Author Archives: tianqi@uoregon.edu

The ability to own the work that you have created is the central point to this argument. At what point in the arts is the original piece owned by the artist, and how much protection can that artist have over it? I think that there are two important aspects to the art; one, the artist should own and control all original copies and reproductions of the art they create. Nothing should be able to use the art that one individual or group created without their permission. An example of this was the work of DangerMouse who took not only one artist’s work, but also a group’s work and combined them into something “new”. While The Grey Album was technically a new piece, there was not enough variation from the originals to make it a unique piece of art. While there was an argument about this being part of the new culture, stating, “The swift and draconian legal reaction to the online dissemination of this technically illegal but culturally fascinating artifact gave rise to a “day of digital civil disobedience,” organized by music activism group Downhill Battle” (Howard-Spink), I do not feel that this is the proper way of posing this argument. The copyright laws were originally intended to protect artist from having their hard work stolen. To me this is no different than the patent rights arguments that are being discussed all the time. The producer of the original should have control of their work. For artists this means, “Artists want their expressions framed just as they intended it” (Lessig). At the same time there is a need to keep the artistic world as open to expression as possible. To do this copyright laws should have a tiered system that institutes fines or fees for use of only a part of an artist’s work, and then severe penalties for completely taking it.

Howard, Spink (2005). Grey Tuesday, online cultural activism and the mash-up of music and politics. First Monday. Web.

Lessig, L. (2008). Comparing Cultures. Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy (pp. 84-116). New York: Penguin Press HC, The.

1. Spirituality is the ability for humans to understand their conscious mind. While other animals have the ability for conscious thought, the extreme levels that humans can take that to is our representation of the spirit. I think that the spirit is the human mind, and each mind is different therefore the idea of the spirit comes from the belief that the thoughts we have go beyond the physical form. Some people chose to represent this as religion, being the spirit belonging to a larger group, or it can simple be the belief in the ability of the human conscious mind to extend beyond the physical form.
2. The major difference between spirituality and religion is the set of rules or beliefs. Spirituality simply means the belief in the unique quality of every human to be different from the rest of the species. Each human has their own mind/spirit and how they chose to perceive its existence in the world is up to them. Religion takes that idea of the spirit and then creates rules and boundaries about how the spirit should act. This involves storytelling and other rituals to define the religion.
3. I define creativity as the ability for the spirit to manifest itself through action. What I mean by this is that the human mind, what I classify as the spirit, is capable of many things. When the mind is able to make something, something that is not following the orders of someone else’s mind, then that is the ability to be creative. If the mind is able to create something new or different it is being creative.
4. The source of creativity is the spirit. As I have said in the previous responses the idea of the spirit is simply a title for the human mind. The reality of the mind is that it is a physical system of electrical signals that tell the physical body how to act. We chose to think of the mind as something wholly unique in the world, and because of this we came up with the word spirit. A spirit is the unique identity of each person. It is through this that we get the creative abilities.

This week’s reading was a bit challenging for me because of the way in which the author described the idea of creativity in an artist. As I was going through the sections I thought to myself that this was an odd way of thinking about creativity. Specifically one line really jumped out to me from the reading. The line was, “In order to experience art fully viewers must go through a mini ego death by placing themselves in the inspired minds of the artist, who themselves are out of their minds and only acting as channels of creative spirits” (Grey, 74). There are a few things about this point that made me confused at first. To begin with it seems as if the idea is that artists and audience are not the same type of humans. The word ego here is to signify the idea that when the audience sees the art they must abandon their own ideas. It goes on to say that the artist is only acting as the channel through which creativity can be displayed. As I read this line I think that this is a way of taking away credit from the individual. To me this is almost like saying there is no ability in humans to understand emotion or beauty, which it can only come from an outside influence. Not only that but also somehow humans cannot understand one another as they are, they can only understand them through trying to put themselves in another’s place. I think that this happens to be the opposite of how I feel about art. For me the ability to create comes from the ability to be human, and that art is something that transcends culture or social class and can connect people who know nothing about one another.

The idea of a horror movie seems odd when you think about the components. There is some form of scary entity, whether that be monster or the unusual used to create ideas of terror in the mind. If explaining this idea to a culture that came from a whole new area, such as seeing aliens land and trying to explain to them why we line up for getting into a room where we are terrified for a few hours willingly, it seems like a foolish reality. Yet as humans that drive for fear has turned horror films into a booming section within the movie industry. To try and better understand this I wanted to learn more about what it is that makes the movies so appealing for a large demographic. To do this I found two articles about the psychology of horror movie fans and how the movies target their emotions.

The first article comes from the Atlantic Magazine back on Halloween weekend in 2013. The article entitled “Why Do Some Brains Enjoy Fear?” is a look not only into how brains can enjoy fear, but also how they can react negatively in some situations because of that fear. As the article goes through the pieces it breaks down how fear is received in the mind as well has how it can be dealt with based on age, culture as well as certain circumstances. For example in reference to age, “The chemicals that are released during fight-or-flight can work like glue to build strong memories (“flashbulb memories”) of scary experiences, and if you’re too young to know the monsters are fake, it can be quite traumatic and something you’ll never forget, in a bad way” (Ringo 2013). This event can cause trauma for the viewer if they are not prepared for the event, something that can have lasting effects so making sure that children are not allowed to see these things is often a good piece of advice.

A second article I found expands on this idea of the fear in movies. The article from Halloween weekend 2014, obviously this time of year brings out this debate more than any other, is entitled, “The Psychology of a Horror Movie Fan.” The articles once again tries to explain exactly what it is about horror movies that makes them so appealing while at the same time seemingly so repulsive. One of the interesting points that is made in this article is about a study done that combined a number of peer reviewed journal articles to see over lapping themes. One of those was that people with low levels of empathy will enjoy seeing the suffering of others. This was not entirely true for the study though, “Fantastical horror, it turns out, is different; when heavily violent and torture-based movies were eliminated from these studies, the inverse correlation between empathy and enjoyment dropped” (Heaney 2014). This means that the fantastical horror is possibly tied in well beyond the idea of empathy.

This point reminded me of a statement from the course reading. The way in which violence is presented can also be a factor in the enjoyment of the film. In the reading it was stated, “Thus, it is not the tragic event in itself that imparts pleasure, but rather, the way in which it is worked into the plot” (Carrol pg. 277, 2002). It is possible that it is not the empathy that determines whether or not a person feels for the actors, but it is the way in which it is presented. The trauma discussed in the first article is also represented by the concepts of the reading. In the reading it is stated, “Horror stories, in a significant number of cases, are dramas of proving the existence of the monster and disclosing (most often gradually) the origin, identity, purposes and powers of the monster” (Carroll pg. 279, 2002). This way in shaping the story gives it a more realistic feel. When this occurs it can create a sense of reality that makes the story and the events stick in the mind much easier. When a child or younger adult sees a horror movie that contains monster or evil entity that has a well thought out back story then it can become more real. In this event the story becomes a point where the person can become even more traumatized. This is why making sure that the environment for watching a horror movie is set up so that way it can reduce the potential for harm.

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.

Heaney, Katie. (2014). The Psychology of a Horror Movie Fan. Pacific Standard. Web.

Ringo, Allegra. (2013). Why Do Some Brains Enjoy Fear? The Atlantic. Web.

The first scene that I wanted to discuss was because of the complexities that I saw and I wanted to try mise-en-scene here. At the 12:27 mark of the show there are two men sitting in a room, one tied to a chair the other falling asleep in bed. The set seems to be a small room, stairs in the background as well as a bookshelf. There is a bed with dark blue blankets and next to it is a red chair in which a man is tied. The room is quite dark, with only a few things being in focus. The only real bright color in the frame is the blood red chair. The light comes in from the right side, slightly above center as if coming through a window at night. This gives the idea of a full moon at night, something that has long been associated with superstition and horror. Going to sleep in bed is a normal looking man, but the other who is tied to a chair is white haired, light white skin and sunken cheekbones. The room spreads out behind the two men, but light falls away not hitting anything of importance it seems outside of these two men. It makes it clear that they are the focus of the story, and the rest of the setting enhances their connection.

At the 19:55 mark of the show the difference between diegetic and non-diegetic can be heard. To begin with no one in the scene is talking, they are writing to each other. In order to get the girls attention the boy snaps his fingers and points to the television. He turns it up as they listen to the man on the television speak. Here the sound is all diegetic, because as the noise of snapping fingers occurs the source is clearly in frame. The same is true of the sound from the television. Even when the camera comes back to only see the group of people and not the television, it is still diegetic because the sound is coming from inside the frame. What happens next is there is introduced to this scene an ominous deep overtone that is non-diegetic. The sound is used to create a sense of suspense and possible pending doom, but the noise comes from outside the story or the frame therefore it is non-diegetic.

I do not really think about myself as someone who is worried about the way that they dress. While I do admit that I have an extensive imagination about how I would like to dress, and the daily emails that I get from many different department stores lets me know that I possibly spend too much time on their websites, at the same time I know that in my actual daily routine my dress and appearance is not what I think that it could be. While I am writing this I seem to be saying that I am unhappy with the way that I dress, and wish that I could change it, but this is not the reality. I am happy with the way that I am, but there are times when I do change in a drastic way. I guess what is happening is that I am one way for much of the time, but then every so often there are chances that I have to dress in ways that I want to be different and I take those to their fullest extent.

So getting to how I dress on a daily basis, I dress quite causal. Most days are spent in a simple shirt and jeans, with a comfortable pair of running shoes. This allows me to be comfortable for whatever is needed of me, but at the same time not so comfortable that I look as if I have walked onto campus straight from bed. I wear little makeup, and just a few jewelry, specifically a necklace that was given to me by my two parents on the day that I left to come here. This is my usual routine, but from time to time I love to dress in much more expensive clothing, and then go out with friends and show off how I look. This gives me a boost of self-confidence every time, but those times are just sparse enough to not make me too over confident.

I think that the personal beliefs that are represented in these choices are hard work, humility and from time to time self-actualization. My clothing and body modification is representative of these beliefs by showing an outer representation that is equal to my inner feelings. I try to show others that I am here to work hard, and that I will only have accomplished what I want to get done when I have finished school and become successful in a career, until then I am aware that I have much hard work in front of me, and cannot stop until I get there. There are moments when I like to show off my potential, and these are the times I shed my usual dress and go for the more extravagant. I use this as motivation for the future as well. Over the years my want and desires to become a better form of myself has limited my moments of expression, and made me more reserved, ready to work to get where I need to go.

My family was a large influence over how I act now. I was taught from a young age that in order to reach where I want to go I have to work harder than anyone else, and be the best that I can be. This is where the action of being humble in my clothing came from. If I wanted to be the best I had to realize I was not there yet, and even the way I choose clothing can influence that belief. At the same time my friends have helped me to grow outside of that limited belief. I have always had the want and desire to express myself more, and coming here at first was a way to do that more often. For a while I did stray from my values, and I was upset that I did so. Luckily for me my friends and help me to stay humble and work hard. My group of friends are very competitive with one another, always trying to show each other which one is the best at something. This drive to better others makes me realize that I need to work harder than even my close friends if I want to get where I am going. We all shop together as well, and their advice helps me to decide on what clothing to buy. So in that way my friends are even more directly involved in my choices of how I dress as well as my body modifications.

Food Article:

This is an article about a technique used at a restaurant to test how the food would be received based on different presentations, including recreating art through the placement of ingredients on a plate. What the study realized is that based on the presentation, the diners would be more receptive of the food and willing to pay more for the same food. Food was presented in a dark room, on white sheets, and with a single light shining on the plate. There were 3 variations used of the same ingredients for a salad, all prepared the same way, but presented in different ways. When the food was presented as a recreation of a piece of artwork by Kadinsky it was considered to not only be worth more, but also considered to look and taste better than when it was not presented in this way.

The article brings up a good point about not only the intention of the art work, but also how food can be recreated in a way that is both aesthetically pleasing as well as pleasing artistically. The food was created so that way it was good to look at as well as to eat. I think that this is an important point when thinking about food as art. While not all food is created in this way, there are connections between the two worlds. For example in the Telfer reading the concept of intention was brought up. In the reading, it stated, “There are, however, objects such as ethnological objects, or religious buildings, which were not intended by their makers as works of art but which are now treated as such” (Telfer pg. 12 2002). This brings up an important aspect of the art world, and that is the intention of the creator versus the reception of the audience.

Defining art is a complicated process that has changed dramatically over time and across cultures. Looking at food as art now is a process that is undergoing this defining moment. While there are many who think that food is not art in the institutional sense, there are other factors that come into action in this discussion. As Telfer noted the intention of the artist can at times be irrelevant to the reception of the piece as art or not. Looking at the article for reference, the idea of food as art is put into a deeper understanding. The visitors to this restaurant saw the food as art, or at least as aesthetically pleasing, and they were more appreciative of that food because of this connection. While it may not always be the intention of the cook to make art, though in the case of the article it was, the results may lead the viewer, or eater in this case, to make their own decisions. By eliminating the possibility that food can be art the world is taking away the ability for individuals to make their own choices. While food may not be the traditional idea of art as has been theorized for the past century or so, there is also the fact that this definition has gone through many stages of growth over that time, and accepting food as art is one more juncture that needs to be passed.

At the same time there is a valid argument about the inclusion of all food as art. While intention is not always definitive of how it is received, intention is still important. Once again from Telfer, “Some commentators draw the distinction on the basis of the purpose to which the artefact is to be put: if it is intended for contemplation it is a work of art, if for use it is a work of craftsmanship” (pg. 15 2002). In the case of the original article, the food was intended for both situations. In one the food was presented as art, and in the other it was simply presented as food. By doing this the restaurant was making a conscious choice between the two worlds. I think that when food is created as art, it should be treated as such. While some may argue that food does not have the same lasting value as other forms of art, to me food is like music. There is a specific guideline for what to do with the pieces, the music sheet versus the recipe, but in the end the skill of the artist is the change that can occur. Food has the unique ability to play on almost all our sense, and in doing so it is capable of bringing out a strong emotional response. If art is the ability to recreate emotion in the world using objects of everyday life, then it stands to reason that food should be categorized in this same way.

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.

I do feel that food is art. I think so because of the fact that it takes a certain level of skill to make food, and the more skilled a person is the better of an artist that they are. When I first thought of this I thought that food is not art for the fact that anyone can do it. Opening a can of soup and putting it onto the stove, or microwave if you are in a hurry, is technically cooking food. But then again, finger painting is technically painting as well. When I dip my fingers into green, red and blue and throw them onto a piece of paper that is not the same as Jackson Pollock creating his work, though depending on how you feel about his work it could be similar. If find the same to be true of food. While microwaving soup is technically cooking, it is not the same level as a world class chef making a great soup, and no matter what I do, I most likely never will be able to replicate the abilities of that level. It is something that is given through genetics, and while through training I can become better, I will never reach the levels of those world class chefs. This is the same with art, I can practice with a brush, but being able to paint a masterpiece is more than just paint and brushes. The readings introduced to me a bold idea, which was, “Not all objects that can give rise to aesthetic reactions are works of art” (Telfer 12). If this is true then it would also stand to reason that not all art needs to be aesthetically pleasing. This is why I do think food is art.

If I had to categorize the type of art, I would think of it like the Greeks did. The word techne explained the concept of art as a craft, and not limited to only what we think of as art now. As it was stated, “It meant ‘having a correct understanding of the principles involved,’ rather as we understand the ‘art’ of salmon cookery or of motorcycle maintenance” (Dissanayake 16). While Dissanayake here states art in a way that demonstrates skill, I think that this is the best way of describing the act of creating food, and how it is in fact art.

The point that truly made me think about art the most this week came from the TED talk. I do want to point out that I always love the TED talks, as they give new perspectives of the world from some of the most interesting people. As to this specific TED talk the point that surprised me the most was the idea that there is an ideal image of the world, the one where the artist point out certain aspects of the landscape that were considered beautiful from people all over the world, even if their environment did not contain any of the pieces that were in the picture. This was an intriguing aspect to me, because I think that the evolutionary drive that is in all animals, including humans, gives us a sense of what it is that we are looking for in a place to live. The image contained the water, trees, grass land and in the distance some place of water that is inviting. When I thought of this, I wondered if this will eventually begin to change as we evolve as a species, or if this is so tied into our genetics that it will be thousands of years before this ideal is gone.

While part of the idea most likely is tied to the disparity between societies around the world, even for the most advanced this image should still be considered beautiful. It is clear that the image provides the environment where life would be beneficial to tribal life, or early forms of human life. With an evolving sense of human life, this image seems more nostalgic for some societies, and because of that I wonder if in 50 years from now that view of the world will not hold that same level of beauty. It could be possible that the agreed upon beauty would come from life in cities, and having clean streets, lined with trees and beautiful sunlight. The view of the world needing to be the natural look from that image seems to be tied to our survival instincts, so if those continue to change, would the view of a beautiful world change, and what would that mean for the natural scene depicted there?