Month: October 2014

In this week’s reading, the author states “people construct their appearance in a wide variety of ways to control their social identities, self-definitions, and interactional prospects.” (Page 3-4) I totally agree with this statement. I personally believe that my dress or body adornment depends on the situation that I am in. When I was in a high school, I had to wear a uniform. The uniform was really formal outfits. I had to wear ties, a vest, and slack pants every day.  My appearance represents my social identity and self-definition as a student. In this week’s reading, the author also says “Clothing style is of sufficiently symbolic importance that it often is controlled through “sumptuary laws” that allow only members of specific (usually high status) groups to wear certain materials or fashions.” (Page 4) In my case, the uniform represents the symbolic importance of my status as a student because the uniform that I have worn was only given to the specific students who are attending to my high school.

When I was graduated from high school and started attending to the university, I had my own choice about what to wear. I believed that wearing the same outfits are bad, so I tried not to wear the same thing with others. I tried to find the outfits such as shoes, jackets, hats, and pants that others might not have. I valued the uniqueness the most at that time. In retrospect, I think that I was in the beginning stage of constructing my appearance in my own way to control my social identity and self-definitions. By trials and errors, I built up my personal beliefs and values with my dress. Now I wear normal clothes and do not prefer unique items. Rather, I prefer comfortable outfits such as sweatpants, hoodies, and tennis shoes. I believe comfortable clothes would help me study more and focus more, and I believe it would make me healthier to wear comfy outfits.

I made the choice of wearing comfortable outfits because of my responsibility of studying as a student. Back in the days when I valued the uniqueness the most, I had no passion to study and all I cared about was hanging out with my friends. My parents, however, supported me to study abroad here in the United States to motivate me and give me an opportunity to develop myself.

With these supports from my parents, my values have been completely changed. I prioritize studying to anything. The reason why I started wearing comfortable clothes is that I cannot concentrate or focus on something when I am uncomfortable. For example, I had a presentation for my marketing class one day, and I had a mid-term the day after. Thus, there was no choice for me to change my clothes and study for the mid-term. I studied with my suits on and it was very uncomfortable, which was not very helpful for me to study. As a result, I was distracted a lot by my outfits and I did not do well on the mid-term.

The core beliefs and values in my family are that there is nothing impossible if you do your best, and my family thinks the processes are more valuable than the results because the results come from the processes. To do my best, I must have adjusted my surroundings and circumstances to my best fit. I think what I wear depends on the situations where I am. When I have to wear nicely and formal, I wear nice formal outfits. When I need to do something important that requires concentration such as studying for exams, I wear comfortable outfits to do my best. By wearing the best fitted outfits to the specific situations, I think my family’s core beliefs and values are communicated and sustained through.

As a student at University of Oregon, many others wear clothes imprinted with the school logo. I think the core beliefs and values of my peer community is originated from the pride of school. By wearing hoodies, pants, shoes, or hats with the school logo, they create their own certain barriers that others cannot enter. Again, the author states, “Clothing style is of sufficient symbolic importance that it often is controlled through “sumptuary laws” that allow only members of specific (usually high status) groups to wear certain materials or fashions.” (Page 4) I think the school logo creates the symbolic importance for specific members which are students at University of Oregon. They are expressed through dress with the school logo imprinted.

I took about an hour and thirty minutes to observe several people. One of the people were wearing comfortable jacket printed with the logo of University of Oregon. He was putting flops on his foot, wearing sweatpants, and wearing a hat printed with the logo of University of Oregon. I think he was proud of University of Oregon since he was wearing most of his outfits imprinted with the school logo. I believe he values school work more than other things since he wears comfort outfits rather than nice fancy outfit.  He was reading some online articles with looking at the screen of a computer in the library. When someone wears a comfy outfit in the library, I make an assumption that the person values studying is the most important. When someone wears a logo jacket, T-shirt, or pants, the person is proud of the thing that the logo represents.

Second person that I observed was looking at her cell phone and walking around back and forth for the whole time during the observation. She was wearing a fancy jacket of high quality brand, high hills, and holding a shoulder bag of expensive brand on her right shoulder. She looked like she was waiting for someone to come. She was walking around back and forth while looking at her phone. She looked like early of twenties. She looked like all nervous because she was looking around a lot. Based on her dress, I made assumptions that she was waiting for someone, and someone is really important to the person I observed because she wore fancy outfits. Based on her movements, I made an assumption that her emotion condition is really nervous. I first made an assumption that she was waiting for someone because of her movement of looking at her phone. Secondly, I made an assumption that the one she was waiting is really important for her because of her outfit. Lastly, I made an assumption that she was nervous because she was moving around.

I observed the third person in the library. He was standing in front of the computer in the library while web surfing. He was wearing a do-rag, and he adorned his face with a black spider web shape of mask. He was wearing all black from top to bottom of his body. He was a little skinny tall guy. I thought that he likes spiders or his role model is Jack Sparrow from “Pirates of Carribean” the move. His outfit looks exactly like Jack Sparrow. He also had a long hair reaching his shoulder. I have seen him so many times whenever I come to the library, and he wears the same outfit all the time. Based on my observation on him, I made assumptions that he likes spiders, and he is like a Jack Sparrow wannabe. Since his outfits are all black, I think that he tries to hide his emotion from someone else.

From an online article “Food can be artistic – but it can never be art” by Jonathan Jones, the author states that food should not disgust customers beyond a certain point, and food is not the food if it does disgust customers beyond the certain point in the article, which means that food should be edible. The article also focuses mainly on the importance of the intention. If the intention of making food is to feed people, food cannot be a work of art. Although the cook makes food to be aesthetic and artistic, it will not be considered as an art. There are several opinions that support the argument “food is not an art”.

Telfer quotes, “There is another possible distinction between art and craft: art is original creation, whereas craft is carrying out an instruction, following a convention or employing a technique (Whittick 1984: 47-52)”, and also says, “for example the architect who designs the church is an artist, whereas the masons and woodcarvers who carry out his instructions are craftsmen.” (Telfer, Page 15) to support the quote. When people make or create a recipe of food, the recipe might be a work of art because the one who makes a recipe is the original creator. But, Jones contradicts the idea of creation by focusing on the intention of creation. Jonathan Jones, the author of the article, says “In reality, even a genius among chefs is obliged to please the customer (and cook to order), which means no chef can claim the freedom of mind that artists won in the Renaissance.” Jones believes that the cooks can make food artistic or aesthetic but they are not true artists because their main purpose is to feed and make their customers satisfied with the food. Telfer says “The classifying sense of the term “work of art”, in the way Urmson uses it, takes the maker’s or exhibitor’s intentions as the criterion for deciding whether something is a work of art or not.” (Telfer, Page 12) This opinion matches with the one of Jonathan. These two different reading and article emphasize the same thing, the importance of the intention.

Telfer says “A meal that claims to be a work of art is too complex and long-drawn-out to be understandable in terms simply of feeding, and a cook who has cooked a work of art is not satisfied if the eaters do not notice what they eat. Such a cook aims to produce a particular kind of pleasure, one which depends upon a discerning appreciation of the flavours and how they combine and succeed one another.” (Telfer, Page 14) to favor the phase “food as art”. Although the cooks aims to produce a particular kind of pleasure, its original intention is to let them know what they are eating, that is, to let people eat. He gives an extreme example of why food cannot be an art. He writes “Caravaggio could paint fruit that looked good enough to be eat but he also painted tortures to turn your stomach: that’s art. Until people go to a restaurant to think about death, cooking won’t be art.” Paint fruit can be definitely viewed as an art; however, people would not consume them because they know the purpose of paint fruit is not to eat. The initial intention of creating paint fruit is just like the paintings on the wall of museum not to eat.

 Telfer says “The distinction between the classifying and the evaluative sense of the phrase “work of art” is relevant to food. I shall claim that some dishes clearly constitute works of art in the classifying sense. But I shall also discuss arguments purporting to show that food does not merit aesthetic attention: in other words, that dishes cannot constitute works of art in the evaluative sense.” (Telfer, Page 13) Coming back to the paint fruit, it can be sorted as an art in the classifying sense. But, it is not in the evaluative sense. The recipe can be viewed as a work of art when seeing in the view of classifying sense. The recipe is not the real food but the way of making the food, which is in the rage of classifying sense of art; however, the intention of the recipe is also to feed people not for the purpose of an art.

In conclusion, sorting food as art is controversial, but I am against the phase of “food as art”. Making food inherently intends to feed people, not to have a purpose of being an art. Jones, the author of the article, strongly believes that art should not be considered as an art, and Telfer takes the position of in between. With the view of classifying and evaluative way of sense and the importance of the intention to be an art, food is highly unlikely to be considered as an art.

Jonathan Jones (2007, May). Food can be artistic – but it can never be art, The Guardian. Retrieved October 26, 2014, from http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2007/may/17/foodcanbeartisticbutitca

I do not view food as an art because I only consume food to relieve my hunger. In this week’s reading, Elizabeth talks about aesthetic reactions to discuss whether food should be considered as an art. Definitely food give rise us to aesthetic reaction while eating; however, giving an aesthetic reaction does not equal to an art. Telfer says, “Not all objects that can give rise to aesthetic reactions are works of art.” (Page 12) In addition to that, Telfer also says, “One problem is that the phrase “work of art” can be used in either a classifying or an evaluative way. To use it in a classifying way is to say something about how the object is regarded, whereas to use it in an evaluative way is to say something about the extent to which it merits the label “work of art.” (Page 12) In my evaluative way, I do not evaluate food by “work of art”, but by the taste of food. Telfer says, “Because people have to eat them to appreciate them, and because each person necessarily eats a different part of the dish, it might seem that in the sphere of food no one can appreciate a complete work of art, and no two people can appreciate the same one.” (Page 17) Which means that no one can have the exactly same food and evaluate it. Elizabeth also mentions that the intention of creating is important. She says, “Our definition of a work of art, in the classifying sense, was: “a thing intended or used wholly or largely for aesthetic consideration”.” (Page 14) Almost every food that is made by cook has an intention to be consumed by customers, and I see food as something that I consume. I think the theory of art that best represents my opinion is postmodernism. Ellen says “Artists, just like everybody else, do not see the world in any singularly privileged or objectively truthful way, but rather – like everybody – interpret it according to their individual and cultural sensibilities.” (Page 19 from Week 2’s reading) I interpret the intention of making food is to eat not to see it as an art. Therefore, I do not view food as an art.

The terminology “Paleoanthropsychobiological” is coined by Ellen Dissanayake, who is the author of this week’s reading. This adjective is a combination of paleontology, anthropology, psychology, and biology. Basically, this means everything. In the reading, Ellen states “First, that the idea of art encompasses all of human history; second, that it include all human societies; and third, that it accounts for the fact that art is a psychological or emotional need and has psychological or emotional effects.” (Page 15) Ellen uses “paleoanthropsychobiological” to define what art is.

Dissanayake mentions “making special” many times in the reading. She describes “making special” with a case of comparison between animals and humans. Ellen says “Now all animals can tell the difference between the ordinary or routine and the extraordinary or unusual. They would not survive if they were oblivious to the snapping twig or sudden shadow that means a predator may be nearby. But when joined with the other abilities that evolving humans had – intelligence, resourcefulness, emotional and mental complexity, the ability to plan ahead – the “special” could take on a significance that was more than simply alertness to possible danger.” (Page 22) Humans have special abilities to survive such as intelligence, resourcefulness and many more that other animals do not have. With these special abilities, humans can create art. Humans have all the abilities that art must contain, which fit to the adjective “paleoanthropsychobiological”. Therefore, everything humans do becomes art.

There are three main different theories that Dissanyake describes. They are modernism, post-modernism, and species-centered view. Modernism was prominent from 18^th century to 19^th century. In the reading, “Included in the many new approaches and subjects that 18^th century thinkers turned their attention to was a subject that came to be called “aesthetics” – a concern with elucidating principles such as taste and beauty that govern all the arts and indeed make them not simply paintings or statues but examples of (fine) “art”” (Page 17) From this statement, human sees art as ideology. Dissanyake also mentions, “This was that there is a special frame of mind for appreciating works of art – a “disinterested” attitude that is separate from one’s own personal interest in the object, its utility, or its social or religious ramifications.” (Page 17) Basically, it explains the movement from the art of medieval times to modernism. Post-modernism sees art as an object to interpret. In the reading, the author states, “a point of view that calls into question two centuries of assumptions about the elite and special nature of art….postmodernists are united in repudiating the “high” art view…” (Page 19) Postmodernism challenges the entire “modernist” ideology. The time period of postmodernism is late 20^th century movement. Lastly, Dissanyake introduces the species-view of art theory. This is related to the adjective “paleoanthropsychobiological”. Dissanyake mentions, “…I believe, by considering art in the broadest possible perspective- the palaeoanthropsychobiological view that I mentioned – as a universal need and propensity of the human species.” (Page 21) She combines the two characteristics of modernism and postmodernism. She also mentions “the species-centered view of art combines modernism’s proclamation that art is of supreme value and a source for heightened personal experience with postmodernism’s insistence that it belongs to everyone and is potentially all around us. It does this by thinking of artmaking and experiencing as a human behavior.” (Page 22)

Before reading this week’s assignment, I thought that the word “art” just describes literally the creatures by human such as sculpture and music and many more. I have heard that those creatures imply something, but I have never deeply thought about it and never known that the “art” mean that a lot of things. The author states, “First, that the idea of art encompasses all of human history (i.e., as far back as the Paleolithic or even earlier): Second, that it include all human societies (i.e., is anthropological or cross-cultural): and third, that It accounts for the fact that art is a psychological or emotional need and has psychological or emotional effects.” (Page 15) In the reading, the author also mentions an adjective “palaeoanthropsychobiological”, which means that the “art” includes all human history, human cultures, and human psychology by viewing “art” as an inherent universal trait of the human species. To be specific, the author explains about Western concept of art. She gives emphasis on five changes during the eighteenth century which is recognized as a focal point of modernity. The five changes are a gradual secularization of society, the rise of science, the social or interpersonal changes, an emphasis on reason as the best means for understanding and controlling the matters of life, and the great political revolutions in America and France. By looking at these changes relating to the “art”, the way of “art” has been changed along the five unprecedented changes. I remember that I have learned that there are different patterns along the centuries in high school. After reading this week’s article, I realized that the “art” is one of the ways of expressing the era when the artists lived in especially after medieval times. The author says, “In medieval times, the arts were in the service of religion…Renaissance artists gradually replaced God-centered with man-centered concerns… (Page 16) As art became man-centered, human started giving implied meaning in it and used it as representation of the truth and reality. As it evolves over time, the author comes up with species-centered view of art in the end which is beyond the man-centered art. By not confining the definition of art in the past way, this will lead “art” to a new way of expression.

Today, I called my parents and talked about 20 minutes over the phone, took vitamin pills, came to the library to study with my friends, and saved some money by having lunch at home. All these activities I pursued are related to the value list I ordered. By calling my parents, I check on them and have conversation with them to spend time with my family. I care about my health by taking vitamin pills daily. I come to library to study with my friends for my personal accomplishment in school and for friendship. I have lunch at home to save my wealth.

“Do your best in a given circumstance” is my family motto. With this, my belief pattern goes that I would accomplish if I do my best no matter what situation I am in. One time, I was struggling with passing a Biology class. Even though I put my best efforts onto the class, I was not able to earn a higher grade. In this specific case, my belief pattern was not valid. I would like to have my own business and make it successful for my own personal accomplishment and also in a way of wealth. I would need to not only do my best but also find my own way of doing things to make it successful.

I agree with the point that we are not driven by immutable instincts. I believe that every human makes different decisions among their underlying personalities, or peer pressure.

I am, for example, mostly driven by peer pressure. A term ago, I met a classmate who studies a lot and prepare classes all the time. I have hung out with him throughout last summer term. Before meeting him, I was more like a “bad” student: I skipped classes often when I did not want to, and I was a last minute person when the deadline came really close to the end. He taught me how to prepare for classes and motivated me to study by practicing what a “good” student is supposed to do. Before meeting him or becoming a “good” student, my instinct was more like towards having fun rather than being a student, and I was driven by my immutable instincts that follows easy way. Being influenced by peer pressure from my classmate, I made a different decision from my immutable instinct.

I also make a decision based on my underlying personality rather than my instinct. My personality is mostly cultured. To be specific, I am from South Korea where Confucianism is based or dominated. I have been taught that being humble is always good to be. Thus, I always try to be humble at all time. Whenever I have conversation with my parents, they sometimes tell me what I already know such as “clean your room”. If I follow my instinct in this situation which is to talk back to them, argument would begin. Thus, I rather become humble to them and say nothing to them. Being driven by my underlying personality, I could step away from arguing with my parents.

In conclusion, I am totally favor of the point that we are not driven by immutable instincts but rather we are driven by underlying personalities, or peer pressure. Humans are thinking animals which means that human can control themselves and regulate their instincts. If humans are driven by immutable instincts, there would be no difference between humans and animals.

http://technorati.com/ios-8-iphone-6-may-get-leave-android-good/

I think that bigger Iphone (Iphone 6) would lead to a bigger market place for Apple and bring more users from android market. By breaking Apple’s stereotype, which they said that bigger screen had no potential, they would generate greater revenue.