to be influenced by their origins and practices.” (21) There is a shift to a new way of jugding art as well ebcause you can no longer use the old formalist approach. Jones explains that “both schools of criticism can be viewed as reductive; that is, they ignore historical, social or representational references within an artwork.” (25) There is an explain of an artist using technology within his artwork in the piece ‘LIGHT ECHOES’ By Aaron Koblin. He had the idea from “a question posed by Doug Aitken, an American multimedia artist who once spent three weeks on a train traveling from New York to San Francisco. “What would you do if you had a train?” he asked me. I answered that I would put a laser on it; I would try to turn it into a gigantic paintbrush of light.” (Koblin) It is an interesting idea because it shows how technology creates a frame for artists to work within.

Sources Cited

Jones, B. J. (1990). Computer Graphics: Effects of Origins. LEONARDO: Digital Image – Digital Cinema Supplemental Issue, pp. 21-30.

“Art and Technology.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 27 Nov. 2013. Web. 24 May 2015.<http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/28/opinion/art-and-technology.html?_r=0>.

After watching the Ted Talk by Jane McGonigal about how gaming can make the world a better place. She first starts off by stating that we actually need to spend more time playing videos and this shocked me because I have always though sitting in front of a computer screen for hours on end to be a bad thing when you could be out in the world experiencing real life. She then goes on to say how video games actually teach us very important skills like working with others, solving problems, be creative and finding out what it feels like to make a big accomplishment and wanting to be able to do that again. I think that this is a very interesting take on the value of video games and although I think she makes some very valid points, I also think that it is important to learn those skills in the real world, not the virtual one.

So my question is, how affective can the skills learn in a virtual game be applied in real life?

1. How do you define “spirituality”?

Spirituality is a belief in something bigger than yourself. It does not have to be a religous figure or a relic, although it can be. It is noticing the world around you and thinking about what may lay beneath it all. Also noticing your spirituality can be done in different forms. Artists tap into their spirituality when they create art. Other may do it through yoga or even just relaxing in their homes.

2. Does spirituality differ from religion?

Religion is usually participated in through a community organization, like going to church, where people share the same beliefs of the creation of the world and how to live your life. There are usually specifics rules or beliefs that are laded out and with spirituality it can be very individualized. The focus with spirituality is on yourself and what your thoughts and beliefs me in your life. There also aren’t any set rules to hw you experience spirituality.

3. How do you define “creativity”?

In the dictionary creativity is defined as “the ability to transcend traditional ideas, rules, patterns, relationships, or the like, and to create meaningful new ideas, forms, methods, interpretations, etc.; originality, progressiveness, or imagination”. I think that is a good way of understand creativity because creativity doesn’t just come in one form but many and it is all about creating or express ideas in a new way.

4. What is the source of creativity?

Spirituality can be a source of creativity because you are looking within yourself for meaning and new perspectives. It have also come from the outside world or the people you surround yourself with. I think that pretty much anything can inspire creativity if you are paying attention.

The idea of spirituality is something that I have struggled with because growing up it was not about of my life as I understand it. My family was not religious and I was always taught to look at the facts and then determined what I believed. When I came to college and starting taking art classes, I noticed how even though I was not religous, this idea of spirtituality was something that keep coming up in how I thought. I was trying to understand the world on a bigger level than just on the surface.

In the video one of the artists described how spaces can make you think and feel certain thing and how that in turn can shape new meanings into you life. I agree with this because sometimes when you walk into a space, whether it be ordinary or not, can give you a sense of something bigger than yourself. It does not even have to get art related, for exmaple walking into Autzen Stadium and everyone is cheering and all there to watch and support the same thing can really give you the sense of something bigger than yourself.

There is also this idea of looking versus seeing which is dicussed in Alex Gray’s The Mission of Art. When I walk home from classes sometimes I am preoccupied in what is going on in my life or thinkning about things I have to do so I am not really even seeing whats around me. I like Gray’s idea to “try to take a different route everyday. You will begin to see different things and open up your mind to different perspectives.” It is the idea of really opening your eyes to the world around you and trying to understand it on a deep level. This relates to how artists want you to see their work as well. Gray states that “in order to experience art fully viewers must go through a mini ego death by placing themselves in the inspired mind of the artists.” You have to let go of yourself sometimes to let in other’s ideas. You must open yourself up to the idea of spirituality even if it is on a smalll level.

As a person who has never seen the enjoyment of being scared by movies, shows, or even haunted houses or the onimous Tower of Terror at Disneyland, I found this subject very interesting. I found two articles that talk about the ideas played out in Noel Carroll’s article, “Why Horror”. I focused on the idea of how horror seems to be so interested and exciting to poeple because horror portrays ideas of the unknowable, like monsters and violence, that people will never actually witness in real life.

Sharon Begley’s article dicusses the sensation horror films evoked when viewers watch them and how the viewer find that enjoyable. The first idea brought up is that “if we have a relatively calm, uneventful lifestyle, we seek out something that’s going to be exciting for us, because our nervous system requires periodic revving, just like a good muscular engine.” This quote shows that people who adventure seekers and looking for new experiences will enjoy horror films because wathcing one makes them feel like they did something dangerous. They create a sense that you just went through something and came out the otherside just fine. It is an intense experience to watch a horror film because even though you think you can handle what is about to happen, it will probably still surprise you.

This leads to the next point made about how horror movies can act as a “cathartic effect, offering you emotional release and escape from the real world of bills and mortgages and the economy and relationships.” It takes your mind away from the outside world completely and after the movie ends there is a sense of release that everything is okay and your problems do not seem as bad.

It is also talked about how people enjoy horror because it feels like you are training to be able to handle anything, like if you can make it through the scariest film or haunted house or whatever it may be, then you acan handle anything in the real world. It is also suggested that “horror films are popular because they speak to the basic human condition of existential fear, the knowledge that we are all doomed.” That there is going to be an end to it all and so horror is a way of dealing with the idea.

The other article I read was also by Noel Carroll called, “The Nature of Horror” in which he discusses similar ideas and takes apart the ideas of why people are so obsessed with horror and the effects of the genre. Carroll dicusses what he calls “art-horror” and how there is an artistic validity to types of horror. He talks about how it is nesscary for there to be two conditions in order to experience art-horror. The two being “the physical sensation of revulsion or disgust, coupled with the sense of being threatened.” He explains that art-horror evokes a physical and emotional response to the situations happening that make it seem so scary and are not the idea of “natural”.

There is also this idea that the viewer have characteristics that are relatable to the characters in the art-horror. Carrol uses examples of monsters like Frankenstein or Dracula and then explains that “the responses of characters often seem to cue the emotional responses of the audience.” It is the idea that art-horror interwines social and cultural attitudes so that the viewers can somehow relate to what is happening in the scene even if everything about it seem unnatural.

Sources:

Begley, Sharon. “Why Our Brains Love Horrow Movies.” The Daily Beast. Newsweek/Daily Beast, n.d. Web. 10 May 2015.

Carroll, Noël. “The Nature of Horror.” The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 46.1 (1987): 51-59. JSTOR. Web. 10 May 2015.

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.

While watching the epsiode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, I noticed a lot of examples of non-diagetic sound, diegetic sound, and mise-en-scene. The non-diagetic sound that really stood out to me was the music and how it changed so drastically from one scene to another. When the actors were about to kiss the music would become romantic, when fights scenes were happening there would be intense, violent music and when there was a sense of confusing the music would become eery and ominous. The eery, mystical music really added to a sense of anticipation of what was about to happen and sometimes I though someting was going to pop out in the screen, so it definitely added to the horror aspects.

A diegtic sound example was when the girl was walking through the college room and everyone was silent and then the guy dropped the bottle and it broke. Because the room was so quiet, the sound of the bottle breaking was even more surprising and even caused me to jump!

A mise-en-scene example was the choregraphy of the fight scene with Buffy and the guy against the zombies. The way Buffy was kicking and hitting the zombies and even use a rope to swing and knock over a zombie was all choregraphed to make look real. Also, the face make up of the zombies to make them seem lifeless and grotesque made they seem more believable.

As I began watching people walk from class to class on 13th today, I noticed an older white man sitting in the shade with his dog across from the president’s building. I could tell he was an older man because he had gray hair underneath his hat. He wore round glasses, a button up shirt, khakis and a book bag across his chest.  He had his arm wrapped around his dog and would sometimes brush the dog’s back with his hand as he watched people walk in front of him. I think that he finds the value of companionship very important. He would sometimes talk with people as they walked by when they commented on his dog. I think that he may have been a professor because he dressed well and he had a book bag that would suggest that he was carrying papers and such. I think that this assumption comes from my experience of taking classes with professors that look and dress like him. Maybe he lives close by so he decided to talk his dog for a walk before he went to class.

A white female was sitting on a bench nearby with her feet up and computer on lap. She looked about 20 or so, which I assume because she looked about my age, maybe a year or two younger. I think that she was a student because she seemed to be working on homework and was taking a break in between her classes like I was doing. She seemed very focused in what she was doing because she hardly ever looked up, which may be because she values how well she does in school. She wore black leggings, white shoes, a gray shirt and red cardigan. She had blonde hair that was pulled into a ponytail with a couple pieces falling into her face as she hunched over her computer screen. She wore a necklace, but no rings and had double ear piercings. I think that she may be a sorority based on my biases of what sorority girls wear, although I did not she an letters for a sorority. I guess that shows that I seem to have a stereotype of what I think sorority girls dress and look like that may not be fully true.

Another white female was in the AAA library on one of the computers who also seemed to be a student and again about the same age as me. I assume that she is either an architecture or interior architecture student because that is the major most people in this particular library are studying. She has blonde curly hair that is a little less than shoulder length. She wears a olive green shirt and has a bunch of rings on and a watch that make her seem artsy. She uses a recycled bread bag as a bag to carry her electronic cords in, which makes me think that she values the environment. She had headphones in while she was working on the computer so she seemed to isolate herself from anyone wanting to talk to her. I seem to always think that people who have headphones in do not want to be bothered.

This article is debating where or not food can be art and how maybe the importance of food in our culture has turned it into more than just something needed to survive. Food can be experienced in many ways, whether it is through private dining experiences or eating out. The author draws on two ways that food and art can be connected. The first is the idea of “haute cuisine”. This is described as chefs that “are expected to offer patrons (and critics) dishes and menus that stimulate and surprise them, find new methods to manipulate ingredients, and interact with technology and design in ways that keep them on the cutting edge and ensure coverage from the press, TV, and the Internet.” It is the innovation and creativity of the chef that makes what they do important and could be considered art. The second connection the author makes is that certain chefs are like avant-grade artists that “the pioneers or innovators in any art in a particular period” and that chefs who create next, innovative experiences for their audience could be considered artists and therefore what they produce is art. The author compares the process of how these chefs work together in the same way that the artists of avant-garde movements came about their artistic processes and forms of expression. The comparison of donors of artists and clients of chefs shows that both are valuable and wanted for consumption is someway.

When comparing this article with Elizabeth Telfer’s article, “Food as Art”, both are arguing that food can be considered an art form but Telfer describes “ the art of food as minor” because it can not have the same implications that more traditional forms of art have of the viewer. Parasecoli’s description of food as art seems to express the opposite. The use of the term “haute cuisine” and what makes up this idea of cuisine makes it seem as though the author thinks of art as a true form of art. Parasecoli judges it on how innovative the chef can be and the experience of the senses that is created for the audience. Telfer looks to the idea of judging it solely based “on how the object appears to the senses.” She explains that because “no two people can appreciate the same [dish]” then there is no way to judge the end product. This though can be argued against because everyone has their own individual experience of an artwork and so all judgments have to be subjective.

When looking at the idea of preference and how that plays into how we judge art, Paraecoli talks about it in that clients who like what the chef do will support that and keep them relate. This is the same for artists who have patrons that support them because they want them to continue to product work. Telfer talks about preference in a way that explains that even though some people may not like how something taste, they can appreciate that others fine it pleasing. I think that these two ways are not so different because they are both suggesting that food and art are appreciated by people is similar ways that make them seem almost the same.

Parasecoli, F. (2013, August 29). Is Food Art? Chefs, Creativity, and the Restaurant Business? Huffington Post. Retrieved April 25, 2015, from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/fabio-parasecoli/food-art_b_3830791.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.