Pixels

So here are my comments on the blogs of others.

Hessa: I saw yours on your blog. I thought it was both simple and beautiful. I like how some of it is left empty and kind of transparent.

Luis: I loved the tiger! It was a very interesting view of the eyes and it ended up coming out very detailed.

Sebastian: I remember playing with those things (or at least similar ones) when I was a kid. Brings back memories. It was a good idea for a grid project. I like how the grid is technically made out of circles, since most of the class did very traditional, square grids.

Danielle: It was interesting how you chose to sew flags into the plastic grid. The fact that it was sewn gives it the feel of a human touch, which is a good thing, since mostly everything we see today is more mechanical. The subject involving the flags seemed very personal to you.

Emily: I like the use of m&ms a lot. The monkey came out quite cute. The contrast of the orange and yellow with the brown made it very colorful.

Francesca: Obviously, I love everything that you do. The shark is awesome. It was made primarily out of cards, but I like how the eye was a poker chip, adding in a different material, which is something that I think only you did. Also, the use of the different shapes in the grid made it quite interesting.

Jon: I actually liked how you decided to choose a three dimensional grid. It put an interesting spin on the project. Of course it would have been quite difficult to accomplish filling in every one of those space, but I liked it as you turned it in.

Roy: Haha. That is an amusing elf. I like the pose that he is in, getting ready to strike!

Hannah: Gorgeous dog. I actually considered using a dog on mine as well. The use of bubble wrap was quite creative. I never would have thought of that. I also like its transparency, which added to its visual interest.

Sarah: That is a very pretty, colorful grid with an interesting design. You should display it somewhere. Good luck getting it off your floor!

Amanda: Yours was so cute! You were the only one to use light in your grid, which I found quite interesting. It would be great for someone who is a fan of that character.

Steve Jobs

I found Jobs's speech truly inspirational. Many commencement speeches are repetitive and all of the addressers say the same things. "Always work hard, cherish those around you, and follow your dreams." While Jobs's speech did touch upon some of that, I thought that his was somehow different. It was one of the only commencement addresses I have heard that I didn't want to fall asleep during! His very personal story made what he was saying seem real and not some cliché, scripted speech. I was a little surprised that he mentioned typography during the speech. (Seriously, what non-designer credits typography as a part of their success??? A lot of people don't even know what typography is.) But after he said this and especially after watching the video about the nerds (which I got my boyfriend, Corey, to want to watch :-) ) it made sense to me why Apple was so successful. So many times, at a liberal arts school, you hear non-art majors complaining about the one art class they have to take. While this annoys me, since I have to take classes with these people, and I often feel that they are watered down because of them, Jobs proves that there really is a reason for the University of Tampa to make students take an art course (although I think this goes over the majority of those students' heads.) Jobs focused a lot on the design of the Apple. This clearly shows, since when I have the typical fight with Corey over whether Macs or PCs are better, my main argument against PCs is "But they are ugly. I can't use this." (He doesn't understand this. He claims that if they work then it doesn't matter. Pfffft.) Using my Mac is so much more pleasant, since it is visually pleasing and I can use it with ease. But I think Jobs's calligraphy course taught him even more than just design. Taking an art course teaches you how to be creative. While Apple is a computer company that needed programmers to be successful, Jobs attributed a lot of its success to the fact that many of the programmers there were also artists, musicians, etc. When programming, creativity will give you ideas that you never would have thought of. It gets you to think outside of the box (although I despise that term.) So having a team full of people who were in some way creative probably gave Apple very innovative solutions to the problems that they encountered along the way. When Jobs found himself or his company stuck in a corner, he probably let his right brain take control and come up with solutions that most people use the left brain for. When I think about his speech, I can only hope that art has also taught me how to solve those seemingly impenetrable obstacles. I hope that I have allowed my typography to influence my everyday life.

Mark Stock

This is an amazing artist, who, after seeing him at Electronics Alive, has still left an impression upon me today. I find it rare for someone to be extremely intelligent both mathematically/scientifically and artistically. This is not to say that there are people out there who are both (I consider myself fairly in the middle), but usually, someone leans towards being either more left brained or more right brained. The extent of how much more left or right brained someone is depends on the person, of course. With Stock, I find it difficult to determine what he leans towards, from hearing him talk (I would actually be curious to hear his response to what he thinks of that question.) He works in a scientific field, and the work and programming that he does is extremely brilliant. However, he also uses that knowledge to create art on the computer that very few would be capable of replicating. It is rare to hear of someone who is so strong both scientifically and artistically. My favorite work of his art is the one that involves images of pages with his computer coding, combining into a huge mess. It is fascinating that he would even be able to come up with some sort of code to get the coding to be displayed in that way. I also find it amusing that he chose to display the coding he did for his thesis that way. I cannot help but think of it as a way to express his state of mind after completing each and every one of those papers.

World's Fastest Computer

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/166542/20110621/world-s-top-10-fastest-supercomputers-of-2011-tianhe-1a-china-k-computer-japan-nasa-supercomputer-ja.htm

According to the link above, the fastest computer is the "K Computer" in Japan. It is located at the RIKEN Advanced Institute for Computational Science in Kobe, and is capable of performing over 8 quadrillion calculations per second. It is supposedly more powerful than the next five most powerful computers combined.

According to "How stuff works", the "human brain" is the fastest computer, though. I would find that a legitimate answer, if the human brain were a computer (although who is to say it's not?) However, the website very roughly estimates the brain to be able to calculate 10 quadrillion instructions per second, and considering how rough of an estimate that is, the K Computer might even be able to beat that.

Old Time Radio

http://www.otrcat.com/betty-white-collection-p-49062.html

I chose to listen to a show with Betty White, since she was one of the people from that time who I recognized and thought I might have an interest for. The radio was definitely different at that time. I believe that there was less time spent on commercials, all of which were for life insurance. The radio show was, of course, a narrated story with actors. This is far different from the radio that we have today, which either features music or is talk radio. I did find the story mildly entertaining. It wasn't the most interesting plot or extremely well-written, but I thought that the actors did a good job, which made it entertaining to listen to. The overly-controlling mother-in-law was amusing (although, I would hate to be in the daughter's shoes!) and she reminded me a bit of the mother on Everybody Loves Raymond. The one thing that I found very interesting about this was the commentary done intermittently during the show. The show was based on crime and the commentators used that to send a very direct message to the listeners. They tied the story into how policemen were underpaid and needed to be supported by the public, in order to offer more protection. It also mentioned their hard work and diligent investigations. I felt almost as if the show had an "ulterior motive," since it was aimed at influencing the way that the listeners acted. My favorite part of the show was when the actor said, "Next time, cheat an honest man!"

TV History

It is difficult to determine the most important event in television history, since it is impossible to determine what would have changed, had a particular event never occurred. I decided to use the first time presidential debates were aired on television as one of the most important events in TV history. The Nixon and Kennedy debates were aired in 1960. I find this to be important, since I'm sure it would have affected the way Americans viewed politics. It is one thing to read about potential candidates in the newspaper, but quite another to see the candidates on television. Seeing a politician and being able to hear him talk make a large impact on how you view him. Instead of reading about political issues and the platform of each candidate, it is easier to be affected by the personality of the candidates while viewing them on television. This can be both a good and a bad thing; on one hand, it is easier to drift away from the actual politics and focus more on the guy that you "like" more. On the other hand, for some, it is easier to read someone when you see the way that they speak, and by watching television, you might learn more about the candidate than you would from the paper. Either way, I'm sure that television helped to increase the amount of people who were politically aware, since there are those who do not like to read, but will watch politicians speak if on television. This even was a precursor to other political events being aired on television, such as Kennedy's assassination being broadcast live on television, and Nixon's public resignation airing on television. I am sure that television has helped impact political outcomes in very significant ways. I think more people are politically aware today due to television, since I do know a lot more people who watch the debates than who read the newspapers. Of course, politics being available on television eventually lead to Fox News, so it has both its positive and negative effects.

Scopophobia

Singing in the Rain

In 1952, Singing in the Rain was a happy musical number. It featured a pleasant, happy-go-lucky guy, who was outdoors during a storm, with his umbrella, singing and dancing in the streets, not caring about the rain falling around him. It was a song about happiness and enjoying oneself in any circumstances. In 1971, with the movie A Clockwork Orange this song was used in a violent rape scene. I do not think the purpose was to change the meaning of this song, but rather to add irony to the situation. The group of adolescent Psychopaths chose what I believe to be a random woman, and beat her and her husband up to the rhythm/melody of this tune. They enjoyed participating in the ultra violence, and used this song as a means to make the situation more disturbing. They chose to sing about happiness while ruining someone's life. I'm sure this was to make the act much more disturbing by sporting a happy carefree attitude during the rape; they wanted to show the woman that they enjoyed it, and her loss of dignity and a regular life meant nothing to them. They weren't going to acknowledge to the woman the horror of the act they were doing; they wanted to act as if it were nothing, ensuring to portray a lack of remorse, to make the situation even worse for her. So what happened between the family friendliness of the first movie and the extreme violence of the second?

This is a very difficult bog for me to write for many reasons. To begin with, I have not seen either movie. On top of that, I also do not watch very many movies and know little of movie history or what characterizes movies that belong to certain periods of time. But more importantly, I am and have always been extremely sensitive to violence. It's not that I would prefer to remain sheltered; I suppose I am abnormally empathetic. When watching violence on television or in movies, I cannot help to try to put myself in the victims shoes. I am constantly upset about how much violence occurs in our world, and even when it is a fictional character, I get sick to my stomach, and after seeing something extremely violent, it takes me a while to recover, and I am disturbed for days. When studying history, and watching the news, I am always amazed at the evilness that human beings are capable of. There are a lot of horrid things that happen daily throughout the world that we merely turn a blind eye to. As much as I wish that there were a way to fix this, it bothers me that sometimes signing a petition or donating money to a cause is the most that one can do, and does not always accomplish what was hoped. For this reason, while I have not read A Clockwork Orange, I think that books/movies like that, that analyze society and violence and try to make some sort of statement about it are important. One can hope that such works of art could maybe inspire at least someone to steer away from the direction of violence. I don't think it's easy to determine how much that is the case. However, I have read that after the release of this movie, a teenager was raped to a few guys singing Singing in the Rain and a young girl was beat by someone wearing the same clothing as the main character. I suppose the message of such stories merely goes over some people's heads. One can only hope that the book has raised more awareness of violence, or possibly even stopped more violence than that created by those who chose to pervert the overall meaning of the story. Either way, I do not enjoy seeing such scenes in movies. (oops! widow!)

Since I do not know that much about film history, I will admit that I had to do research to be able to answer the question of what happened in between the two movies (which I will credit to www.filmsite.org, in case anything needs to be sited. It is a very lengthy, in depth website of the history of film decade by decade, which I highly recommend.) From what I read, the fifties were influenced by post-war affluence, more leisure time activities, middle class values, and the rise of modern jazz. I feel that these influences can be seen in the movie Singing in the Rain, due to its carefree feeling. So the question becomes what happened afterward? However, I think that Singing in the Rain may not have been created if it were not due to censorship. Censorship had forced movies to be very tame at the time, making Singing in the Rain a very fun, interesting movie for many. Since the mid thirties, films had exhibited a seal showing they were in compliance with a certain code. In 1950, this code was revised to ban subjects like drugs, abortion, prostitution, and kidnapping, putting a big limit on what material would be shown in movies. While movies could be released without the seal, my guess is that they were not due to the fact that they thought it might affect profits. However, had controversial material not been so discouraged at the time, it is possible that a movie like Singing in the Rain would not have gotten so much attention or been so successful.

In the fifties, the youth became an important market for the film industry. However, Hollywood began to realize that it might be better to portray the youth as more rebellious than happy-go-lucky, as they were shown in the past. Since television aired a lot of family friendly material, the film industry had the option to explore making movies that were geared towards an older audience. For these, and other reasons, I am guessing that video began to leave its "harmless" state (as seen in movies like Singing in the Rain, from the early fifties) and move into other territory. Later on in the decade, films were portraying things like drugs, slang, fights, sex, and homosexuality, which may not have been the most harmful material, but were still a step towards the direction of later films like A Clockwork Orange. The production code, which movies had to pass to get the seal of "appropriateness," was weakened as the fifties progressed. By the sixties, film censorship was slowly being abolished, and began to feature more explicit sex, violence, and nudity. In 1966, the Production Code Administration was no more. The lessening of censorship definitely allowed films in the seventies to have more freedom, as in A Clockwork Orange. Graphic violence became more prominent, and even pornography (such as Deep Throat) became more mainstream. Finally, aside from just a loosening of censorship, my guess is that the book and movie of A Clockwork Orange might have been a reflection of the time as well. While I have not read or seen the movie, I can guess that during the sixties and seventies, when hippies were widespread and promoting anti-violence, it is pretty likely that this would have influenced someone to write a book or screenplay against violence. I am not sure if that is the case or not, but if so, it is interesting that someone would use such extreme violence to protest it. However, I suppose that often times extreme portrayals of the worst case scenarios can be the best way to get one's point across.

Videos from the Brain

As someone who is not a scientist, I really dislike this article. I find that technology in general has always had negative effects on society. As we move forward, we have many advantages. Better medical research, equipment, and drugs has lengthened our life expectancy. Computers, cameras, and video are used as a newer means to make art. Any average person is able to fly anywhere in the world and experience different cultures that would have been virtually unreachable (well, with the right amount of money, anyway.) However, there is also technology out there that has pretty much only negative effects. Think about weapons, especially newer ones like missiles and the atomic bomb. As much as I love computers, things like violent video games, movies, and television become overly accessible to younger children, and with a lack of parental influence, children can, in some cases, view this violence as something glorified and enjoyable, and fail to see its true impact, allowing the violence and the joy of shooting someone on screen to impact how they live their lives. Even something as harmless as the camera can be used for evil, when hidden in a woman's restroom or used to videotape an act of humiliation.

Getting back on the initial topic, when reading this article, as the thoughts of how this technology could be used were running through my head, I definitely had more negative thoughts than positive ones. While the technology can be seen as "fascinating research" on how the brain works now, when it actually becomes a common piece of technology (which it will; anything that can make money will become something that is produced and distributed to the public for profit), there are going to be many severe violations of privacy. There are already large debates over privacy issues today, for example, the Patriot Act under the Bush administration (whose name is meant to give us a positive view of something that really has nothing to do with patriotism at all.) People are upset over the body scanners in airports, as well as treatment by the TSA in certain cases when a medical condition would make a physical body scan humiliating. Taking one's personal thoughts and memories is one of the worst possible privacy violations I can think of. I cannot remotely imagine what violations this technology would lead to. I'm sure, like all technology, it will eventually become a portable, hand held device that anyone can have access to (even if it were to be illegal, most of the time, with the right connections, you can get one anyway.) The number of malicious ways to use this is innumerable. As technology evolves, generally things become smaller, more portable, and eventually wireless. I can see this technology being put on whatever the future's version of a smartphone will be. It's possible that with enough research, you could read into someone's thoughts without them even knowing, unless it is deemed illegal to use without ones consent (even though there could still be exceptions to this law.) In law enforcement, you will no longer be able to plead the fifth. If you really are innocent, but think of something that could incriminate you, such as a potential motive for the crime or some circumstantial, but false evidence that has not been discovered yet, you could easily get locked up for something that you didn't do, especially since it has not been uncommon in the past for law enforcement to incriminate the easiest person, and not continue to look for the right person. Criminals (who wouldn't care about any legality issues) could use this to find out where you live, where you'll be at a certain time, etc. Parents could use this to see what their children are really up to, which in some extreme cases, could be a good thing (i.e. preventing them from buying a gun), but in general, I think that this would do more psychological damage to that generation, which would have a landslide of negative effects. Everyone is supposed to have a side of them that they do not show to others. Kids are also supposed to rebel against their parents; it is a way of growing up, making ones own mistakes, and eventually learning how to be an adult. Many children with overbearing parents (but not all) already have been effected negative psychologically by not having specific freedoms to live ones own life; if parents can read into their children's own thoughts, this effect would worsen exponentially. This is not to mention that something like this could be used at schools. Many would say that it would be unconstitutional, but that would not stop it from happening in all situations. I've read about privacy violations that have taken place in public schools, in which the administration thought they were perfectly right. One extreme example of this was a case where students were allowed to sign out macs from the school and bring them home to do homework, etc. These computers had a program installed on them to take photographs every thirty seconds, which was supposed to be used only in case of theft. However; this program was often turned on randomly, and the principal and teachers had accessed photographs of the high school students at home, when they are supposed to have full privacy. They even included photographs of the students changing, nude in front of the camera, which the school still thought was justified, in order to see what the students were doing. If something like this can happen, I have no doubt that somewhere mind reading technology would be used for the worst in schools. On a lesser level, it was ruled by the Supreme Court that, while it was constitutional to say the pledge everyday in the morning, it was not constitutional to make a student stand up to say the pledge. I cannot count the number of students who were sent to the principal's office or suspended from not saying the pledge, in extreme cases to be backed up by the ACLU. Even in a case where something is defined by the top level court, which the same schools teach the importance of, to not be allowed, public education will ignore it, thinking that they are somehow above the law, which could end up being the same for a piece of technology like this. On another level, this technology could probably be used in private schools or the workplace, with the knowledge of the students/employees giving someone the feeling that he/she is always being watched, which I can't even imagine the level of strain that would be added to an already stressful workday. This feeling might even bleed into everyday life, giving one something similar to Post Traumatic Stress Disorder in which you always feel like you are being watched. Relationships, both with friends and significant others, would be more strained, knowing that there is nothing that is certainly secret from your partner. We could become less trusting as a society, and eventually the paranoia could lead to some sort of downward spiral. I know that some of my examples may seem extreme, but if you look at history and all of the human rights violations that have taken place, I think that that is far from the case. It is possible that our government could prevent this technology from falling into the wrong hands or being misused. However, on a worldwide scale, where there are always corrupt governments or dictatorships somewhere, I feel that if this technology were developed to its full extent, it would definitely be misused somewhere. In a world where the holocaust can happen, where there is genocide in Africa that barely makes the news, it is not a stretch that with technology we could actually turn into the 1984 world that George Orwell wrote about. As one of my favorite books, reading it at the time made it seem like complete science fiction, that was merely used as an extreme metaphor for how corrupt governments work. However, as technology advances, it begins to not seem so impossible after all.

Having gone into the many potential negative effects of such technology (if it even is possible to be developed to that state.) I will concede that there could be some advantages as well. I mentioned law enforcement misusing it earlier, but it is possible that it could have a positive effect on courtrooms as well. If a murderer were under such surveillance, he/she would have to not think about it the entire case, and we all know trying not to think about something doesn't work. If not missed, this could be used to find the location of murder weapons or how someone was killed, which could be used to gather more concrete evidence. It is possible that this study of the brain could lead to other, very important scientific discoveries. It could be used to make things easier for the deaf/mute to communicate, which could potentially make a huge difference in the life of someone with a disability. However, given how I feel about this technology and my cynicism towards the human race, I find that I would rather remain ignorant on this level than go into an entirely "science fiction" world where not even your thoughts are your own.

Stopmotions!

http://youtu.be/m9Et7UQh1tg

This one starts off by saying "50th Anniversary," which I find quite interesting. I imagined whoever created this used actors of different ages to create the stop motion, which appears to be an autobiography of his life. I find it quite interesting how the photographs make a stop motion animation, but they are photographed moving across the floor, so it is basically a stop motion within a stop motion. However, I have to say that since you can see the brand of the camera clearly at the end, and it seems to be promoting some sort of pen, I no longer think it is as "personal."

http://youtu.be/IJcUiAR8YeY

This one would be a lot more interesting to me if I played video games. But I think the use of gummy bears is interesting and it has a good soundtrack.

http://youtu.be/6MDc24K_guI

I find this quite interesting. The video is based off of very abstract sand sculptures. It is truly different in that it does not tell a story, like most stop motions. It is more visual, in an abstract way. I found myself thinking of the word "zen" as I was watching it.

http://youtu.be/1KQy_0cS7MM

I have to say that while this was made really well, technically, I found it a little boring at times, especially in the beginning when the clothes are just doing random stuff. However, since it seems to be an actual wedding invitation, I have to say that it is the most creative one I have seen. I liked the use of materials (letter magnets and tin foil) when creating the "gps."

http://youtu.be/ieN2vhslTTU

Like the last one, it was technically done very well, except I found this one very boring. It just didn't have a very interesting story for me. It also says "shot on a Nokia N8," (and clearly shows the camera set up to take pictures) so I'm pretty sure this is supposed to be promotional, like the first one. Not my favorite.