Cat Scott's Blog

Art Experience Paper

cscott90 — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 02:30:55 +0000

This image is similar to the one I viewed. However, the one I observed used blue and red instead of green and purple.

My picture can be found in the Schnitzer museum here on the University of Oregon Campus. I was initially drawn to the picture I had chosen. It was in many beautiful colors and had only one object in it, an empty chair. I studied that chair and thought of what it could have represented. I thought maybe school, learning, symbolism of lost knowledge, and even interrogation. The blue and red colors seemed to add emotion tot eh picture. The blue cast over the chair and the rest of the right side of the picture was in red. Maybe blood or death?

The description fit the picture perfectly and I was surprised I hadn’t thought of it right of the bat. It was by Andy Warhol, pretty much the father of pop art, in 1971 and represented the death penalty of Sing Sing Prison in New York. The same chair depicted was the same chair that many mass murders and rapists were executed in until 1963 when it was banned. After reading at the description and researching the artist I have a more knowledgeable outlook of this piece. I feel that Warhol made this piece in celebration of the ending of the death penalty at Sing Sing. The chair all-alone in a dark room without someone in it exemplifies the absence of the executions. The time frame fits also because execution was outlawed in 1963 and this piece was done in 1971. I now think that the separation of colors in the picture represents the separation of the two different eras: before and after the outlaw of the death penalty.

Google Re-Re-Remix

cscott90 — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 07:51:32 +0000

Video games: good or bad for the brain?

cscott90 — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 02:59:42 +0000

Article 1 - United States. (2006). Video games Reading the ratings on the games people play. FTC consumer alert. [Washington, D.C.]: Federal Trade Commission, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Office of Consumer & Business Education.

In this governmental article, the process by which video games are rated is discussed. I find the way in which the government regulates what is appropriate very interesting. How do they know what is ok and what is not? This reminds me of the week that we did “What is Art for?” and we discussed and read about how in the past interpreters had to be used to deem what is art and what isn’t. Isn’t this just the same thing; Someone that higher up in the society deciding what is right and wrong what is acceptable for what group of people? One rating that I find particularity interesting is the one for “EC” or “Early Childhood”. Games under this category “contain no material that parents would find inappropriate” (FTC consumer alert, 2). I feel that the word “no” implies that all parents no matter what would not find anything in this game offensive. How do they know that not one parent would find this offensive?

However, I do see the benefit of this rating system. Video games have arguably been some of the cause for the rise in violence and unsafe acts. By making a system that allows parents to monitor their child’s viewing of violent and inappropriate acts at an age when they are soaking up every bit of information and then reenacting it, could be very constructive. I feel that human have a natural inclination for destruction. This what evident in the week that we did Aesthetics of Horror and we read about humans innate tendency to see gore and semi-realistic events. This was also noted on in this weeks reading of “Trigger Happy” by Steven Poole when he stated, “Perhaps the purest, most elemental videogame pleasure is the heathen joy of destruction( Poole, 21).

Article 2- Stix, GS. (2009, March 24). Mind games: can computer brain training help schizophrenics?. Scientific American

This article was about a study conducted at the University of California at San Francisco in which  a group of 32 people with schizophrenia were divided and did different acts. One group played regular video games and others went through training exercises with a brain training game. The results were inconclusive but those who went through the training tended to have higher cognitive skill improvement at the end of the study. This brings new theories to the tables on whether these “brain training” video games could change the future. Other successful studies have shown those who are older and have memory problems or cognitive issue due to older age have shown marked improvement from these games. It would be great to see what they could do for the mentally ill.

The idea of video games for uses for more than just pleasure has been explored more recently in the last few years. In the article by Steven Poole, titled “Trigger Happy”, the pros of video games were explored. They aid in, “reflexes, speedy pattern recognition, spatial imagination… (Poole, 76).” He then continues to talk about what my article was talking about, “Puzzle games” in which the player must use cognitive skills to win the game, thus, exercising a creating new brain cells.

Spirituality and Creativity

cscott90 — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 06:33:34 +0000

How do you define “spirituality”?
To me, spirituality is what makes us human. It gives us the ability to experience new feelings, emotions, and events. To understand the true meaning of the word, one simply has to look at the structure of the word itself. Our spirit is what defines our personality. It governs all of our feelings, good or bad. Accordingly, I think that spirituality in a piece of art is something that changes or defines one’s inner spirit.
Does spirituality differ from religion?
I don’t believe that we need religion as humans. I do, however, think that we absolutely need spirituality for many reasons. For one, I think that each person’s spirituality provides for a diverse culture, with a variety of different values. Second, spirituality helps us better understand our inner self. We are more engaged with whom we truly are. I believe that religion is simply a way for those who can’t find meaning in their lives to find it, while spirituality is necessary for a happy and in touch lifestyle.

How do you define “creativity”?
Creativity is the ability of a single person to create ideas and thoughts that are unique to them. Creativity can be applied to almost any facet of our lives. It provides for a society that is rich with different, new ideas that can contribute to the overall well being of others. Without creativity, our culture would be bland and littered with the same old same old, and the status quo dominating who we are as a people.

What is the source of creativity?
I believe that the source of creativity comes from two main areas. First, I believe that it comes from us naturally as humans. We have such capable and able brains that I believe we naturally come up with new, insightful thoughts all the time. Second, I believe that every single human’s unique life history pattern gives them an ability to understand situations and ideas like no one else on earth, which is valuable to our diversity.

Enjoying Horror

cscott90 — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 05:59:22 +0000

Tudor, A. (1997). WHY HORROR? THE PECULIAR PLEASURES OF A POPULAR GENRE. Cultural Studies. 11 (3), 443-463.

In this online article, by Andrew Tudor, obtained by the University of Oregon “Word Cat” search; the appeal of horror is examined. Why does it appeal to many and where does it come from? Many have tried to explain this strange phenomenon of appeal to all things repulsive by using psychological analysis. However, many have tried to explain this appeal in different ways such as the idea that horror is predetermined in our makeup and that people desire to hear about it. Tudor uses many examples of past horror movies and/or books to show the appeal it has had on pop culture. However, not everyone is attracted to the horror scene. Why is it that only some are?

This reading was very similar to the reading of “Why Horror?” by Noel Carroll. They both explored the reasons WHY one would be interested in the genre of horror and freighting oneself. Both of the readings brings up the issue of the appeal of horror being quite ironic, in the fact that we are beings and we like to watch others like us being harmed or be in fear. As Carroll put it, “there appears to be something paradoxical about the horror genre (Carroll 17).” Tudor even cites Carroll in his argument of the “Paradox of Horror” on page 453. However, Tudor also criticizes Carroll on her argument, he finds it does “not constitute a satisfactory explanation . . . (Tudor 455).

Sparks, G. G. a. S., C. W. (2000). Violence, mayhem, and horror. Zillmann, D. and Vorderer, P., eds. Media entertainment: the psychology of its appeal. Communications Abstracts. 23 (6).

In this article, on file at the Knight Library, by CW Sparks, the author explores why some violent acts have a react from observes of pleasure and that it is believed to come from a biological marker for this reaction. Also explored are the idea of how today’s media has influence the youth a de-sensitized them to the repulsiveness and disgust of violence. Video games and movies often glorify these horrible acts and now many teens are reproducing them. Is this still considered art? If it is causing harm to another, what is the duty of society to consider it art or not?

This article reminded me a lot of the Article we read by Berys Gaut, “The Paradox of Horror” in which Gaut says, “ . . . we do not enjoy the negative emotions the horror engenders, but, rather, we enjoy the expression of these emotions (Gaut 297)”. My interpretation is that we want to see how others react to something that is so reactive in the first place. We want to compare our reactions to others to signify that we are what society considers as “normal”. However, if this is true than why are so many people re-enacting much of what they see on TV or in movies? Is it because they want to see the emotion for themselves; or is it because they are so de-sensitized to the horror that they don’t think it is horror at all?

Personal Adornment

cscott90 — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 21:12:45 +0000

I believe that one’s own style is very hard to achieve. We are constantly influenced by others, media and judgment. It is almost impossible to create a style 100% unique to you that no one else has worn or “invented”. However, many try to do this with different makeup styles, clothing, colors, and body modification such as piercing and tattoos. I personally support any kind of dress or body adornment. Actually I value and encourage differences among people and how they creatively express on the outside that they are on the inside. Even though I may look like a nice all-American college girl a lot of my style isn’t. I have over 13 piercings. Many would consider this “taboo” or “asking for attention” and I’ve heard all the stereotypes. I am judged when I wear my piercings as a rebel and a snob when I don’t wear them. I make choices to dress on how I feel. If I’m feeling girly, I’ll wear pink. If I’m feeling particularly indie or “new age” I’ll wear my piercings. Of course this has developed over the years. What makes people want tattoos and piercings? To be original? I believe tattoos and piercings are a great way of altering ones appearance to match what ones believes they should be. They tell stories and give beauty to the bland skin that everyone has. My family is completely spilt down the middle. My parents divorced while I was a very young age and their personal beliefs went in different directions. My mom, who is a self proclaimed hippie, believes in the expression of one’s inner self. On the other hand, my dad a stereotypical right winged conservative believes in looking professional and polished to express your seriousness in the event you are attending, whether it be a corporate meeting or grocery shopping. I feel like I hold a good mixture of both my parents’ core beliefs in self expression. The core beliefs of my peer community differ greatly from the beliefs of my parents from another generation. I feel that my peer community as a Oregon college student is to express your inner feelings, in the most environmental safest way possible, by dressing to your body to match your inner self.

The Healing Power of Food

cscott90 — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 04:53:34 +0000

Food has always been known to have powers of healing and altering ones physical and mental state of mind. It can make one feel better, worse, good, bad, tired, or energetic. This article explains how traditional Chinese cuisine can give someone complete balance for his or her body and mind. It concentrates on the special yin and yang balance treasured by those who are believers in this technique. Each different type of food gives a different feeling. It explains the ways that certain foods can counteract the effects of others; cold foods can neutralize spice; or red meat can neutralize cold foods. All of these powers and more are what convinces me that food is art.

This article’s main focus is the power of these foods to change oneself. If that is what these foods are capable of, then I would consider them art. While the traditional Chinese foods in this article certainly are art, I believe that some of our western foods have the same power in changing ones experience. I hot cup of cider in December often makes one feel cozy and warm. I glass of lemonade on a hot summer day can make the world seem flawless. These characteristics to me are what defines food as art.

In the previous weeks of this class, we have been contemplating what exactly constitutes art. Does art need to be visual? Does art have to be pleasing to the eyes? Does it need to be something that makes you think? What has truly given me the strongest case as a definition for art has been the question “Does it change something?” To me art is art if it makes something different after the fact. If you’ve experienced it and you feel different, I believe that is what constitutes art.

Loh, P.D. (2009, October 23). Let food be thy medicine. China Daily, Retrieved on October 25, 2009 from http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/life/2009-10/23/content_8838176.htm

Slow Food Social Movement

cscott90 — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 03:30:17 +0000

This article, written by an NYU professor, Marion Nestle, who seems to be a major player in the “slow food” movement, makes the case and provides commentary for the very idea described in the short video assignment. She claims that our culture is in a food revolution, and that we are changing our lives by the way we eat. Her ideas are very inspiring and encouraging for those who are interested in this idea of changing the way we treat our hunger and food. She writes with an approach that one might see in a political commentary piece, with a strong emphasis on what she calls a social movement in the direction of slow food, inspired by three very influential books in American food history.

This article’s ideas tell of the importance of three books, all of which she claims were influential and still are today. In the week’s discussion we were all very interested as to why fast food is so powerful within America, even while the disgusting practices used by the industry are fully known to consumers. Nestle seems to think that with the help of these three books, we are beginning to see a cultural shift away from fast food, which is what many were wondering in discussion this week.

The artistic value in this article lies within its portrayal of the power of social movements. Usually, we think of social movements in terms of something like civil rights or political ideology, but rarely do we see them within the realm of food. The power that this article gives to food in terms of its galvanizing effect implies its artistic value alone. In my opinion, if the author’s views on the social movement of slow food are true, there is no question in my mind that food should be considered a form of art.

Nestle, M. (2009). Reading the food social movement. World Literature Today, Retrieved on October 25, 2009 from http://www.foodpolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/wlt-jan09-nestle2.pdf

The building blocks of art

cscott90 — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 06:28:23 +0000

In the word paleoanthropsychobiological, there are obviously four separate words. Further, they all are a type of science, whether social or physical. Dissanyake uses this word freely to describe the nature of art in relation to human culture. To understand what she means by using this word, its important to figure out exactly what each word inside the word means.

Paleo- can be summed up by essentially saying ancient, or primitive

Anthro- the study of humans, culturally and physically, throughout their existence

Psycho- the study of the brain, as well as mental behavior

Biological- the physical study of organisms, a very wide ranging topic

Now, put these together, and you get what many, including Dissanyake, would call art. Combining those definitions gives you something along the lines of primitive study of humans behaving mentally and physically and the world around them. Yes, this is a loose description, but it does seem to be fairly accurate.

Lets look at a form of art, say painting portraits. Would this fall under the definition of that? I think so. Now, take abstract modern sculpting. I believe that any sculptor would probably say that his or her work is a reflection of either their own life or the environment around them. I think that these examples show fairly well exactly what this word means, and how Dissanyake meant it.

Life Values Assessment

cscott90 — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 01:03:26 +0000

My Life Values (most to least important): friendship, family, health, enjoyment, leadership, loyalty, personal accomplishment, wisdom, community, security, personal development, service, integrity, creativity, location, wealth, independence, expertness, prestige and power.

Today was rather slow with only one class, Anthropology. I sat next to my friends in class (friendship), called my mom while walking home (family), made sure I washed and hand sanitized before eating so I don’t get Swine flu (health), and was able to spend a little time reading a book I’ve been trying to get to (enjoyment). However, most of my values shine through when I’m not in “school-mode”. Living in a sorority, I use most of my values every second I’m in the house such as: friendship, enjoyment, leadership, loyalty, community, security, personal development, service, integrity and some forms of independence.

While looking at my life of values, I can certainly see the resemblance in what I consider important and what my family considers important. My value of friendship and family and enjoyment are 3 things I’m sure are in the list of top 5 most important for my parents. Rather than seeing this pattern as an inherited values list I believe it was taught to me by placing value on things that are right or moral and discouraging things or ideas that are selfish (such as wealth, power, and prestige which are at the bottom of my list). I still have many goals for myself. I hope that one day my value of creativity and wisdom will rise on the list and I will value them more. I also would like to see my value on wealth and money to be at the bottom of this with power. Of course many things stand in my way of making these goals a reality such as some innate features of selfishness and greed.