Dreamachine

The dreamachine was invented by Ian Sommerville. Apparently, this was after reading the book The Living Brain, by William Grey Walter. Although I also read that his friend persuaded him to do it after having a hallucination while sleeping on a bus from the flickering of the sunlight through the trees as the bus was moving. The light flickers between 8 and 13 pulses per second. The frequency range corresponds to alpha waves, which are electrical oscillations that are present in the human brain while relaxing. I hate reading scientific definitions like that, since they never make sense to me. However, I did find that kind of interesting, because I have an alarm clock that can wake you up using music-like sound that somehow corresponds to alpha waves (it must be the speed of the beats or the frequencies of the pitches or something. I forget.) I've never used it to wake up, but I have used it to try to get to sleep a few times or when trying to relax. It has an entirely different effect than the dreamachine; however, I find it interesting that we can study neurological patterns like that and use them to effect our bodies/minds in certain ways. According to an article, this machine was once used in "psychedelic circles" but is now mainly used by scientists doing research on hallucinations. Much to my surprise, I cannot find much other information on the dreamachine, although I'd really like to know more about it. As someone who has always been sensitive to light (I have to have a filtered screen protector on my laptop) I was surprised when I was not given a headache from looking into the dreamachine. This is something that interests me.

Asylum

The intent of this piece of video art was to create an environment where one doesn't know who or where they are, what is real or what is not real. I collaborated on this piece with my roommate, Bebe, a psyche major. While I would never be able to major in psychology, because it both fascinates and scares me, the two of us have had many discussions on psychology, especially on the stigmas associated with mental illness. While making this piece, I was thinking about the issues that we all face at some point in time, such as feeling like we are living multiple lives or have multiple personalities. While this video would obviously be a huge exaggeration to what most people feel, I find it interesting that many characteristics of mental illnesses are just extreme versions of characteristics that we all share from time to time (i.e. depression, anxiety, paranoia.) To me this shows that, as humans, a lot of what we go through can be traced to the chemicals in our brains and that we have a lot more in common with our neighbors than we might think. I feel that when one watches this video, a philosophical question arises: if one were truly experiencing a world like this movie (hallucinations, delusions, fear), to an extreme extent, is he/she really responsible for his/her actions?

Performance Art

Beatniks

The term "Beat Generation" came about in 1948. It was introduced by Kerouac and was meant to describe the underground, anti-conformist youth that were in New York at the time. "Beat" was slang for "beaten down" or "trodden down" at the time, although, he also was thinking of a spiritual connotation, as in "beatitude." The term "beatnik" was first used by Herb Caen, who added the Russian suffix "-nik" to the term beat, six months after the launch of Sputnik I. Ray Carney, a Boston University professor, wrote that "Much of Beat culture represented a negate stance rather than a positive one. It was animated more by a vague feeling of cultural and emotional displacement, dissatisfaction, and yearning, than by a specific purpose or program [...] Beat culture was a state of mind, not a matter of how you dressed or talked or where you lived." (I thought it would be better to quote someone, since I know nothing on the subject.) The "beatniks" were often described as being "countercultural" or "anti-materialistic." This kind of reminds me of Holden Caulfield in The Catcher in the Rye, who often described people as "phony." I guess this makes a little sense, since the book came out in 1951.

Joseph Beuys

The most interesting aspect that I find about Joseph Beuys is his philosophy on art and his intentions behind his artwork. I find the idea behind his 7000 Oaks Project quite beautiful, and I love how he created a work of art that involved the entire community and had a very set purpose; to get people to plant trees. When I think about it, I can almost consider people going together to plant trees on Earth Day a work of art, even if there is no artist behind it, because it is such a simple, yet beautiful act. I love his philosophy that "everyone is an artist" and how he tried to let as many people into his art classes as possible and to be less exclusive as a teacher. I think that, because art is so subjective, no one can actually say who is or is not an artist. And I think that art is something built into us, albeit some more than others, so it is impossible for someone to not be an artist to some extent, just as it is impossible for someone to never experience any emotions. I find that encouraging people to create art and acknowledging the art that is created is important. There have been times at college or even high school that I have seen students create works of art that have been better than many works of art that I have seen in museums (at least according to my own taste and what inspires me.) Of course, these people do not have the "credentials" or the "prestige" in the art world to be worth as much as a famous artist, who may have a lot of acknowledgement, but also may not be as good. This is why I think it is important how Beuys tried not to exclude people in his classes, as long as they wanted to learn. I also think that, even if someone may not be a "good" artist (although, I don't think one can ever confidently say whether a work of art is "good" or not) I think it is still important to let art be something that reaches out to all. Whether it be a career or just a hobby, art can be life-changing, not just to museum-goers, but to the artists themselves as well (which is one of the reasons art therapy exists.) Even if someone's goal is not to become successful, but to simply partake in art, I think they should be given an equal chance to learn it. And thinking about this gets me to question myself; if an amateur is creating art purely for art's sake, without other motives, such as a professional's motive to sell a painting or sculpture, then wouldn't it be possible that the amateur's work is even "more" a work of art? Contemplating this subject is why I think it is so interesting that Beuys said "everyone is an artist." Although I do have to say that the possible fictitiousness of parts of his autobiography are definitely odd. And I also found it odd when reading about him, that none of his artwork seemed to touch upon WWII or the Holocaust, even though he was a German soldier. He did submit a proposal for a Holocaust memorial, although, that really doesn't seem all that much when he spent so much time fighting that war. These are both mentioned by one of Beuys's critics, although I disagree with the other criticisms that he had of Beuys, since I do not find his artwork lacking in other regards. I found it interesting when Beuys said, "The silence of Marcel Duchamp is overrated." I agree to an extent; I generally think that artwork should try to provoke something or say something to the viewer. However, I also think that to an extent, the "silence" of Duchamp's work speaks on its own. Duchamp, whether he meant to or not (although my guess is at least to some extent, he did) still gets people to think about what art consists of and the importance we have on placing artwork in the gallery, when a urinal can be placed in a gallery and accomplish the same thing.

Scopophobia II (as done as it will ever be...)

Contraversial Art

Surprisingly, only one of those works of art was new to me (the one with Saddam Hussein.) The only one that I actually find offensive is the shark in the formaldehyde. As a vegetarian/animal rights activist I do not like to see animal displayed in that way. I do not know whether or not the shark was killed in order to create this piece or if he somehow got ahold of an already dead shark. However, I do not think this really matters. I do not like the fact that a dead animal is put on display instead of giving it the respect and the chance to rest in peace that it deserves. It's fairly morbid and I do not support some of the values/meanings that it could potentially represent.

Besides that, I either liked all of the other works of art or at least found them interesting. My favorite was by far Erasing de Kooning. I thinks that it provokes thoughts that few other works of art have done. It gets you to think about something that was there in addition to what is there. I think this can lead to many questions. While most people think of art as creating something, can destroying something be a work of art as well? Is the original still a work of art, even though it no longer exists? Is it really worth it to stare at a blank piece of paper? Why do we give said sheet of paper so much value? Clearly, it is due to what used to be there, but why does what used to be there matter? What matters more, what existed or what exists? What artist would want to sacrifice someone else's art? I think that no matter what the answers to these questions are the work of art is no doubt creative and something few have matched.

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.

Retinal Persistence

When I looked up this word, it wasn't the easiest thing to understand. It seems that many scientists and psychologists have dubunked this theory and now believe in others. What I assume the term means is that our brain fills in the blank spots between frames of an animation, which gives us the perception of motion. The first thing that I think of when I read about this is gestalt. In gestalt, which would most likely take place on a still image, our mind is able to fill in certain parts of an image. For example, if you have type, if part of a letter is cropped off the page, or is obscured by another image, we still know what that letter is, since our brains fill in that information for us. After looking this up to make sure my terminology was correct, this type of gestalt is consiered "closure." This would be similar to retinal persistence, when the brain fills in the gaps in time of an animation.

Abelardo Morell

There was a point in time when I was very much into black and white, analog photography. That time has long since past, but it definitely influences how I see certain types of photography. I find that when looking at his photographs, it is difficult for me to view and analyze them as works of art. My mind is clouded by a strange nostalgia, if you can call it that, and I mainly find myself paying attention to the processes by which he would have come up with those photographs. This is a little odd for me, since I normally do not have that feeling when looking at photography. I think that what is different about him is his interest in alternative photography. When looking at his images made by means of a camera obscura, I find myself thinking about how much time it would have taken to set up and what variables he would have had to play with to come up with that image. I devoted a lot of time to pinhole photography, so I view those particular works of art as simply very large pinhole photographs (which essentially they are, except for the size of the "camera" and the fact that the art is in the image itself, not a piece of paper that is processed from the image.) I think that those images actually make me a bit uneasy, as I remember the frustration of not having a view finder and guessing expsure times (which don't even deal with the camera obscura, but I somehow still have that association.) When I really take time to look at them, I find them incredibly beatiful, it just takes me a while to get my mind past the technical aspect of the photography. I have to say though, I was dissappointed that I did not find any pinhole photographs on his website.

This artist definitely has a very noticable style. He takes pictures of things you wouldn't normally think to take pictures of, like the photograph of his box of tissues. I think that for him, the art is in the contrast that he gives those objects. By manipulating his box of tissues in a certain way, he actually changes it into a very interesting photograph, which I don't think it would have been had it been taken in color without any color adjustment; it would have just been a box of tissues. Pretty much all of his photographs have a very similar level of contrast to them (which gets me thinking about the development process and moving my focus away from the photographs themselves.)

Overall, I think that he is a very good photographer. He has a very unique style and uses processes that many have forgotten about. When looking at his website, there is definitely a lot more to take in than those of most photographers out there.

1) The Dancer's Life @ 0:32

http://youtu.be/w5piJOje2Xo?t=32s

This part of the scene was filmed from above, giving an overhead view of the actors. The lights in this scene are set up so that they display a pattern onto the ground. Given that the lights are overhead, they also diplay that pattern onto the actors, especially from this angle. Light is probably one of the most used uses of technology in theater, but I thought that this small excerpt from the play was important, because it used the light in a very creative way. Looking at the characters from that angle, it makes it look like they are connected to their surroundings. Especially since they are dancing, it adds to the overall aesthetic of the performance. It is common to see colored lights set the mood in a play, but I have rarely seen something where the lights look almost like a piece of art on their own.

2) Where You Are @ 0:00

http://youtu.be/UwLKmfaCTbw

At this point, a set of bars, almost cage-like, drop down to the ground. This is a very obvious use of technology. This shows how technology can be used to change the scenery of a play in the middle of a scene. You no longer need to close the curtain to put the actors into a different atomosphere; you can do it while they are acting. The bars are also used to create very interesting, geometric shadows on the floor of the stage, further enhancing the change in atmosphere. Later on in the scene, some of the bars are lifted back out of sight, giving less of this backdrop, probably so when more characters came onto the stage, it would be less of a distraction. The scene would definitely have an entirely different feeling if those bars were not there.

3) Cabaret @ 1:30

http://youtu.be/TCkZI3RKT3A?t=1m30s

The character here sings that "the orchestra is beautiful," and suddenly, a platform of several musicians and their instruments rolls onto stage. It is later shown that two men are pushing said platform. Since the platform rolls in fairly quickly and looks pretty heavy (it contains four women, a drumset and a piano, although the piano might be fake, giving it less weight) it seems like those two men wouldn't be able to push it at that speed, without the aid of some sort of technology. It is possible that the platform is motorized and the men are not really pushing it at all, or are merely steering it. I suppose the men could potentially push the platform on their own if they were stong and it had wheels, in which case there would be no electronic technology being used; however, the wheels could be considered a form of non-electronic technology. Anyway, if there was some sort of motor on the platform, then the use of technology would not be blatant. It would be hidden, giving the illusion that the men are quickly pushing the orchestra in. I find this important, since I am sure technology is often used in theater without the audience realising it, to make something happen on stage that would either be very difficult or impossible to do otherwise.

4) West Side Story @ 2:25

http://youtu.be/d_lbeersIS4?t=2m25s

At this point in the musical, the storyline switches from excited dancing to a more serious, intimate moment between two people. As the girl walks on stage and this transition happens, the lights in the background switch from a energizing red to a calm blue. The mere changing of the color of the lights created an entirely different mood for the scene. I find this interesting, since only the color was changed, but this simple change is all that is needed to change the entire mood of the set.

5) La Cage Aux Folles @ 1:14

http://youtu.be/1CJ23vPxvYo?t=1m14s

Here, the actors are lifted off stage, as others go to the right or left. In most plays, exits are done by the characters walking offstage somehow. In this case, technology allows them to do what otherwise would be impossible: rise out of view. Since the characters are in the middle of a very visual, flashy dance, this effect makes their exit more dramatic, which definitley fits in with the rest of the scene.

6) Bye Bye Birdie @ 0:28

http://youtu.be/BqHjBIJKzRc?t=28s

The characters are standing on some sort of rotating stands. While in most cases, actors would do some intense, balet-inspired turns in order to create the spinning effect, here the stands to the twirling for them; they just hold on. It also gives the musical a more modern look. Since the musical plays rock music, it might not seem fitting that the actors would be dancing using classical moves. The spinning stands fit in with the rock music more. So here, the use of technology is used to create a differentiation from the past. Since rock music is fairly new, they do not want to use dance moves that are not. They want to create something original to emphasize the originality and hype of this new type of music.

7) How to Succeed in Business @ 0:33

http://youtu.be/mAlkS2P3JA4?t=33s

Here you can see the background of the stage quite well. As one can see, it contains colored, hexagon lights. This is clearly an over-the-top background, in that it is fairly complex, being large, multi-colored, light up, and not really resembling any scene in real life that I can think of. So in this case, technology can be used for pure aesthetics—the lights are not used merely to light the stage. Throughout the scene, the lights change colors, for what seems to be no reason, other than to exagerate the already intense visual effects.