Month: November 2013

I found the TED talk “Laws That Choke Creativity” really interesting. Particularly the speakers initial topic of a read-write vs. a read-only culture. For whatever reason it made me think of our education system. I have always felt that the way in which we learn is conducive to a culture similar to the read-only culture. I feel like the education system promotes information absorption and regurgitation more than critical thinking. It seems like students are encouraged to internalize the creativity and discoveries of the past rather than being encouraged to think for ourselves. This is just my personal opinion of course.

Jones’ primary thesis in “Computer Graphics: Effects of Origins” is that, “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” (Jones 21). She also says, “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 emphasize” (Jones 21). To briefly summarize, Jones’ primary thesis is that while computer graphics have and continue to improve from a technological standpoint, the older technologies continue to influence modern thoughts and feelings about art.

Jones provides three examples in her article to support her ideas. One of these examples that stood out to me is the work of Ben Lapofsky and Herbert W. Franke. They were the first people to develop graphic images. Jones said, “In the 1940’s analogue computers were used to generate the earliest computer graphics and display them on oscilloscopes. Ben F. Lapofsky and Herbert W. Franke were among the pioneers creating these images.  Franke’s graphics were phase forms, presented as events rather than as static imagery” (Jones 22). In laymen’s terms that sounds a lot like digital art, which is exponentially more common today.

An example that illustrates Jone’s’ thesis is the computer program Photoshop. I like to dabble in photography in my free time and as I have continued to improve my photography skills I have spent quite a bit of time working in Photoshop. I think that more and more photographers rely on Photoshop or similar programs when they are creating art. Many of the effects photographers achieve through Photoshop are not achievable otherwise. Yet, while artists have this new tool the styles and concepts active in the art they create are largely a result of past artistic movements. The new artistic tool is enabling artists and photographers to extend their art and emphasize certain aspects of what they capture with their cameras, rather than completely move away from historical artistic tendencies and movements. In some ways the exaggeration of reality the Photoshop creates has changed the way people think and view many things including human form, style and other things.

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

Campbell, S. (2010, April 02). 10 Ways How Photoshop Changed The History Of Photography. Retrieved from http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/10-ways-how-photoshop-has-changed-the-history-of-photography/

Jane McGonigal said in her TED talk, “gamers are a human resource that we can use to do real world work” and that  “games are a powerful platform for change.” I agree that games can be a powerful platform for change through education and building habits but I think what she is recommending is too similar to traditional education-based games. In my experience kids just do not find these games nearly as interesting or entertaining as normal video games. That is why I think that rather than building educational games, Jane and her colleagues she try to make existing game styles and trends more educational. In essence, rather than turning education into a game, you are making games educational. I think in manner kids will be much less likely to reject games with educational goals and purposes.

1. How do you define “spirituality”?

 

I do not think there is one definition for the spirituality as the word likely means something different to each individual. Many people would likely associate spirituality with religion or the belief in some higher power. I am not religious nor do I believe in a higher power. To me spirituality is belief in a metaphysical realm in which each person has an identity, the “spirit” or “soul”, without the belief in any singular higher power.

 

2. Does spirituality differ from religion?

 

Spirituality differs from religion in many aspects. Spirituality does not include the belief in a singular higher power or eternal life in an alternate realm with utopia or prison. Religion is also a worship-based belief; meaning people who subscribe to a given religion often worship the eternal being in which they believe in order to gain eternal life in a perfect alternate realm. Spirituality, in my opinion, is based on the belief in souls, not gods.

 

3. How do you define “creativity”?

 

Creativity is derived from the word “create”, which means that creativity is rooted in creation. But rather than creating any simple thing, creativity is the process of creating or culminating a new or unique idea. That idea may be expressed through a variety of channels, whether it is a physical creation or spoken or written language. Creativity may be a process, skill, or characteristic. An individual who is said to be creative is often considered artistic, while someone who is engaging in creativity is often said to be creating art.

 

4. What is the source of creativity?

 

I believe that the source of creativity is different for each individual and it is impossible to claim that there is a singular source of creativity. I think source of creativity is somewhere in a layer of consciousness beneath the surface. A place where thoughts run free and the imagination can create, like during a dream, mediation, or trance. I think this layer can be partially active while an individual is awake and can be triggered by external stimulants that lead that part of the mind to some idea, connection or inspiration.

Alex Grey’s piece about art and spirituality was interesting and a bit unexpected. After I read that the subject for week 7 is spirituality I quickly assumed it would be include a lot of discussion about religion. However, Grey focused relatively little on religion compared to what I expected. He wrote a lot about the spiritual process of creating art and the spiritual process of seeing and understanding art. Grey wrote concerning seeing art:

 

“…the viewer first encounters a work of art as a physical object seen by the eye of flesh. Second, the eye of reason sees harmony of sensations that stir the emotions, and a conceptual understanding of the art arises. Third, and only in the deepest art, a condition of the soul is revealed, one’s heart is opened, and spiritual insight is transmitted to the eye of contemplation.”

 

I think that Grey’s explanation of seeing art is interesting. I imagine that in order to fully understand what Grey is saying one would have to have been through the entire process before. I think that it is probably uncommon for people outside of artistic fields or without an interest in art to relate to what he is saying. For example, I am studying accounting and rarely spend much time looking at or analyzing art in my studies or in my free time. I do not think I have ever experience spiritual insight via the eye of contemplation and because of that I find it difficult to understand Grey’s explanation. I do agree, however, that seeing art comes in waves and at multiple levels. I believe that most people can understand and relate to the first two steps that Grey described, seeing a art only as a physical object and then beginning to see the harmony in the art.

 

The other portion of Grey’s piece that stood out to me was the creative process of artists that he described. Grey wrote concerning creating art:

 

“For artists, the goal is to reach a state of mind where art flows irresistibly through them. Finding that energetic and idiosyncratic fountain of creation, an art spirit, is the artist’s task. Artists must remain open to the tumultuous ocean of potential inspiration, the entire spectrum of consciousness, and yet reduce or essentialize that infinite ocean to a few flowing strokes from their own fountain, providing tangible evidence of inner discovery to the outer world.”

 

I think there a lot of fascinating thoughts in those lines, but what stood out to me is how Grey indirectly defines spirituality. Rather than any religious based meaning, to me, it seems that he defines spirituality as a deep inner level where conscious and unconscious thoughts seem to blend, like dreams, trances and meditation. It seems to me that Grey views spirituality as a very personal and self-centric level of consciousness rather than a relationship with or belief in an eternal being.

The first article I read was “Why Do People Love Horror Movies? They Enjoy Being Scared.” The article starts be recognizing two of the most common theories for why people so often enjoy horror movies. The first is that viewers are not actually frightened, but rather excited by the movie. The second theory is that the audience is willing to be scared during the movie so that they will be able to enjoy the euphoric sense of relief at the end of the movie once all conflicts have been resolved. The author (who is not listed), says that these theories are wrong because they are rooted in the idea that people are unable to feel positive and negative feelings at the same time, which scientist have disproved. People are in fact able to feel positive and negative emotions simultaneously.

The author proposes a new theory that people experience fear in an environment that limits the actual danger they are able to experience positive feelings while still be frightened and excited. The author wrote, “When individuals who typically choose to avoid the stimuli were embedded in a protective frame of mind, such that there was sufficient psychological disengagement or detachment, they experienced positive feelings while still experiencing fearfulness,” the authors explain. The key point of the theory is that the audience is detached to the terror of the movie to such an extent that they are able to feel safe, or other positive feelings, while still enjoying the fear of the film.

This theory is somewhat in contrast to N. Carroll’s explanation in “Why Horror”. Carroll wrote, “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 on to gladden.” She continued saying, “The disclosure of the existence of the horrific being and of its properties is the central source of pleasure in the genre.” In Carroll’s theory, it is not the actual sensation of fear, but rather curiosity and discovery that make horror films enjoyable for the audience. People are curious enough that they feel a need to follow the story through what the author describes as predictable turns of plot. Carroll says that the predictable nature of the plot is partially responsible for the desire to see it through. Being aware of what is likely to happen or follow in a plot creates the urge to see it through, especially when that predictability is embedded within a plot ripe with excitement and energy.

I do not think that these theories are in conflict with one another. In fact, I think it is quite possible that both are accurate and both mechanisms may be simultaneously responsible for the pleasure or positive feelings that viewers feel when they watch horror movies. Carroll’s theory certainly seems logical. Curiosity can be an extremely motivating sensation that can drive people to turn another page in a good book, or in this case endure the terror in a horror movie. Meanwhile, the theory introduced in “Why Do People Love Horror Movies? They Enjoy Being Scared” also intuitively seems reasonable. Evidence and personal experience show that people enjoy being scarred and frightened if there is some limit or threshold that keeps them from any real danger. Consider bungee jumping as an example. People throw themselves off bridges and experience the rush of adrenaline and fear associated with falling towards death only to be snapped up at the last moment by a bungee cord. This experience is pleasurable enough such that people continue to participate in this extreme sport. The bungee cord is the limit or threshold that keeps the true danger at bay, which plays the same role as the threshold between the audience and the action of a movie. Viewers experience the emotions of the film, but are kept safe from danger, and therefore derive positive feelings from the experience.

The second article I read was called “Why Our Brains Love Horror Movies”, written by Sharon Begley. In her article, Begley starts by quoting Stephen King, who described “terror as the finest emotion.” She introduces a common theory that people go to the movies to be scared, but the same scare they seek at haunted houses and corn mazes—a safe fear. There is no real risk of harm. She says, ““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.” Begley claims that there is a biological need for excitement, and oftentimes horror movies can satisfy that need.

Begley continues by introducing the theory rooted in catharsis. She said that findings show that the more intense the fear or anxiety, the more likely a person is to enjoy a horror film which should point to a correlation between anxiety and pleasure. There is believed to be a cathartic or therapeutic effect that comes from the relief after the conclusion of the movie. However, she points out that these positive feelings are often overshadowed by feelings of overall anxiety and uneasiness from the shock of the film.

Lastly, Begley explores a new theory scientists are supporting, which is that the underlying reinforcement of Victorian morality is appealing to people on a deeper, maybe subconscious, level. She says horror films  “appeal to people who like predictability and neat ends… in these movies, there is no question about who the bad guy is. And despite the high and often gory body count, the films tend to have a happy ending.” She uses the example that in horror films the girl who has sex with her boyfriend almost always ends up dead, while the good-natured unsung hero survives.

Begley explores a lot of theories and brings up a lot of interesting points. Her first point, safe fear, is very similar to what the author from the first article wrote. However, the catharsis completely disagrees with the first authors point and Begley herself seems to shoot some holes in that theory. While I believe catharsis may have some impact on the audience’s overall experience, I think it relatively safe to say that is not the primary reason people are driven to see horror movies. The last theory she introduces about the subconscious appeal of the reinforcement of Victorian ethics is fascinating. It definitely seems to be a pattern in horror films. It also ties interestingly to Carroll’s theory of curiosity and predictability. Rather than curiosity driving people to see the predictable plot through to the end, it may be the satisfaction from the reinforcement of old-fashion values throughout the predictable. Having said that, I think it is a stretch to assume that is what is driving people to see horror films. I think it is much more likely that the “safe-fear” theory is the true motivation.

 

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.

 

Begley, S. (2011, October 25). Why our brains love horror movies. Retrieved from http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/10/25/why-our-brains-love-horror-movies-fear-catharsis-a-sense-of-doom.html

 

Why Do People Love Horror Movies? They Enjoy Being Scared. (2007, July 31). Retrieved from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070725152040.htm

Diegetic sound (18:10)

One of my favorite examples of diegetic sound, sound that is implied to be within the same reality as the film, is the scene where there is a collection of students in what looks like a mess hall. Amongst the silence, one of the young men in the room drops a mug that shatters when it hits the ground. The shattering sound contributes to the aesthetic of the horror film by emphasizing the silence in the room after everyone recently lost the ability to speak. It is an example of diegetic sound because the mug shattering and the sound it made took place inside the reality of the store.

 

Non-diegetic sound (18:30)

Non-diegetic sound is that which is outside the reality of the story being told. An example of non-diegetic sound that particularly stood out to me was the mood music played as Buffy and her friend walk down the street watching the panic and unrest take the town. The music being played brings out emotions like mourning, sadness and hopelessness. The music contributes to the aesthetic of the horror film by drawing out the emotion of the scene and helping the audience feel what the characters are feeling. It is considered non-diegetic because it is separate from the reality of the story, which means the characters in the story cannot hear the music.

 

Mise-en-scene (20:00)

Mise-en-scene is the components that a scene captures, such as production designs, color, lighting, characters, position and framing, and diegetic sound. One example is when Buffy and her friends are watching the news on TV. The news is covering what is happening in the town. The mise-en-scene in the scene includes buffy and her friends, the room, the furniture, the sound of the TV, a dim light and a dark background. This contributes to the aesthetic of the horror film by creating the scene through details. It creates a sense of realism, which makes the film more believable and therefore scary.

I have an extremely limited level of personal adornment. In fact, I have always viewed my personal adornment as a sort of lack of any adornment at all. I have an extremely modest sense of style. I prefer clothing with a limited amount of logos and designs (plain preferably), I like quiet colors and I like to be comfortable. I like clothes that have a casual fit, not too baggy or tight. I have never been flashy nor have I sought out an attention-grabbing appearance. I keep my hair very short and simply and I cut it regularly. I do not have any tattoos or piercings. I do not wear any jewelry, watches, or glasses (including sun glasses). I prefer a very safe and conservative appearance, one that does not stand out or draw unwanted attention.

 

I believe my modest personal adornment is a result of my upbringing and the values I have adopted from my family. I am not religious so I do not have any adornment practices that are encouraged or discouraged as a result of any religious beliefs. I come from a white middle class family and I grew up in a safe and clean suburban area. My family always encouraged a clean and neat appearance, and my own appearance, even now that I live away from home, reflects that influence. My family also encouraged academic and financial success. C.R. Sanders wrote concerning attractive people, “their chances of economic success are greater, and they are consistently defined by others as being of high moral character” (Sanders, 1989). When I read that line in Sanders’ book I thought that it applied to me. Growing up I was encouraged to dress in such a way that I would be accepted rather than held back because of my appearance. For example, at one point I considered getting my ears pierced and my father told me not to because it was unprofessional and it would inhibit my career. Accordingly, I made the decision not to get my ears pierced.

 

My personal adornment is also indicative of my personality. I am a modest, slightly shy and socially aware individual. My appearance matches my personality. My appearance and the choices I make support my values and are indicative of my personality. The decisions I make are usually relatively safe and low-risk. I am aware the affect my appearance has on peoples’ perception of me and I dress in such a way that they perceive as I wish to be seen. Clean, conservative, normal and successful.

 

Obviously a lot goes into the word “normal”. My definition of normal is a result of my peer community, which white, American, Christian, middleclass community. Again, I am not religious, but most of the people I associate with are so many of their values and perceptions of normal are extended to me. For example, while I do not think there is anything morally wrong with the use of recreational drugs, I have always refrained from participating in such activities because of what is considered normal in my peer community. My peers believe it is immoral either for religious or legal reasons and because of they are an integral part of my community I am aware of their values and beliefs. I am aware of what they consider to be normal and I tend to act and dress accordingly.

 

My level of adornment has changed over the years. When I was younger I was much more bold and loud with my sense of style than I am now. At one point I had bleacher blond hair that I spiked with hair jell. I preferred relatively flashier clothes than I do now. I think as I have grown I have become more socially aware in such a way that I dress more conservatively to avoid any negative responses. Sanders said that, “Those who choose to modify their bodies in ways that violate appearance norms—or reject culturally prescribed alterations—risk being defined as socially or morally inferior” (Sanders, 1989). While I have never consciously been worried about being perceived as morally inferior, I am afraid to be considered socially inferior or to be socially rejected. So in a sense, my modest appearance is a result of a desire to fit in and to have a sense of security. I seek a sense of security in almost all aspects of my life. Even my choice of career, accounting, is considered one of the top fields for job security.

 

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.