When I viewed the murals, nothing happened for me.  I wasn’t in awe of them, I didn’t feel any type of emotion, and they didn’t jump out to me.  However, I was looking at them from an artistic point of view and not a historic, cultural one.  These murals show a direct reflection of a time when diversity was not supported.  The main gender and race in the murals are white males.  There’s no diversity in cultures, or even female figures.  The murals do, however, show the important time periods in the development of the arts and sciences.  They show the roots in which these subjects were brought up on and some of the historical figures that influenced each subject.  These murals represent our history as a country and even though they do not represent equality or diversity, they are important in showing how far we’ve come as a nation.

I can understand why there is some controversy over public art, specifically these murals.  They do not reflect the current state of this nations morals, like equality and diversity, but they do represent a point in time that was very important to this university and nation.  Doss states, “we are living in extraordinary contentious times, marked by especially fierce talk about issues of political representation, war, reproductive rights, and immigration” (Doss, 6).  Public art, like the Runquist murals, are not intended to spark debate and start controversy.  However, because they were created in a time where all these issues were not being addressed, now, they are not seen as “appropriate” for display.  I look at them as a historical marker and I believe others should see it that way too.

Public art is very important in communities and serves as “time landmarks” to represent different beliefs, cultures, ethnicities, and anything else that defines who we are.  Public art represents who communities are and who lives in them.  However, “it’s difficult to imagine any kind of contemporary public art that might adequately address the multi-faced interests of today’s diverse America” (Doss, 5).  It is true that it is near impossible to completely define a community through one piece of public art.  There are so many different cultures and backgrounds within a community and nation, it would be impossible to please everyone.  I think this is where a lot of controversy strikes because not everyone can be represented and “pleased” through one art piece.  Therefore, public art should be allowed in all communities so more people are able to be reached and represented.

Public art can also teach people about backgrounds and cultures they may not be familiar with.  The Runquist murals are a perfect example of public art for education.  They show a timeline of historical figures and time periods where art and science were explored.  It showed me who was important in the subjects and what happened during certain time periods.

The University of Oregon is known for having a beautiful campus.  I believe this is a direct reflection of the type of public art we have all over campus; ranging from architecture to sculptures across campus.  Public art can be thought of having the “concept as a unifying form of civic beautification” (Doss, 5).  The architecture of some buildings like the Jaqua, Matt Knight Arena, Deady, and Chapman could without a doubt be considered public art.  It is necessary to see how every little thing in a community could be considered art and have an open mind.  Architecture is one of the most common forms of public art there is.  There can be so much history within a building and knowing when it was built, or what cultural background it has behind it.  Taking the universities buildings, for example, Deady is one of the oldest buildings there is, and the Jaqua is one of the newer buildings.  Just from looking at their features and design it is clear to see from what time period each building was built.

Doss, E. (2006, October). Public art controversy: Cultural expression and civic debate. Retrieved from http://www.americansforthearts.org/pdf/networks/pan/doss_controversy.pdf

A couple years ago I took a rock n roll music history class and we talked about copyright infringement.  Specifically we looked at The Grey Album by Danger Mouse and how serious the copyright was.  I can’t believe that this would even be an issue considering Danger Mouse didn’t get permission to use any of the audio or video tracks from Jay-Z or The Beatles.  Danger Mouse said, “[it] ‘was not my intent to break copyright laws. It was my intent to make an art project'” (Rimmer, 133).  It turns out Danger Mouse just put it on the internet for everyone to see and didn’t mean for people to download it and make it such a big deal.  I guess it’s true what people say: what you put on the internet is forever!  Once you put something on the internet, people can do whatever they want with it.

Jones’ thesis is “New forms of art and technology are frequently cast in the mode of old forms, just as other aspects of material and symbolic culture have been.  Only when these new forms become available to the larger population can they affect cultural patterns of maintenance and change” (Jones, 21).  This means that even though technology develops at a very fast rate, the basis, or the foundation of the technology stays about the same: “It is a premise of this paper that old cultural patterns do not die.  They may fade or become more evident; that is, they may be deemphasized or emphasized” (Jones, 21).  I believe we see this is very evident in a lot of things we do today, which I will mention in the last paragraph.

One of the three historical examples Jones mentions in this paper is: “At the Second West Coast Computer Faire held in 1978, several projections were made.  It was proposed that small computer systems… be used by individuals to create unique furniture, fabrics and prints suited to their special requirements” (Jones, 23).  She states later, “computers have been used to customize the tailoring of suits in West Germany and of bikinis in southern California.  Although these products are customized to a client’s body, individual conceptual design differences are not employed—that is, earlier concepts of the designer and tailor as experts remain” (Jones, 24).  In this example, the process of the earlier tailor and designer are still in effect, just in a different way: through technology.

There are multiple examples of Jones’ thesis coming into play today, one of them being animation.  Nowadays, computers are used for most of the animation.  However, they still use the old technique of drawing the graphics: “The animator draws objects and characters either by hand or with a computer” (Roos).  When animation was first starting out, they would have to draw each frame by hand, then put it all together to make a movie.  Now, some still do that, but the use the computer to enhance the images.  One other example includes Polaroid cameras that are coming back into style.  They have been enhanced using modern technology, but still produce the image on the polaroid photo paper just like when they first came into use.

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

Roos, D. (n.d.). What is Computer Animation? – HowStuffWorks. Retrieved November 18, 2014, from http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/computer-animation1.htm

I had a hard time understanding the TED talk about gaming.  Mainly because I couldn’t see how increasing the amount of time spent online gaming could possibly be beneficial.  She claims that “Three billion hours a week is not nearly enough game play to solve the world’s most urgent problems” and that using the skills people learn while gaming, it could help solve real-world problems (Jane McGonigal, TED talk).  I honestly don’t see how that is possible.  I don’t think using the skills in online gaming could help solve any real-world issue.  I believe it does the opposite: it hinders people’s ability to interact in the real-world.

Please comment and let me know your opinions on this issue! I’m very interested in what you all think!

1. How do you define “spirituality”?

I think that spirituality is believing that there is more to this world than what we can physically see.  To me, this could mean anything from there being a God, to there being forces that move around us.  It doesn’t mean there has to be one sole person controlling the world.  This could mean one believes in human spirits that watch over us, or multiple forces up in the sky that control our fates.  I believe that spirituality could mean you still believe in evolution and scientific facts that support human life, but also think there is more to evolution than what science can prove.

2. Does spirituality differ from religion?

I believe that religion and spirituality are very different.  Spirituality to me can be a very broad and open definition.  On the other hand, religion is a set of beliefs that has a specific definition as to how we came to this planet, or who we believe in.  I think spirituality is the umbrella term for religion, then the different types of religion fall under that broad definition.  Religion is just a specific form of spirituality.

3. How do you define “creativity”?

Creativity, to me, is the thought process that goes beyond what you can see.  For example, there is a picture frame on my desk with a picture in it.  Now, I could say that this is a picture frame, but I could also use it for many different purposes.  Being creative is finding new and innovative ways to use everyday things.  These things could be anything from objects, to words, to processes.  Creativity is very hard to assign a set definition to it because it could mean so many different things.

4. What is the source of creativity?

I think the source of creativity is in your experiences.  I believe experiences shape who we are and our thought processes, and they effect us more than anything else.  One could also draw creativity from outside sources, like other people’s work, or a sculpture they see.  For an example, my creativity comes from Pinterest which lets me look at others work and lets me create something of my own.  Creativity could come from anywhere, but I think it comes from within us the most.

This weeks reading for me was a little odd.  Going into it I thought it was going to be about spirituality being an art form.  However, the reading was about spirituality being the process leading up to art, and having the spiritual world be a part of the artwork.  To me, the reading was a bit overdramatic and I did not agree with it.  I may have read it wrong, or gotten the wrong idea from it, but overall I didn’t agree with what the author had to say.  There were some parts, when thinking about it not in the context of this paper, that I did agree with.

First I want to talk about his “vision” that he had while doing drugs.  Now I’ve never smoked or done any type of drug, and I am extremely against it, so this specific part was one I did not care for:

“As I inhaled the immediately active and extremely potent psychedelic, I experienced the transfigured subject of my painting firsthand” (Grey, 78).  He states then on the next page: “The transparency of a work of art to its spiritual source makes visible the depth of an artist’s penetration into the divine mystery of creation” (Grey, 79).

I don’t think that all works of art have spiritual depth to them, and I don’t think having to hallucinate and getting a “vision” for a work of art is something that should be necessary in the transfiguration stage.  I think that artists “see” something and want people to be able to see it too when they are done creating the artwork, but I don’t think it needs to be to the extreme point of having a “vision into the divine.”

Now to something that I did agree with, and even relate to, in his paper is when he talks about the inspiration of a piece of art.  I’ve always struggled with knowing how artists get their inspiration.  He talks about how different people get their inspirations at different times.

“My wife and I have noticed in our workshops on visionary art that some people receive full-blown, detailed images in a flash during the guided visualizations or shamanic drumming.  Others may receive only the briefest glimmer or feeling and it is not until their pencil touches the paper that the imagery comes flooding through… For me, pressure is a great catalyst” (Grey, 80).

This relates to me because I’ve always felt like pressure doesn’t help me and I didn’t think visions could come to people under pressure.  I thought they would only come to people on the terms of the “divine,” or the inspiration.

Inspiration is the main source for a lot of art in the world, but not all.  I think the author was a little biased towards his ways in this paper because I think artists can get their inspiration from a material thing too.  He also uses his wife as an example for this inspiration section: “She claims that new ideas are like allowing river” (Grey, 80).  I think they have a very unique way of deriving inspiration, so I don’t think this article is open-minded.  He seems to think that every artwork has meaning coming back to God.

The last thing I want to mention is towards the end when he says, “Art attains its ultimate meaning when it points to God, the transcendental context beyond yet interlacing all realities” (Grey, 105).  Again, I Grey is very biased towards his own opinions so I had a hard time believing this piece just because I needed to get an unbiased view of spirituality in art.  I don’t think God is the meaning behind all works of art, but I do think it could be the meaning behind some.

Therefore, I don’t agree with this paper because Grey is saying a lot of his own beliefs, and uses personal examples, so it makes it seem extremely biased.

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

Article 1:

“How [do horror films] give us pleasure and/or why does it interest us?” (Carroll, 276).  Carroll poses the question we all wonder (maybe not consciously): What about horror makes us so crazy for it?  Isn’t horror supposed to scare us?  And aren’t we as humans supposed to stay away from things that are scary?  You would think that would be the logical answer.  However, that’s actually the opposite of what horror does for us: “…the horror story is driven explicitly by curiosity” (Carroll, 279).  Horror intrigues us for some reason.  The first article I found gives ten reasons as to why horror should be considered the best film genre.  It gives possible explanations as to why horror is so popular:

Some of the reasons we love horror so much, according to the article are: they’re the best “date movies,” they have the best icons, it takes a lot of skill to scare an audience, they help us face our fears, they provide great controversy, horror has legendary directors, the genre never goes away (it’s always popular), it pioneers special effects (you have to make the terror believable, right?), and, finally, they’re just fun!

All these reasons can be considered as answers to the question why do we love horror so much? Or why is horror so interesting?  Well, because it shows us things that we’ve never planned on seeing.  It surprises us, and keeps us holding on.  Horror is one of those genres that is able to create anything out of the ordinary and make it seem possible.  I think one reason from this article that I haven’t thought about was “horror movies give us an outlet to rationalize and face our biggest fears, while remaining comfortable with the knowledge of it being fake” (Leigh).  It lets us experience fear, which gives us a kind of thrill, without it actually being harmful.  Therefore, horror allows us to experience scary things without it doing any harm, which gives us a sort of adrenaline rush.

Throughout this article, I was thinking of what Carroll said about curiosity, and that horror intrigues us.  I think all of the reasons listed in the article are reasons why we could be curious: there’s controversy, thrills, surprises, and things that just don’t make sense.  It gives us a chance to wonder what could be out there in the world.

I also think one of the big reasons horror is so popular is because as humans I think we are always intrigued by tragedy, and terror.

Article 2:

In this article, Fink gives expert opinions on why we love horror so much.  There is the desired effect, just plain suspense, and something that happens inside your brain.

The desired effect is basically the thrill we get from watching it: “‘People go to horror films because they want to be frightened or they wouldn’t do it twice,’ says Jeffrey Goldstein, a professor of social and organizational psychology at the University of Utrecht in the Netherlands” (Fink).  Fink also mentions that “the thrill calls up primal behavior, mainly in males, to assess threat levels. (The typical horror-flick viewer is a male adolescent between the ages of 15 and 45)” (Fink).  This goes along with what Carroll says: “… audiences for horror fictions are often adolescent males…” (Carroll, 291).  This makes sense if you go to a horror movie, there are mainly guys in the audience.  “‘You choose your entertainment because you want it to affect you. That’s certainly true of people who go to entertainment products like horror films that have big effects. They want those effects,’ Goldstein said” (Fink).  Like I mentioned in the previous argument, people want to feel the rush of horror: “the pleasures derived from art-horror are a function of fascination…” (Carroll, 291).  People love to feel fear, but from a safe distance.

Another reason Fink mentions is we love horror movies because they’re suspenseful.  “‘…people have the ability to pay attention as much or as little as they care to in order to control what effect it has on them, emotionally and otherwise.’” (Fink).  In order for this effect to take place, horror must make it suspenseful.  Fink mentions the movie Paranormal Activity as one of the main suspense horror movies out there.  I’ve personally seen all of the sequels and I would have to agree that the main thrill of the movies is the sense of suspense.  Yes, the moments are scary, but having the audience wait in silence adds to the thrill.

The final assessment that Fink mentions about the effect of horror movies on us is what happens in our brain: “…fear is not merely a biological reaction, but an emotion derived from both deep-seeded evolutionary factors as well as newly learned cautions. Conversations between the brain’s primitive amygdala and the more recently acquired cortex allow humans to interpret an environmental event and respond with an emotion such as fear” (Fink).  Watching scary movies and having such a strong reaction can explain why we want it to happen again.  The arousal of the brain while watching horror gives us an addiction that we have to have again.  That would explain why people keep going back to horror movies even though they get scared while watching them.  People love the feeling they get while watching it, and don’t want to turn it off.

Bibliography:

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, November 6). Horror Movies: Why People Love Them. Retrieved November 9, 2014, from http://www.livescience.com/7949-horror-movies-people-love.html

Leigh, S. (2011, October 14). 10 Reasons Why Horror Might Be The Best Film Genre. Retrieved November 8, 2014, from http://whatculture.com/film/10-reasons-why-horror-might-be-the-best-film-genre.php

1)  When Buffy and her friend walk amongst the town and everyone lost their voices is an example of a mies-en-scene:

• Production Design: They made the set look sad and depressing.  Now that everyone has lost their voices, people cannot communicate, or run businesses, or have jobs.  They reflected that in showing stores that are closed, and a man holding his briefcase like he lost his job because he can’t talk.  There’s a man selling white boards which shows another way that people take advantage of a bad situation.  There’s also buildings destroyed, little fires, fire hydrants broken, and trash everywhere. All these things add to the mood of the scene.

• Colour: The scene is especially dark, the clouds are over the town, and they use a darker tint to portray the mood.

• Lighting:  Like I said above, they use clouds to darken the lighting since gray skies represents dreariness and distress.

• Performance: Everyone in the scene portrays a certain mood.  There’s the man sitting on the side of the road with his briefcase looking sad.  There’s Buffy and her friend looking sad as well, but they mainly look concerned and confused as to what is happening.  They use their body language and facial expressions to portray what they are feeling since they can’t use their voices.

2)  When Buffy is dreaming and hears a little girls voice, we know that it must be coming from a source in the hallway so this is an example of Diagetic sound.  When we first hear the voice, we can’t see the source, but Buffy reacts to it so we know it has to be coming from somewhere in the scene.  Once she turns in the hallway we see a young girl standing there singing in a monotone voice.  Young girls singing in a monotone voice and standing so proper and not moving tends to be on the creepy side for some reason.  I think it gives viewers a feeling of suspense and wonder so it makes them tense up.

3)  When the “men” are gliding through the city, come into the hallway of the dorm rooms, and find the guy they are going to attack, there is creepy music playing in the background.  Since the source of the music is not in the scene, it is an example of non-diagetic sound.  The music is composed in a way that gives us a feeling of suspense and adds dramatic effect to the scene.  If the scene had no music it wouldn’t quite be as scary because we wouldn’t know something bad was going to happen.  Also, when the boy opens the door, the music jumps to try and scare us by adding the element of surprise.

• Are there any personal beliefs or values that are supported and expressed by your dress or body adornment?
• Why do you make the choices you do?
• How has this changed over the years?
• What were the core beliefs and values in your family and how were they communicated/sustained through dress or body customization?
• What are the core beliefs and values of your peer community? How are they expressed through dress and body adornment?

__________________________________________________________________________

I  believe everyone shows their values through their body language, body customization, and their outfit  choices.  For me, it’s not a conscious thought to show my personal values from what I wear, I focus more on what I say and what I do.  However, if someone were to look at me and “decode” me, they would probably be right most of the time.

First, I’ll describe what I wear most of the time and how I have customized my body.  I usually wear jeans, a top, and a cardigan with flats.  I’ll have my hair up in a bun so it’s out of my way, and I will wear little-to-no makeup.  In middle school, I got both of my ears pierced, twice (so two piercings on each ear), and in high school, I got my belly button pierced.  My hair has been dyed so many times, but only one color: blonde.  Now, I’m growing it out to my natural color which is a brownish blonde.  I have my nails painted most of the time too.  I wear jewelry all the time: a simple ring on my left ring finger, a similar one on my right ring finger, and a cross necklace.  These three items are always on my person.

Now that I’ve done that, I’ll start answering the above questions:

I think all most of my values in life are clearly shown in how I dress and customize my body.  For example, the way I dress is very modest so I think it shows that I respect myself and I’m very shy.  The clothes that I wear show that I’m mature for my age because I dress very age-appropriate and sophisticated.  It also shows that I value the way I look because I want to be seen as responsible.

My piercings show that I like to have fun as well and I’m not all work.  However, many may take this as a sign of rebellion, considering what others said in their people watching assignment, but I actually had approval before I did anything that would change my body.

I wear my cross necklace to show that I value my religion and the values that are associated with it.  The ring on my left finger show that I value my relationship with my boyfriend and the one on my right shows that I value all my other relationships.

I think a lot of people dress in a way that will show others who they really are, and the values they hold dear.  I am the same way, and I will choose what to wear based on how I would like to portray myself to others.  I would like people to be able to see the little things that I value and hope they will respect them.  My values have not changed over the years, but the way I perceive myself has.  There have been times when I didn’t respect my body and would dress in a way, that I think, showed others that.  Through time though, I believe I have had a better understanding on how to dress, and show myself, in a way that respects my values and shows others that I do have certain values and would like them to know it.

The values that hold in my family are mainly honesty, respect, and loyalty.  I would say that respect and loyalty show though how I dress and customize my body (honesty is hard to show through dress).  Like I mentioned in the previous paragraphs, the rings on my fingers show that I am loyal in my relationships, and the way I dress, and how I don’t permanently change my body, shows that I respect myself.

I think that the values of my community are in contrast with the way I dress and customize my body.  I don’t think the majority of people in Eugene, or at the U of O, dress very modest or have the most respect for their bodies.  The people I see everyday, are dressed either very inappropriately, or have a lot of tattoos and piercings.  I want to say that I’m not judging everyone and saying that I’m the only only one at the U of O that respects her body.  However, the majority of people in this college that I see are not respecting their own bodies and choose to party, and tattoo their body like it’s not a big deal.  I feel that I am one of the few that dresses appropriate for my age and choses to show my values through my body instead of trying to get attention through my body.