Final

I was very curious what the final would be for this class.  We had worked with so many different things this semester I did not know what it would be.  When I found out we were going to work with food I was both excited and concerned.  I had a bunch of ideas, but was wary of which would work.  The one I settled with was using fruit candy to try and make larger representations of the fruit they were flavored like.  People always seem to be making food that mimics other food, or to look like something else, cakes that look like other food, "dessert nachos", "dessert pizza"...the world of sweets is fun, but not always the most creative.  I thought it would be interesting to go with that idea and make a lemon out of lemon candy, a green apple out of green apple candy, etc....food that looks and tastes like what it is supposed to be, but is still not exactly it.

Unfortunately, the candy was not malleable in the slightest sense of the word, and even when I got it workable it was unbelievably sticky.  Soon I had given up on my idea, and turned to music.  Then it occurred to me that music (popular or otherwise) faces the same tests of time that food does.  Bands and song may be well known in their time, but soon their popularity decays, just like food, and in a much more morbid sense, the people that listen to it.  So I thought of a couple bands that I could still use my fruit idea with and make my point about music...I made a Wild Cherry ("Play That Funky White Boy") and Strawberry Alarm Clock ("Incense Peppermint").

Oddly enough, my Strawberry Alarm Clock also can relate to time in that it ended up looking like a clock....

Looking Away and Seeing Too Much

   "Vision is not a simple act of volition."

   James Elkin's "Looking Away and Seeing Too Much" artfully describes the problems artists face every time they go to create something.  I think his best description of the situation is actually in the second paragraph,"My world is full of holes, and there are probably more holes than there are objects."  I thought it was interesting that he thought of 'not seeing' things as almost a relief...as it would almost be too much to see everything...trying to look at everything leads us to assume that some things are--certain blurs and shapes and colors may coordinate with what we may think are leaves or grasses, etc.  This made me think of things I have actually been reading for my seminar (Science and Religion). In short lots of religious sightings and what not are simply results of the fact that we as humans are pattern seeking animals.  If we are not really looking at something in great detail but I coincides enough with an image we do associate in our minds with a certain object or idea, we are led to assume what we are "seeing" is that object.  
    Not only is it difficult to make art of what we haven't really "seen", but art and what we can physically see vary from each other as well....I found the comparison between photography (crisp and definite) and what the human eye sees (blurred edges, the rim of the nose, etc.) particularly interesting.  I also like how these thoughts led into the point that few think about things that cannot be seen--not fantastical things, but things that cannot be seen.  This point kind of made me think of the guest speaker Heather Harvey.  The idea of people not thinking about that which can not be seen really made me think of Ms. Harvey's points about trying to capture the fuzzy backgrounds we don't think about, the quantum physics of our world, etc.  The images were hard to make-out, but the idea of sequential images affecting how each image itself is seen apart from the group and as a whole is still affective.  The way sequences affect our emotions/thoughts/sight fit in with how "forbidden" images may deflect or draw our vision towards them.  I found the last paragraph summed up his points very well, "We want to see, but we cannot; we try not to see, and we see in spite of ourselves; we try to see everything , and we see next to nothing.  Seeing is not easy; it is not easy to do, it is not easy to control, and it is certainly not easy to understand."  I guess this all gives no meaning to 'I can't believe my eyes'.
    I am not really sure how to "respond" to the critique, having never done so before...I appreciated hearing how others saw my project--the color (or lack there of for the most part) seemed to have the desired affect...I did not take into account how the background would push or draw the eye away from the subject, so I'm really glad that was brought to my attention...ultimately I was pleased with how my project came out, in that it was what I had in mind, but I can definitely see room to improve, not based solely on the critique, but also to attempt matching my vision a little more closely.

  My research and two questions go hand in hand this week:
>Is it better to exploit the pattern seeking default of humans when creating art, or to create a piece that is compelling enough that it is "exempt" in a way from being examined for patterns?
>How do optical illusions and our pattern seeking habits relate to one and other.

http://de-conversion.com/2007/05/26/humans-a-pattern-seeking-species/http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/show/43622

Mid-Semester Summary

The first part of the Semester has been very interesting.  As I am sure I have said before, I had no idea what to expect from this class from the initial description we received over the portal.  However, we have not done one thing that I haven't enjoyed.  The underlying theme/topic of time is one I can not say I ever devoted a lot of thought to, but it is very engaging and very easy to spend a lot of, well, time thinking about.  I won't summarize everything we did (that would make the entries prior to this one on this blog a bit pointless) however, sifting back through what we have done so far, some of the things I would like to highlight include:

• Actually creating this blog- I thought keeping a blog for the class was silly at first, but documenting what we do every week is actually kind of fun now.  It is also proves very helpful when it comes to a task such as this one- a faulty memory will have no hand in hurting this entry.  I also liked changing the design of the blog, the CSS involved to change the settings was not too difficult and I had fun coordinating the colors to match the background I made, etc.

•  Speaking of a faulty memory- I particularly liked the "first memory" sketch and the topic of memory in general...not more than time in general, but thinking about how one's memory might in turn affect numerous other aspects of their lives is a little mind boggling... 
   
• I've really enjoyed all of the projects we have had so far, in and out of our sketchbooks!

As far as more topics that I would like to "integrate" into my work, I figure I will just go with what comes to me when I make something...I like planning a bit ahead, but not that far ahead.  This probably sounds lazy, but I really don't like committing too far in advance, especially if doing so is not necessary.  I'd rather just let the ideas happen :)

On a completely different subject-I've uploaded some of the pictures I took on the way to mailing our postcards.  I didn't go through to edit any after-wards, I just changed some of the settings on my digital camera as we walked.

 

3 Artists to Research...

3 ARTISTS:
Of all the artists in the world it seems a little daunting to choose just three to eventually narrow down to just one to do a research project on.  However, having essentially no limits on the selection also makes this a very easy task at the same time...I would be interested in researching:
(I have simply listed them in the order in which I decided to use them, not preference or otherwise--the names are also links to a website with information about each artist)

Pierre-Auguste Renoir 

I am interested in researching Renoir, not because he is well known, but simply because I've always liked his paintings.  For as long as I can remember we've had a copy of Girl With A Blue Ribbon(pictured above)  in the upstairs hallway outside of my room and I've always loved it.  A few summers ago my family and I actually saw an all Renoir exhibit at the National Gallery of Canada (Musée des beaux-arts du Canada) - it was great to see some of his less famous pieces right next to well-known ones.  I suppose I would research Renoir to learn more about the person behind some of the paintings I "know and love so well".

Robert Silvers

I actually know very little about the next artist (besides what is on his website).  About the extent of my knowledge of Robert Silvers is that I am fascinated by the kind of art he makes (photo mosaics-see blog post "Time Flies!...When you throw your clock away.") 

Again, curiosity is the strongest force behind this decision, but I suppose there could always be worse motivators.

and

Augustin Pajou

The third artist I chose to consider is Augustin Pajou. From out of left-field I know - a French Neoclassical Sculptor from the 1700s.  I have always had the greatest respect for sculpture, and sculptors.  The idea of carving something from a solid block in particular always takes my breath away.  The reason Pajou comes to my mind in particular is that last year we were assigned to go to any museum that contained art in D.C. to choose some pieces to write about for AP Literature.  I love going to museums, and it was really easy when I didn't live two hours from D.C. as I do now...that project however made me realize that when I used to look through museums I would usually forget to look for an artists name, so even if I remembered the title of the piece I would have to look for the work through Google Images to i.d. the piece in particular that I had seen/liked in the case that multiple artists named something the same.  One statue that grabbed my attention was Pajou's "Calliope".  I had to remember the artists name as well as the pieces name for the assignment and when I went online to find an image of the sculpture I found many of Pajou's other works beautiful as well.  I really can't get over the look of her flowing garb, I mean that's MARBLE! 

  
(Sorry about the spacing on the last part, it won't readjust for anything right now :S)

Heather Harvey!

Tuesday afternoon I attended the talk given by Heather Harvey.  She started her talk with a disclaimer of sorts telling us how she is frequently asked what her work means.  She went into great detail about how she is interested in "the human condition", especially aspects of which remain "unresolved".  She told us that she wants her work to "overlap" a number of categories/ideas, and hopes to create works that allude to a "variety" of things and "suggest something larger".   She explained further, pulling her background and interests into play...she informed the audience that she has always been interested in how the world works. Well read, or at least 'well researched', Heather referenced many well known figures in her description of her thought process- at one point even (reluctantly quoting Einstein!).  She made/quoted one point in particular that really resonated with me.  Using video games as her analogy, she presented the world as a well designed place that looks as though it works, but when you zoom in(on places that are not intended to be seen close up, like backgrounds...) the system breaks. The world from a human level makes sense, but as soon as you change perspectives everything gets very confusing(you come up against quantum physic, etc.) She used this point to turn back to her interests.  She shared that she likes focusing on things in between what we consider "known" and the "unknown" parts of our world.  The pictures of her pieces that she had with her were from a recent show "Into the Honeyed Presence Strewn".  Heather described parts of the works as attempting to capture the "chaotic ways of memories", which resulted in forms pushing out from the walls, that proved both playful and almost threatening in appearance.  This also had to do with "unseen infrastructures" such as gravity, quantum physics, and even human emotions...Some of the last things she showed us were her "Hole Drawings" in which she drilled through walls, usually former displays revealing many layers and at the same time creating a design with the holes.  One that I found particularly interesting was one she created by overlapping two Smith Charts (electrical engineering tool).  Lastly she described how she makes some of her "dumb art".  The plaster and wax pieces, and the liquid plaster she pushed through burlap, all created things that looked so different than one might expect if the process was just described without a visual example of the result (a pleasant surprise nonetheless).  Assigning meaning to these last pieces was equally challenging, according to Heather, as were the wall works, however, she did say that they could be looked at as dealing with mortality, and how it is or is not contained in the human body, and how they could be perceived as both playful and morbid works-it ultimately depends on varying perspectives, which seems to be her big point.
I have trouble recalling any other artist in particular that Heather Harvey makes me think of...I cannot say I have ever heard any one admit that they do not always have a concrete idea/message behind a piece and they want it to be ambiguous, they want it to be open to interpretation, either.  However, I found that unbelievably refreshing!  This is as close as my ideas have ever come to "relating" to another artist's.  I loved hearing her talk about trying to capture the essence of things unseen, unproven, unquestionable...I am fascinated by those concepts, and trying to create these things is so "cool" in my mind!



(I'd also like to apologize for the overuse of exclamation points in my most recent blog titles...I just noticed today that I had used them in almost all of my titles.)

Time Flies!...When you throw your clock away.

Last week we continued a bit more with "futurism" watching parts of "Man With a Movie Camera".  (The website where people can upload "modern" equivalents to scenes from the movie was really neat!)  It was strange seeing such old film "move" so differently from what one is used to seeing...I can only imagine seeing the film when it was originally made- how strange that must have looked.  While we watched, we also started to make collages from magazine clippings and our model sketches.  When we finished them on Thursday (I thought) it was interesting to see how differently each one turned out, even though we technically started with the same materials.  
Between classes we also sketched more to our instrumental music, read an excerpt from Scott McCloud's "Understanding Comics", and planned our postcards.

I had trouble choosing just one song to sketch to, but I eventually stuck with Heat by Apocalyptica.

 

The first few sketches I did, I found myself drawing objects that I thought of when I heard the music, mainly violins. So I set the song to repeat, and simply let it repeat for an hour...after a while I stopped noticing where it was in the song, as it started to blur together.  Then I sketched a few more pages (this time with colored pencils instead of oil pastels).  Not only was sketching with the pencils faster and easier, I stopped drawing objects, and found myself drawing lines that interacted with each other as the sounds did instead.  

The Scott McCloud excerpt was very different from our past reading assignments.  It was fun to read a coherent argument in comic form, that literally guided you (the reader) through the examples, talking about time in comics, by showing the narrator walking through different instances of time in comics.  I found it particularly interesting on page 108 (or 15/24) that the author had the narrator standing in front of representations of some well known futurist pieces. I also found it interesting that a line could become so stylized that it was almost universally associated with a particular action.

The collages we made led me to my research topic this week.  I was not sure
exactly what they were called, but after some searching I pin-pointed that
images made up of many smaller images (in my mind, like a super collage) are generally referred to as Photo Mosaics. Like this one for example:

 

(Close up)

 

I was also curious when they first became "big", for lack of better words.  Apparently in the 1970s,  "Leon Harmon of Bell Labs wrote article, entitled 'The Recognition of Faces', that appeared in Scientific American. To prove that very little detail was required for humans to recognize a face, he included a low resolution rendering of a grayscale Abraham Lincoln. This image of Abraham Lincoln was simply 252 tiles of varying shades of gray."  This grew into more complicated images that we see today, however,"Now, virtually all photo mosaics are made with computers, using advanced algorithms to place tile pictures in their preferred locations."  I think it would be fun to make one by hand some time, of course it would take a while.
 Resource 1  Resource 2  Resource 3  

I'm sorry if my questions this week seem rather simplistic...
-When making a collage: Can one simply throw things together, and later draw meaning from it--perhaps assuming that even though there was no initial driving idea that eventually one subconsciously chose particular things?
-In reference to the instrumental sketches:  How much of a difference does it make if one is hearing something for the very first time, or if they are familiar with it.  (In English) How differently might one react initially to something compared to someone that has positive/negative associations with a song, or sounds of the song (one may never had heard the song before, but if it sounds similar to another one...)-essentially, I suppose I am curious how much our experiences/emotions may affect how we "read" (react) something (or if there is even a way to "measure" such things.)

Back to the Futurists!

This week we worked more on sketching/switching sides of the brain, sketching a live model, and began discussing "Futurist Art".  Tuesday we experimented with different types of charcoal and paper as we also tried different techniques in sketching the model.  I think I liked the newsprint and charcoal, with quick sketches best.  It's not that I don't want to take my time, but I have found the longer I allow myself to work on something, the more mistakes I find, and the more I alter it--so for Tuesday's purposes I think the faster approach was best for me.  
Thursday we started by discussing "Futurist Art".  It was a bit of a challenge at first trying to pinpoint specific features of the works, in attempt to determine what was going on.  However, the more we looked at, the more they seemed to make sense (to me anyway)...by "make sense" I do not by any means, mean  that they looked more realistic....I mean that it was easier to approach the works to "guess" at the subject, and so on.  However, the car one kind of stumped me...it took me longer to see what was intended.
our reading from "Ways of Seeing".  The article as a whole was very interesting, but a couple parts in particular spoke to me.  I know we already talked about these points in class, but I suppose to "re-cap" my thoughts:  The points about photography not being as mechanic as we think, how the photographer's choice of subject, among other things, can alter how we see the scene, how market value can affect a pieces popularity, and reproductions can alter a piece --I found these aspects most compelling.  Again we also brought our questions up in the discussion, but I really liked the concept of how replicating a photo might differ from replicating a painting-how the quality/size may affect this, etc.   
Next we played a few of the instrumental pieces the class had brought in, and experimented with Wacom Bamboo Tablet©.  Listening and trying different colors and lines in Adobe Photoshop© we got used to drawing on a flat surface with a pen and it showing up on the screen...having never used one of tablets before, it took me a little while to get used to it, but once I did it was really cool to create on the computer without using a mouse.  
For my research this week, I was still curious about "futurism" in general.  My research took me across a variety of pieces, some of which we had seen in class.  One that particularly grabbed my attention was Funeral of the Anarchist Galli (1911) by Carlo Carrà.  This piece is described as Carrà's most famous work, and that it is a good example of futurism as it, "embodies Futurist ideals with its portrayal of dynamic action, power, and violence."

Resource 1 - Resource 2

I am not sure whether it is the use of reds, or the overlapping of shadows, but this piece just left me trying to follow all of the motions--however, every time I tried to move off of the center figure I was drawn back...the rest feels so chaotic, but this figure seems to stand out, while still blending in(colors are the same...).  Perhaps this is just me...I suppose I can always come back to looking at it after a break, and that might also change how I see it?
For my two questions, I suppose it would help to point out that these ideas were affected by the beginning parts of the article we read last week:
-If the way we see things is affected by what we know or what we believe, would it be ideal for everyone to know and believe the same things to "guarantee" in a sense a universal reaction to something?  Or could that be a dangerous thing to not have different interpretations?  (Not for everyone to think the same way, but to evoke the same emotional reactions....)
-The article also states, "Soon after we can see, we are aware that we can also be seen."  This made me think of little kids-'if I can't see you, you can't see me', and peek-a-boo, etc.  What if we never developed the sense of being seen? Again, this requires explanation...What if we understood that we can be seen, but never got the sense that we could...would that change how we looked at others?  I am not really sure if I can put this thought into very clear words...I will work on this one...

Karly Klopfenstein!

This past Monday I attended the visiting artist talk.  (In my opinion)Karly Klopfenstein has a very interesting and amusing(in a good way) art style.  Graduating from Saint Mary's in 1997 Karly soon found out (the hard way) that graduate school was not for her, and moved to Florida where she began creating large scale temporary art in an outdoor sculpture group.  Her first works involved a large, red, satin ribbon-- "The Gift", "Red Tree", "Red Tide".  While I think it is interesting that she reused her material, I thought the idea felt a bit repetitive, three times in a row.  However, of the three I think the "Red Tide" was the most striking--I think that one had the best message behind it (of the three).  Which is actually a point that stuck out to me- she seems to have a good general message behind her recent works.  Her idea about naming things with puns/play on words gives her already creative ideas an extra dash of spunk. "Carpet Bomb"-- her hand made replica of "Fat Boy" that she covered in hook rug, seemed to me the perfect example of Karly's general thought process.  Taking an object/icon/idea that is associated with death/destruction/other bad things and cover it with  a soft rug, or something else that one might associate with comfort/home/other good things...a contradiction, with a name that is a play on words...it seems like a very affective approach.  
Her Macrame Guns are amazing!  They may not be covered in elaborate patterns, but the attention to detail she puts into her works is astonishing!  She appears to put lots of research into all of her projects as well.  The fact that she would attempt a tank of any size is impressive, but the scale that she decided to model hers upon is both impressive, and maybe a tad insane.  The fact that she also decided to incorporate the "war rug" idea again connects the tank with her other works, and makes it stand out for the scale on which she is using the technique compared to what she has done in the past.
I can not say I have ever built anything as impressive as a tank, but I did attempt to build a fountain with a friend out of cardboard and duct tape for a middle school event one time.  It looked much better once we had spray painted it of course, needless to say, cardboard is not one of the more impressive construction materials--which is why I found Karly's explanation of how she combined a wood frame, with cardboard, plaster and fiberglass, keeping her tank both sturdy and portable very interesting.  I also have done "crafty" things, like hook rugs for example, from a young age, and still enjoy making things that I can look at later and say "I made that."   I think this contributes to my appreciation both of why the tank is such an undertaking and why she might be driven to do such a thing in the first place.  
I like that Karly is trying to get her (to extremely generalize) anti-war message through irony and pieces that obviously take a lot of time a effort.  I am not exactly sure how this may be similar or even differ from "my ideas", but I love the idea of changing how someone might think of something through irony!
I also had trouble coming up with one artist in particular that  Karly's work made me think of, I can't say I've ever seen anything like it, but I do remember seeing some pictures of some hook rugs that were rather intricate and each unique, as I could remember.  It took a little time, but thanks to Google, I found a couple pictures I recognized that eventually led me to the artist's website.  Deanne Fitzpatrick (http://www.hookingrugs.com/index.html)
makes bold and unique hook rugs that she says are inspired by everyday life...I guess I never really thought of hook rugs in the sense that they were "art" before, but looking at Ms. Klopfenstein's and  and Ms. Fitzpatrick's I definitely have a new appreciation for the form.  I can't wait for Karly Klopfenstein to finish her tank, I'd love to see it some time.  I hope those who do see it, or any of her pieces, can appreciate her message of thought and responsibility for our actions, or at least take something similar away from these impressive piece of both thought and handy work.

Memory all alone in the electrical brain light...

This week we continued our discussion of Whitrow's "What is Time".  Part one proved to be even more interesting as we took it apart as a class. I was surprise by how many people were irked by the statement about animals living in a continual present; apparently most pets show more of an understanding than Whitrow suggested?  Then we tested our speed-sketching and imaginations with "Win, Loose, or Draw Game"(?).  Some of the ideas were genuinely neat, and some were genuinely confusing ( I really id not understand what a "sheeple" was or how on earth to draw such a thing until Ashok explained his idea).

Thursday we started with a warm-up in our sketchbooks, in which we drew "how we got here".  I split my page diagonally, and drew a detail oriented map from my dorm building to Montgomery Hall, and on the other half,the path I take through Montgomery Hall to actually get to the class room.  Then we started watching the movie "Memento" directed by Christopher Nolan.  The main character (Leonard) has not short term memory and is living his life through his tattoos and Polaroid pictures (I was curious when this movie was made/intended to take place because I haven't seen Polaroid film almost anywhere for a while now...I used to use it all the time until I got my own digital camera in 9th grade.)  Next catch to the movie?  The plot is not linear.  Bouncing back and forth between color and black and white scenes, the story weaves in and out, overlapping events until the audience feels almost as lost as Leonard does (waking up in strange "new" places all the time).  I cannot wait to see how it all ties together in the end(or rather, the beginning?)

Our most recent reading was the second installment of "What is Time".  The "Time and Ourselves" section left me felling very different from the first part.  The beginning of the final paragraph made me pause, "Our emotional life also influences our experience of time."  This idea combined with the closing thought of "social evolution" really pulled a lot of points Whitrow makes together for me.  The repetition of consciousness/conscious auditory experience/subconscious auditory etc. stuck out as I read; especially at the beginning when Whitrow says, "...time is one of the forms of our intuition.  That is to say, it does not characterize external objects but only the subjective mind that is conscious of them."  So time is only partially existent--it is real (only) in the parts of our mind that we use to perceive it?  Whitrow again compares/contrasts people to other animals--this time equating feelings of "fatigue" and our mind power to learn how to characterize "the data of our experience".  Going on to talk about electrical connections in our brains and studies about whether of not these electrical messages can be inherited or absorbed (worms...ew), this section focuses on what memory and our mental perception of time has to do with how we perceive it personally more so than the first section.  If I had to choose one sentence that really made the article for me however, it would not be one addressing the conscious or subconscious interpretation of time, but one on page 25, talking about what memory means to us and how it has been associated with us:"Memory has long been regarded as the concomitant of our sense of personal identity."

I found the discussion we had in class about our "first memories", and the idea about whether or not they were actual memories or just situations that have been drilled into our minds with videos, pictures, and stories, just fascinating!  There are some memories that I have, that I know have not been affected by an external source, because they are just little parts of my existence, that for some reason I have a vivid recollection of living.  Others are clear, but that may (or may not be because I have a physical representation of this memory (I had some pictures on my external memory (Funny, my computer's external memory storage more specifically) so I thought I would use them to help illustrate my point). 

                                 

For example, I do not recall that hug at all, but it obviously happened.  On the other hand, I vividly remember playing piano and singing with Katie (the little blond girl).  These pictures were could have been taken a couple hours apart at most, yet I have no recollection of one of them, and a crystal clear of the other (improve piano is a very intense art, especially for toddlers).  I can still hear parts of the piano, and there is no sound with this picture...so that I credit as an authentic memory, not one that I may "created" with bits and pieces of a hoe video for example.

 

Another thing I found very interesting upon further reflection, was the thought of the realization of our own names.  I think I equated my name to possession almost before I realized that it meant "me".  I named all of my baby dolls after myself, and the color of their outfits.  I remember pushing Blue Mariana and Yellow Mariana around in strollers through the foyer of my home, "shopping", and then taking them back to the family room, and "cooking" for them with my blue, white, yellow, and pink accented kitchen set--plastic food, utensil, dishes, and all!  They were my dolls, Mariana's dolls and I named them accordingly I suppose.

 

Which still led me to wonder if memories can be "created" with pictures and videos, or they can last for decades with out any visual or audio ques, then could they be recovered without the use of the ques?  The article referenced different kinds of memory, and what that has to do with the wiring of the brain, etc.  This article seemed to suggest similar concepts:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11739-lost-memories-could-be-restored-by-rewiring-brain.html

The person being interviewed in this article (Li-Huei Tsai) suggests that if what they were looking into (a few years back now) was possible, that memories that we might consider "lost" are still "saved" somewhere, much like Whitrow, suggesting that we just need to learn how to draw them out.  If this is the case, I still wonder what kind of progress has been made in this field-degenerative diseases are still a problem, so obviously this solution has yet to be perfected...

 

Which leads me to my specific questions:

-Are we ever able to really determine/prove if a memory we pull from our "blocks of wax" is genuine, or if we have learned it through repetition of pictures/stories/etc.  (Or is it just a matter of trusting ourselves, that we have original data running through our head, that has yet to be altered by a current reminder (ie. photos)?

-How much do our emotions tie into how we remember something, how long we remember it, how we look back on something as certain intervals of time pass...we humans are an emotional species, does that change how we are "wired" drastically, say from other primates?  Or do we just use the same wiring a little differently?  Does emotion have nothing to do with the process at all?  Do we just think our feelings have something to do with it?  

 

 

Captain's Log, Blogdate 090210

Thursday we watched another music video directed by Michel Gondry. We then disected it in a way similar to how we examined Come Into My World by Kylie Minogue. These videos mafe me think of some other music videos that I consider visually engaging-they may not have as "deep" narratives as those we watched in class, but they are still interesting:
OK GO
RJD2
FINGER ELEVEN
Then, we discussed our first reading assignment, "The Whole Ball Of Wax," by Jerry Saltz. While we started with the question posed by the article, could art change the world, we also moved onto other thoughts spurred by a variety of art pieces ranging from cave paintings of early man to Girl With A Pearl Earring and The Mona Lisa.

In regard to the reading "What is Time?" by G.J. Whitrow:
Starting with a brief history of the Mayas' (Mayans'?) concept of time being both "magical" and "polytheistic", and the expectation that it would repeat in "cycles of 260 years," Whitrow sets the stage for discussing the current way we view time, and how we (humans) got to thinking of time the way we do today. Whitrow does not just draw on history to construct this article however; one of the first points he makes is, "It seems that all animals except man live in a continual present." This led me to question, what if we did live in a continual present (or the mindset that life is a contiual present)? Our lives, our world, are so centered on/around time that while we probably could survive, life would cease to exist as we know it. Of course that rather dismal thought can easily be tied into Whitrow's next point about man coping with life ceasing in the form of eternal sleep we've come to know as death. Moving forward from burial traditions, Whitrow contiues to compare/contrast various interpretations of time which seem to fluxuate between magically focused and occasionally scientifically organized.
Some of the things that stuck out in my mind as I read were not only the ways in which Chrisitanity has shaped so much about the way time is viewed/measured today, but how much Christianity absorbed from other traditions/ways of thinking at the time its calendars/etc. were taking shape. Another thing that caught my attention was how different the linear and cyclical views of time were. The Stoics belief, "according to Nemesius" that time would literally repeat itself and everything would be "just as it was" reminded me faintly of how time is viewed in Hiduism (to my understanding anyway/he also eludes to this late one)...time/life repeating itself until it has been perfected/corrected, until there is no lonfer a need to repeat itself again. As the article progresses, Whitrow seems to get more technical in his explanations discussing why the "eschatology" (or undestanding of "the end") of the "early Hebrew prophets" was as it was, and further discussion of the rivalry between "magical time" and "scientific time". According to Whitrow the scienetific approach did not overcome the magical one until the "tempo" of everyday life for the majority of people changed-- enter "time is money". As scientific views pushed forward more people began to pursue routes like that of Kepler, rejecting "quasi-animistic magical" (spirits in inanimate things) and ways of measuring this new scientific time became steadily more accurate with the invention of the pendulum. I think it would have been slightly more effective to save the closing sentence of his second to last paragraph for the very end of the section, but wither way I think including James Hutton's conclusion helps to fraw this section together well- "We find no vesitge of a beginning - noprospect of an end."

Two questions?
I was not really sure what to question this week, but I was really grabbed by the "continual present" idea that was mentioned in the article, so I suppose a couple of questions could be drawn from that idea alone...
-If one were to equate living a "continual present" as "living in the moment" can one live in a continual present at times and not at others?  Does it have to be an all or nothing existance?
-As the generally accepted view of time is at the center of international business, among other things of course, would not accepting the popular view on time doom a business, a nation, a people to failure, or exclusion from the rest of the world? (Ref. The aboriginie children not grasping time the same way other children did...)

I spent a lot of my time setting up my new computer and trying to get my internet here to work with my odd virus-protection software, so I did not have much time to just research other things.  However, I did try to put some time into making this blog my own- so I decided to edit one of the basic templates.  I just messed around with the settings for text style, link colors, CSS stuff, etc., for now anyway.  I also made my background with an amusing web page that allows anyone to make electronic Jackson Pollock works! (http://www.jacksonpollock.org/)  Oh, and "callidus" means "clever" in Latin (Yes, I took a dead language in high school, so bits and pieces show up when I write-sorry).