After learning about the artist, I began to understand the painting in a different way. Carol Grigg is an artist living in Oregon, and she is of Cherokee heritage. She uses a variety of media to create works of art and all of her art is inspired by her Cherokee heritage. Now I understand that this piece is an expression of heritage. Before, I thought it might have been merely an interest of the artist’s, but now I see it in a different way. I can visualize her painting this piece and imagining what her ancestors may have been like and then transferring her mental picture to her canvas. The watercolor makes it seem like something imagined because it leaves the painting with that blurriness, so I think it was an excellent choice of media on the artist’s part.

An example of Grigg’s work that is similar to the painting I viewed.

This is a collage I made based on words that I think are part of what it means to be an artist. The ten words I came up with after silent pondering were beauty, vision, meaning, composition, flow, feeling, creativity, fresh, inspiration and reflection. I used images representing beauty, vision, meaning, feeling, creativity, flow and inspiration to make this collage.

Though Poole does not discuss the way in which people find simulated humans in video games unsettling, he does mention the RPGs like Thompson discussed. Poole says that in these Role Playing Games, “the player ‘becomes’ a character in the fictional world” (Poole 40). While players play these Role Playing Games, they can become engrossed in them because they get so involved in the important tasks of learning more about the character and gaining “new skills according to his success in the gameworld” (Poole 41). In his article, Poole also mentions how video games are spreading out to include more and more subjects. There should be something to appeal to everyone, but the fact that the simulated humans do not look quite right may be the one thing that people always agree is somewhat disturbing.

Jones may say that there may be a way to overcome this issue in the future. She reported in her article that there is a prediction that in the future there will be screen less environments in which a player would wear a suit that would allow him or her to become a part of the game. Jones writes, “They present remarkable visual and tactile realities… users may create and share new elements in their virtual realities” (57). Depending on the type of game created in the future, gamers may not have to face that computer-generated avatar trying to look like a human. If it was a place where they could create their own realities, they could avoid that uncomfortable feeling when they see their own avatar because in a game where they are supposed to be in that type of virtual reality, it would defeat the purpose for an individual to see him or herself. That would destroy the illusion, just like seeing the simulated humans does for some gamers.

Thompson, C., (2004). ‘The Undead Zone: Why realistic graphics make humans look creepy,’ Slate. Retrieved November 21st, 2009, from http://www.slate.com/id/2102086/.

The second article I found, entitled, “More video game art is now museum quality” was about the growing acceptance for video games as a fine art. This article talked about how images from video games are ending up in art exhibits. For example, at the Electronic Entertainment Expo, there were 16 pieces of art from video games selected for display out of about 300 submitted pieces. The president of the Academy of Interactive Arts & Sciences said that their program is unique because professional curators of museums support it. Curators from museums such as the Getty Museum and the Los Angeles County Museum of Art agree that video game images can be considered art. Louis Marchesano of the Getty Research Institute mentioned that though video game art could not be compared to the masters of the past, these works cause the same questioning behavior as the classics. Some of the famous artists who produce video game art include Tyler West, Stephane Martiniere and Daniel Dociu. West commented that having his work considered art seems to make it more legitimate. He believes that once people consider it, they will see that creating work like he does takes skill.

I think that Steven Poole would be interested to see that images from video games are becoming a more popular form of art. As he mentioned, the creator of video games “didn’t think he created anything earth-shatteringly novel” (Poole 16). Then, as the video game evolved from the simple graphics in games like “Spacewar” and “Pong,” it became more than just a game. Over time, the graphics get better and better and become more and more complex, as do the games. Just consider the evolution of the video game as Poole discusses it in his article. Video games started out with the most basic graphics such as in Lunar Lander and Space Invaders. Then threre were more games like platform games such as Donkey Kong and Super Mario Brothers. Now there are even video games where people can create a whole city or a beautiful world. The graphics are now so complex and detailed that they could easily be considered an art form.

Jones would probably agree that video game graphics could be considered art. In her article, she presents the side of the argument that would agree that computer graphics are art. Jones mentioned that, “selected examples of earlier and contemporary computer related images, objects, events and environments are examined to show reliance on previous forms and to present evolving possibilities in harmony with larger cultural and historical patterns.” This shows that computer generated graphics, like those in video games, can have symbolism and meaning behind them. Since art has to have some meaning behind it, people could not argue that computer generated images do not. As Jones mentions, people in the computer graphics world “have urged simultaneous consideration of the multiple uses of computer graphics – artistic, technical, scientific and practical – within a single social and historical context influenced by overlapping origins” (Jones 56). Therefore, though some people may just see computer graphics through one lens of technical use, they should try seeing it through multiple perspectives. They could even go to an exhibit where computer generated art is on display to get a better idea of how it can be used in multiple ways.

Snider, M., (2008). ‘More video game art is now museum quality,’ USA Today. Retrieved November 21st, 2009, from http://www.usatoday.com/tech/gaming/2008-07-16-game-art_N.htm.

In my opinion, spirituality is a sense of connectedness with the universe. For someone to feel spiritual, they must seek something that will nourish their soul. Nourishment for the soul could include walking outside among the trees or becoming more in touch with oneself. Anyone who seeks to have a deeper sense of what the universe is saying to them or how they can relate to nature is, in my opinion, spiritual. A journey about spirituality could also about seeking truth in the universe, and while it may not be entirely possible, I think that journey is important to those who are open to it. While I think everyone has some sense of spirituality within them, I believe it manifests itself more strongly in some than in others.

Does spirituality differ from religion?

In my opinion, spirituality is much less formal and structured than religion. While there can be institutions that support spiritual growth, spirituality seems to me to be more about an individual. On the other hand, religion focuses more on a deity or multiple deities. Also, it seems to me to be more about a group environment. There are specific religious practices to participate in and religious rules to follow. Spirituality seems to be more about a lack of rules and individualizing the approach rather than doing what everyone else is doing and being religiously devoted.

How do you define “creativity”?

I think creativity is the use of imaginations to express the messages and desires of ones soul. Artists are creative because they paint or sculpt or do something that uses their imagination. However, their creations are not simply there as something interesting to look at, but instead have meaning. There is a lot of symbolism in creative works that is there for a reason. Part of expressing that imagination is sending a message about something deeper, and the means of doing so takes creativity.

What is the source of creativity?

The source of creativity in every individual is the mind and the soul. Together, those two parts of an individual allow that person to communicate their feelings and their ideas and their imagination. A soul can stir up feelings that will lead to creative thoughts and images that an individual can use to express him or herself. People who are not as spiritual may not be as in touch with their soul, so they may lack strength of a connection between their soul and their mind, which may make it more difficult for them to be creative. Artists tend to be spiritual and in touch with their feelings, which allows them to create works of art because their soul and their mind can effectively coordinate during the creative process.

The second article I found, “K-State Professor’s Opinion:
Why We Like to Watch Scary Movies,” contains the ideas and arguments on this topic by Leon Rappoport, a psychology professor at Kansas State University. He argues that horror films have the same appeal to us as amusement parks with roller-coasters. Rappoport claims that humans enjoy the examination of their tolerance for fear and anxiety so they can overcome those feelings by working through them. Also explored in the article is the concept of the age at which horror movies are most enjoyable to people, and studies show that horror movies are most possible with teenagers. One possible explanation is that the idea of rebelling and enjoying a movie that some people say is not suitable for children appeals to teenagers. Horror movies can offer that age group in particular an opportunity to explore feelings of hostility and aggression in a safe environment. These movies also give teenagers a chance to release some of their pent up frustration and tension that comes with their age. Rappoport does not believe that horror films cause youth to get into trouble like some critics would claim. He claims instead that some people are already going to cause trouble because they were not socialized properly. In his opinion, people just watch horror movies for fun, and they do not watch them to get ideas about criminal behavior. Based on Noel Carroll’s article, “Why Horror,” I believe he would agree in part with Rappoport’s assertions. Carroll notes that, “the objects of horror are fundamentally linked with cognitive interests, most notably curiousity… To a large extent, the horror story is driven explicitly by curiosity.” The curiosity Carroll refers to may be the same idea that Rappoport brings up about testing the limits of one’s fear and anxiety. Humans may be inherently curious about how much fear and anxiety they can handle from a horror film, so they watch them in order to test their curiosity. This same connection is supported in another section of Carroll’s article. Carroll writes, “one could not deny that there may be certain audiences who seek out horror fictions simply to be horrified… they attend simply for the gross-out.” This audience Carroll describes is probably the group of teenagers Rappoport writes about. People go because for them the horror films are enjoyable. Horror films offer them a chance for people to be horrified or grossed out in a safe environment, and some people like that. In Gaut’s article, one argument presented agrees with Rappoport’s assertion. It says that “the simplest, most straightforward explanation of the phenomenon of horror is that sometimes people enjoy being scared.” That is exactly what Rappoport is suggesting. Gaut even connects this enjoyment of horror films to that of the fear people experience while on roller-coasters, mentioning that people need to feel fear as the car goes along the track in order to enjoy the experience. However, in Gaut’s opinion, concluding that people enjoy being scared leads right back to the paradox of people enjoying intrinsically unpleasant emotions, so therefore it is somewhat inadequate. In that part of his article, he was still presenting the notion of the paradox of horror. However, in the end Gaut concludes that, “there is no paradox of horror,” because there is no “conceptual problem about the enjoyment of negative emotions in real life, or in fiction.” Therefore, perhaps Gaut would agree with Rappoport’s assertion as a reasonable part of the explanation of why people enjoy horror films.

Klus, H., (2008). ‘Why Do We Enjoy Horror Films?,’ Ezine Articles. Retrieved November 4th, 2009, from http://ezinearticles.com/?Why-Do-We-Enjoy-Horror-Films?&id=1060951.

Rappoport, L., (1997). ‘K-State Professor’s Opinion:
Why We Like to Watch Scary Movies,’ Kansas State University. Retrieved November 4th, 2009, from http://www.k-state.edu/media/newsreleases/seasonal/listscarymovies.html.

I think that the way I present myself also has quite a bit to do with my family and the values and beliefs they communicated to me. No one in my family has more than ear lobe piercings, and no one has tattoos. The one exception is one of my cousins. She has many colorful tattoos on her arms. Though no one in my family is really thrilled with the way she presents herself, no one says anything about how she should not get tattoos or such large tattoos because it is really her own personal decision. Just because she chooses to present herself in that way is no reason for us to shun her by any means. The majority of my family would never make the same decisions about personal adornment, but we do not condemn those who do because we really value each other.

Another value in my family that is supported by our dress was thriftiness. To a certain extent, appearances were not important to us. No one in my family buys the latest fashions. In fact, the members of my family are usually happiest shopping at sales or even at Goodwill. Everyone shares about how they bought their really cute clothes for 50% off plus an extra 20% less with a coupon. The clothes we buy look nice, and we get them at a great deal. Even spending a lot of money on a prom dress for me was difficult. So, instead of buying one at full price, my mom and I shopped around and got one that was on sale, and we used a coupon to get it for a quarter of the original price. Growing up, I saw everyone in my family get excited about things like that. They were proud to say how much they saved rather than how much they spent. No one dresses horribly, but I would never say anyone in my family was up-to-date on the latest fashions. That value is one to which I still find myself attached. I think even if I had all the money in the world, I still would not be able to pay $150 for a pair of shoes like some people do.

My peer community has a variety of beliefs. One of my friends is a member of a sorority, and she is proud of that, so she proudly wears her jackets and t-shirts with her sorority letters on them. She is also the one who wears those expensive designer jeans because she values being in style. I have another friend who values the environment, so she carries around her Klean Kanteen and wears a “save the earth” button on her eco-friendly tote that she carries her school supplies in. Another friend of mine values being truly unique. She likes to wear pants with crazy patterns on them and dresses that she buys at vintage shops. In her opinion, it is important to feel comfortable with yourself, and she feels like it is unnecessary to wear the latest styles because it shows a lack of self-confidence. Though I would disagree with her about that, I could understand why she might think that way. So, I just watch her go along in her mismatched outfit that makes her so unique. Overall, I think all of my friends have somewhat different styles. However, each of those styles reflects their own personal beliefs and values, just like my style reflects mine.

Telfer may not be pleased with the information in the article. I doubt whether something that someone considers a “minor art” should ever be in a museum. However, the fact that probably no one would intend to eat the art sold at the exhibits might appeal to her. This type of food art would be merely to look at rather than to taste or smell. Therefore, she may have to reconsider her arguments about taste and smell being “cruder” senses because the point of this edible art is not to eat it. However, this is still food. It would interest me to hear her opinion about food art such as this where it would be preserved and not eaten. Would she still consider a chef an artist who does not compose his or her own music? It would be interesting to find out.

Korsmeyer would have a similar opinion. However, I think her arguments are clear enough that food does not have the historical significance to be real art that she would not support the exhibits in the museum. In her opinion, it seems that the point of food as art involves the aesthetic aspects of taste and texture. Therefore, having this edible art that no one would actually eat may not be something she supported because it would eventually just decay without anyone being able to appreciate that aspect of it.

Silberman, V. (2002, May). “Appetizing Art: From Chocolate Syrup to Corn Chips, Food Is Being Used as an Artistic Material by a Growing Number of Contemporary Artists – Food Art – Brief Article” Art Business News [On-line Newsletters]. Retrieved October 24, 2009 from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0HMU/is_5_29/ai_85916888

The second article I found asks the question outright, “Is Food Art?” by Susan Smillie. When Jonathan Jones raised the question about why food should not be considered art, it sparked debate. The idea that a chef would be invited to an art show caused controversy in the Spanish art community because there is no widely accepted definition of art, so some hold the opinion that food is art while others would disagree. Jones, who raised the question at the beginning of the article, decided that food could not possibly be art because chefs in restaurants make food to please their customers. However, Smillie argues that there are some chefs who do not make food just to please their customers, but instead think of art as an expression of their creativity. After presenting both sides of the argument, Smillie concludes that the decision about whether food is art should be left up to the viewer to decide.

I think that Telfer would not support either of these two arguments. She seems to want to make a final decision about whether food is art or not, so leaving it up to the viewer to decide would probably not be appealing to her. Telfer would instead say that food should be a minor art, and not simply art like the chefs who consider their work of great importance may believe. In addition, she would not accept the idea that food is not art because in her article she agrees that it is a minor art. Therefore, I think Telfer would want to further explore the opinions and arguments both sides had to offer on the subject rather than just compromising and leaving it up to the viewer to decide.

Korsmeyer would make a similar point, but argue that it is not important to argue whether food is art or not. In her opinion, food does not qualify as art, but instead it is a minor art. On the one hand, she would argue that food does not have historical complexity to be considered art. On the other hand, she does acknowledge that authors such as Telfer, Revel and Douglas make good enough cases to claim that art is in some sense a fine artistic achievement. Therefore, like Telfer, she would probably find herself not arguing for either side presented in the article, but rather wanting there to be a compromise saying that food is a minor art.

Smillie, Susan (2007, May). “Is Food Art?” Word of Mouth Blog. Retrieved October 24, 2009 from http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/wordofmouth/2007/may/24/theatreoffood

Dissanayake coined the term paleoanthropsychobiological. She came up with this word to suggest several aspects of art. The root “paleo” suggests that art as an idea contains all of human history, and the root “anthro” suggests that art includes every human society. Dissanayake uses the rest of the word, “psychobiological” to imply that art is something that humans need psychologically and emotionally, and also that art can evoke an emotional or psychological response. She believes art is a natural and necessary biological trait.

What does Dissanayake mean by the phrase “making special”? How does it relate to art?

The term “making special” is one that Dissanayake uses to refer to the transformation of an object from the ordinary to something more unique. To “make special” involves taking more time and using more control to create something of a higher quality and to achieve the best result possible. The end product should make an impact on those who see it so they can appreciate and remember it. This term relates to art because Dissanayake believes all artists should “make special.” Through art, people should have significant, memorable and heightened experiences. Dissanayake believes that art’s behavior is basic and vital to the evolution of humans, so all art should be made special to promote that image.

Family
Friendship
Community
Personal Development
Integrity

————

Security

Personal Accomplishment

Enjoyment

Health

Service

Location

Wisdom

Independence

Loyalty

Leadership

Power

Creativity

Wealth

Expertness

Prestige

Today I spent most of my time on schoolwork. I had four classes to attend, homework to do and school-related emails to send. All of that activity would fall under the categories of personal development and personal accomplishment. Those activities also fall under the category of enjoyment because I enjoyed working on my assignments and going to class. Even with all of the academic activity I had going on, I still made time for other parts of my life I value. I called my mom multiple times because I truly value my family. I made time to spend with my friends and to say hello to my co-workers. They are all my friends and part of the community I chose to be a part of.

All of these activities I pursued today were related to my top five values. Though I did not get to spend time with my family, I spent time talking to one of my family members, which is as close as I can get most of the time. During those conversations, I asked about other members of my family because I wanted to be sure they were doing well. The time I spent talking to my friends was also in accordance with my top five values. The reason I take the time to talk to them and spend time with them is because they are people I value and their friendship is something I do not want to allow to fade away. When it comes to academic work, I feel more pressure to make time in my schedule for it. However, anything I do relating to schoolwork is in compliance with two of my top five values. Learning helps me develop as a person, which is something I value highly. The people who were a part of my childhood taught me that learning is important, and it is also important to do have integrity. That is why I find it important to learn and live in a way that complies with my moral standards. I feel as though part of having integrity is being responsible and completing important tasks on time. For that reason, I feel proud of myself when I work hard and get my assignments done, especially if I get them done well before they are due like I did today. Overall, I think I do pretty well at living in accordance with my values. Why would I live any other way?

~ Joyce

Response to blog at http://moralfibre.co.za/blog/2009/09/caster-is-a-woman-stop-being-such-girls/

I believe the controversy over the gender identity of Caster Semenya is pathetic. As an individual who identifies as a female, and always has, society should accept Caster as such. In my opinion, she should not have to endure the scrutiny she is facing because of the amazing accomplishments she has made as a female. However, this issue brings an intriguing question to the world’s stage; what is the determining factor in deciding whether an individual is male or female?

As “vincenthofmann” suggests, the answer to that question depends on the perspective of the individual answering it. Obviously, not everyone in the world subscribes to the beliefs of the Essentialists who would identify an individual as male or female simply by considering their physiological. Instead, many individuals throughout society would consider the gender individuals identify with, which I believe is the better approach. Someone who identifies as a female, like Caster Semenya, should be able to live her life as a female.

A strict interpretation of gender identity such as that should not be prevalent in society. Individuals should be able to act naturally and be accepted for who they feel they are, male or female, regardless of the labels people would be naturally inclined to attach to them. The black and white definitions some deem correct merely propagate the stereotypes many members of society battle on a daily basis.

In order to progress as a society, we must abandon our preconceived notions of what makes a man or a woman. I agree that if Caster Semenya has masculine physical characteristics, she probably should not be allowed to compete as a female. Men and women have different levels of physical ability because of their differing physiological make-ups; ergo, they have different levels of ability. It would not be fair for females to compete against males because of their physical differences.

However, in the case of Caster Semenya, questions about her gender should not have been raised in the wake of accomplishments. Instead, the question of her gender identity should have come up when she began competing. To call it into question after the fact seems like a case of sour grapes. However, perhaps the opportunity to examine the meaning of gender and gender identity presented to society as a result of this controversy makes up for some of the impropriety of those who brought up the issue. In the end, it may be beneficial in raising awareness of this issue and provide a clearer standard for the future.

As for the comment made by “Moses” on this topic, I think it is a mixed bag. While I agree that Caster should be able to live with whatever gender she identifies as, I would not go so far as to say that the best women of all time would not measure up to male finalists. I am certain that in some sport women have advantages over men and the records held by women cannot always fall short of male finalists; I would be surprised if that was the case. However, as I said before, Caster’s masculine traits may give her an advantage in female competition, but I would not agree that she should be forced to compete in men’s events because she does not see herself as a man. In addition, calling into question the genders of the Williams sisters is simply ludicrous and rather petty.

~ Joyce