The TED talk featuring Lawrence Lessig that discussed the creatively stifling effects of copyright laws. As a business major, many of the projects I have worked on in my business core class have had aspects that run into this issue of copyright or patent infringement. I remember in one particular project, involving Blackberry, my research led me to a very startling statistic (I was unable to locate the source). Every major wireless device manufacturer (Apple, Samsung, Motorola, Blackberry, Nokia, etc) are currently involved in lawsuits with each other. Apple and Samsung spend more money a year on fighting and initiating litigious battles for patent or copyright infringement than they do on research and development.  That begs the question, where would we be, technologically speaking, if our market took a more socialistic approach, where sharing knowledge was the norm? The catch 22 in this situation, however, is that if every company shared everything with each other, the motivation of competition would no longer be a driving factor. Would the sharing of knowledge ultimately be counteracted by the lack of competition between companies to build a better product in order to gain a competitive advantage, resulting in more revenue? Where is the happy median?

In “Computer Graphics: Effects of Origin”, Jones discusses the evolution of computer graphics, and examines the role that technology has increasingly been playing in the creation of art. She explains that the technology of today was built on the foundation of the technology of yesterday, and so on back in time, and in each stage of technology, it has been used to create art. She says “The 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”, showing that in the same way the symbolic culture builds upon itself, technology (specifically art from technology) is cast from the old molds, and altered (21 Jones).

Jones uses the example of computer graphics (or CGI) to illustrate her thesis. She talks about the origins of computer graphics, saying “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” (52 Jones). The earliest forms of computer graphics have lead to each technological advancement in the CG field, to the point where it is difficult to differentiate between real and computer generated content in video games and movies.

The best example I can think of that illustrates Jones’ point that technology builds on itself, even to the point of it being cyclical is vinyl records. At one point, vinyl records were the most technologically advanced means of distributing music (art), but was eventually made obsolete by technological advancments (8-tracks, cassettes, CDs, MP3s). That technology has seemed to found it it’s way into the mainstream once again. I myself love to collect vinyl records and listen to even new music on vinyl, and there are many people who share that sentiment. Vinyl record sales are up over 30% from last year. There are companies that are still building and selling turntables, and some of them have been modernized, and in my opinion, look awesome.

The primary point that Jones makes in Computer Graphics: Effects of Origins is that technological advancement is affecting our lives beyond just the technology itself. She says “these changes are not simply technical effects. They contribute to maintenance and change of culturally conditioned conceptual patterns in the larger cultural historical context”, meaning that the fundamental aspects of culture themselves are being shaped by technology. As a result, how we as a society interact with that technology has changed the way we interact with each other. There is no doubt that, especially in the last ten to fifteen years, technology has defined our (western) culture. We are fully immersed in technology every single day. We have access to the accumulation of the world’s knowledge in our front pockets, and the ability to communicate with anyone and everyone simultaneously. In many cases, a majority of our interactions are digital. My question now is, with the cyclical behavior of cultural history, will we see a mass exodus away from these digital platforms in the near future? I love music, and I almost always listen to it on my phone, which is loaded up with MP3 files of my favorite songs. I also collect vinyl records of all my favorite bands and songs. I find my self more and more being drawn to the experience of listening to music on vinyl, rather than on my iPhone. This is true for many people, as vinyl sales are up over 30% this past year. Will we see this type of cultural shift to the social interaction technology of old (e.g. pen and paper, face-to-face interactions, etc) make a comeback like vinyl has?

Spirituality for me is the inexplicable bond between people, animals, plants, etc. It’s the understanding that there is an energy that is abundant in us all, which means at the most fundamental level, we are all connect; we are all one. I don’t think our beings are confined to biology, to just protons, neutrons, and electrons. We can’t fully understand it because individually, we are just one small part of the whole. We cannot separate ourselves from the whole in order to understand it, because without us there is no whole to understand #woahdude.

I think that religion is man’s (society’s) attempt at understanding and defining spirituality. There is so much that is unknown about our world. We as the human race have made incredible advancements towards answering the lingering questions of the natural phenomenon around us, but in respect to all that is left to be discovered, we haven’t even begun to scratch the surface. Religion does a great job of allowing people to feel as though they have a full understanding of the universe they live in. It’s a technical approach to an ambiguous topic.

Creativity, in my opinion, is what separates man from beast. It is the reason that we sit atop the food chain. Without creativity, we would not have created tools, harnessed energy, domesticated animals, planted crops, etc. Every technological and societal advancement we have made is the result of man’s creativity. Creativity is man’s way of interacting and challenging the world around himself/herself without being bound the confines of ignorance.

I don’t know what the source of creativity is. I have a sneaking suspicion that the energy that connects all matter has something to do with it. My best guess is evolution. The evolution of life. Creativity is at the heart of the survival of the fittest. We did not prosper because we were the fastest. A horse or cheetah is much faster than a human. Nor do we prosper because we are the strongest. Gorillas could tear us to shreds. We dominate because we use the best characteristics of ourselves, and combine them in a way that allows us to create ways for us to neutralize our weaknesses and emphasize our strengths.

A few of the artists featured in “Art:21” really helped me to make a connection between the spirituality and art. The most powerful statement, in my opinion, that was made in the video was by the young man who made the satire/critical art of the ideas of spirituality and the corporate culture. He said something along the lines of “the ambiguity is where the spiritual lies”. I myself personally identify as a spiritual person. I don’t subscribe to the beliefs of any one particular organized religion at this time, but I feel that there is something that goes beyond biology that connects us all. The concept of intuition, the internal desire to express creativity, and the inherent need to communicate with fellow man leads me to believe that there is more to life than protons and electrons. I find my beliefs lining up well with his idea that spirituality exists in the unknown or what is not understood. It is not observable by most standards, so therefore it is cloaked in ambiguity.

Art, as we have come do define it the best that we can so far in this class, is a creation that is meant to incite an aesthetic response which garners critical consideration of the how the piece relates to the individual’s world and society as a whole. The young woman who found herself coming back to micro-paintings over and over helped me to understand that art begins after the technical ability ends. Meaning, the talent or abilities of the artist do nothing to identify the artist as such. Rather, the artist’s desire to express emotion, tell a story, or make a social statement with a piece move a painting for example from a pretty decor item to a piece of art. Composition, subject, timeliness, etc; these all contribute to the ability for an artist to connect with the viewer on a fundamentally spiritual level.

Diagetic:

In the Buffy episode, a great example of diagetic sound is the audible howling wind that suddenly comes through the class room when the the TA, presumably, kisses Buffy on the table. The sound, which is technically off camera as you don’t see the physical affects of the wind, originates from within the story itself. The sound adds to the horror aesthetics because it is caused by a supernatural change in setting, and seems out of place in the context of the classroom setting. It peaks the curiosity of the viewer, which adds to the suspense. I’m having a hard time distinguishing this sound effect from diagetic and non-diagetic. It’s tough to tell if the wind is actually happening, or just used as a dramatic sound effect. I’m going guess it’s part of the story.

Non-Diagetic:

In the Buffy episode, a great example of non-diagetic sound is the sharp orchestral “screech” when the TA places his hand on Buffy’s shoulder in the hallway. The sound is an example of non-diagetic sound because it is acting as mood music that does not originate from within the story-line, but rather exists outside the present setting. The sound contributes to the horror aesthetic because it accentuates the paranoia and sudden change of the TA from a human to some demon-vampire creature.

Mise-en-scene:

My favorite example mise-en-scene in the Buffy episode is the framing of the young girl holding the box in the hallway. This type of scene is fairly popular within the horror genre (e.g. The Shining, Poltergeists, ect.) because weird little children are terrifying. The little girl is staged at the end of a long hallway, with ominous lighting coming from beneath and to the side of her, presumably with no natural source. It adds a ton to the horror aesthetic because, as I said before, weird children are scary. They are generally viewed as innocent, so when we see some kind of demon child, the swing from innocent to evil is compounded by our expectations, which in turn horrifying. 

In regards to adornment, I am a simple man. I have never been one to spend any considerable amount of time thinking about what I will wear. I tend to weigh my desire to be comfortable with society’s standards in any given social situation, and dress accordingly. If I’m going to class, that means sweat pants and a pull over if it’s chilly, or athletic shorts and a t-shirt if it’s warm. In a more “professional” environment, I will wear pants and a tucked polo. In an even more “professional” environment, I’ll bust out my suit. I want to be as physically comfortable as possible, but also emotionally comfortable as well (meaning I don’t want to feel self-conscious about being underdressed in certain situations just because I feel more physically comfortable in jeans rather than slacks).

I believe that there is a certain social standard that should be met, and I have no problem meeting that standard when necessary. I want to show respect to those around me, so if a situation calls for a suit, I will respect those sharing in the circumstance by coming appropriately dressed. That goes for casual situations as well. If I’m spending time with friends in a laid-back atmosphere, it would be inappropriate of me to show up in a three-piece.

I am also simple in that I don’t want to make a statement with my attire or adornment. I realize that is impossible to prevent someone from making assumptions based on my appearance before getting a chance to talk to me, but I don’t want to provide any more “ammunition” than necessary. I want my thoughts, words, and nature to make the most prevalent impression that I will leave with someone. I don’t want to draw unnecessary attention to myself. I don’t enjoy that kind of voyeuristic attention from on-lookers.

In terms of adornments, I have a simple philosophy. If I wouldn’t want to keep it forever, I shouldn’t do it. I am a very fickle person. I have the worst buyers-remorse (cognitive dissonance). When I buy something over $20, I seriously consider taking it back, every single time. I know that for me, a tattoo would not be good. It would be slightly masochistic of me, and not just due to the pain but also the future emotional turmoil, to get a tattoo. Knowing that it is for the most part permanent, I would immediately regret it right after (if not during) the tattooing process.

Modesty has always been a core value in my family. Let your actions do the talking, not your appearance. It’s always better to maintain a level of mystery. All things that were taught to me and my sisters by my parents. We believe that bringing attention to your self can be great, but not if for the wrong reasons. I want people to notice me because I am talented, kind, caring, compassionate, smart, etc. I don’t want people to notice me because I am covered in tattoos (that I would probably eventually hate) or have a bunch of piercings. That being said, I do my best to not pass judgment on those who choose to embellish their bodies with those things. I wouldn’t want people to make unfair judgments about me based on my appearance, as that is not even close to the whole story of ‘Tyler’.

My eldest younger sister doesn’t hold fast to our family ‘doctrine’, but even her rebellion in terms of body adornment (tattoos and piercings) are relatively tame by most standards. She has some doves tattooed on her back, which in my opinion is the most cliché thing a girl can get tattooed on her shoulder blade. It doesn’t even mean anything for her, she just thought it looked “cute” (which is odd because she can’t even see it). She also has a tiny cat tattooed behind her right ear, which is dumb (in my opinion) because she hates cats and has never even owned one. Her and I don’t see eye to eye on tattoos.

Within my peer group, who I would identify as business majors, or soon to be employees in the business sector, the prevailing sentiment in terms of attire and adornment is ‘dress to impress’. I said before that I understand the need to ‘dress-up’ in certain scenarios, and I feel very comfortable dressing for the occasion. The business world is very much immersed in tradition and the status quo. Tattoos and unorthodox piercings are taboo. Suits and dress skirts are safe and expected (at least at the company I will be working for after graduation).