This piece of art called “Marie Antoinette’s Head and Others” by Jim Riswold is a colored digital print. Riswold and his work are known to be humorist in the essence that he takes historical figures and art and makes them in a sense comedic for others. In this picture he has a doll’s head decapitated to demonstrate the decapitation of Marie Antoinette. At first glance this picture is a bit disturbing due to the angelic dolls face, but at the same time it is unique and somewhat comedic, which is the goal of this artist. Riswold claims that his work relies on humor and creates a personal mythology which “Marie Antoinette’s Head” does.

The first amendment Frohnmayer discusses to this day has not be honored to its full potential, and artwork has been affected by the lack of practice in the first amendment. “The common reasons given for an image’s removal were either the opposition to the ideas expressed or a desire to protect others-” This quotation taking from Frohnmayer’s article demonstrates the opposition of others, and demonstrates how individual’s are not allowed to fully express themselves.

In my opinion there are always going to be people who disagree with what you do and what you say, but isn’t the idea of the first amendment allowing people to have a voice, whether we agree with them or not?  Artwork itself is the ability of the artist to express themselves freely through their artwork, which in essence is the same as a person voicing their own opinions. Artwork should be considered a type of freedom of speech, and there should be no limitations on what a person can or cannot do.

1.Creative 2. Eclectic 3. Modern 4. Surreal 5. Abstract

Growing up in the suburbs, I felt  as if we were exposed to things that Congdon and Blandy mentioned, but not as much as other places in America. Although I was exposed to certain things such as living in a diverse community or living in a community of immigrants, I can see how Congdon and Blandy would believe this to be a “fake” world. I understand that their are individuals that live in rural, underdeveloped areas that deal with hardships that I could never imagine over coming, but I do not agree with the fact that they labeled individuals in the suburbs as living in a “fake world.”

In the example about Disneyland in the reading they discussed how something fake seemed more pleasurable and was more valued than something real. Disneyland’s purpose in my opinion is to create a world of imagination, an ideal world, in essence a utopia. So for Disneyland to manipulate and toy with things we could find in nature makes sense, because they are trying to create an ideal setting for all individuals.  Whereas Congdon and Blandy’s classification of the suburbs as part of the fifth world in my opinion is no where near the comparison of Disneyland and its cooperation with the “fake” world.

This idea of the advancement of technology semi- contradicts our readings from this week saying that the rise of new technology devalues art. This article supports the claim that with the rise of new technology comes with the rise of new forms of art that our culture and generation are willing to adapt to and accept. Rush discussed how the art of virtual reality is advancing but there is much more that artists can do to elaborate virtual reality even more so to make it even more parallel to real life, which essentially is the goal of virtual reality. Rush’s idea supports the idea that art arise from new forms of technology, and not all forms of technology depreciate art.

Rush, Michael (2006). “Virtual reality art: Beyond technology” New York Times. Retrieved (May 23, 2010) from http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/06/arts/06iht-rush.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1

In the article “The art of mobile technology,” written by Stacey M. Perlman, she discusses how the progression of technology has to lead to people becoming more creative and using the advancement of technology as a type of art form. In this article Perlman discusses different projects that people have done using technology as a basis for art. In one example given Perlman write about the yellow arrow project where people would use yellow arrows to mark their location and so others could use their cell phone to text that person about information about that specific location. This project was able to connect people together but also was able to use the progression of technology in a form of art work. “While your cellphone now allows you to play games, check your e-mail, send text messages, take pictures, and oh, yeah, make phone calls, it can perhaps serve a more enriching purpose.” This quote demonstrates that although devices such as cell phones are common in our culture, it can serve a different purpose, in this case as a form of art.

Perlman’s article supported the idea that new and advancing technology could very well be beneficial to new forms of art. In our readings it discussed how artwork was becoming cluttered and that with the advancement of technology art itself was diminishing, but in this article the opposite had occurred. Cell phones are a type of device almost every person in America possesses, and with this advancing technology individuals are also able to turn it into some form of artwork. Technology can be used in the form of art, and with the progression and advancement of new technology, new forms of art can as well be created.

Perlman, S. (2005) “The art of mobile technology” The Boston Globe. Retrieved (May 23, 2010) from http://thaihien.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php

Creativity is the ability to use one’s mind and create new ideas. The source of creativity is in an individual’s mind, in my opinion your creativity is based on your ability to let your mind run wild and through this you are able to create new ideas.

In the video they interviewed Ann Hamilton, an artist who believed to have felt a strong connection between thread and “lines of writing.” In this video Ann demonstrates a type of artwork she performs by placing a film into her mouth, and then opening her mouth to expose the film and “taking a picture.” Ann described this position of standing and exposing one’s mouth as a vulnerable position. When performing this type of art she would have someone standing in front of her and would then proceed to open her mouth. She described standing in front of someone as “looking from soul to soul and revealing one’s self.”  This idea I believed was one Ann Hamilton’s idea of creative spirituality, she used the film to look into the soul of another person revealing themselves to one another in a form of art.

Glen D. Walter’s he discusses the reasonings people use to give when asked, why people liked to watch horror films. He first begins to describe that people watched horror films because they liked to be scared, but throughout the article Walters discusses that really that is not the reason people watch horror films. He says ” The problem with traditional theories of horror film appeal is not that they are wrong, it is that they are incomplete.  Integrating aspects of eight popular theoretical models designed to explain the lure of horror films (psychoanalytic, catharsis, excitation transfer, curiosity/fascination, sensation seeking, dispositional alignment, gender role socialization, societal concern) and defining horror as a fictionalized account designed to evoke terror through the implied presence of supernatural or extremely abnormal forces, the present paper describes horror film appeal as consisting of three principal factors: tension, relevance, and unrealism.” In this quote Walter’s describes the different appeals of watching horror films, and that people do not generally watch horror films just for the fact that they like to be scared, but for all of these different reasonings.

This article relates to the article we read this week by Caroll. In Caroll’s article he gives the idea that people do not enjoy horror films because they like to watch disturbing scenes and that they enjoy violence, rather it is the whole appeal of a horror film that draws people in. Caroll  discusses that people generally watch horror films due to the fact that they enjoy the plots of these films and how these “disturbing scenes” are incorporated into the film, which is essentially what Walter’s idea was about. People do not watch horror films because they enjoy being scared or because they enjoy these disturbing scenes rather the feel of the whole movie.

Hubinnette, J. (2010) “Music and Sound Effects in Horror Films” retrieved May 2010, http://www.eng.umu.se/ monster/john/sound_music.htm

In this article written by John Hubinnette he discusses how sound is important in horror films and how it effects the mood of the film. “Music in horror films is probably more powerful than in any other genre, so it’s good for a composer to do them because he can be very influential on the action.” This idea is like the idea of our sound presentation, how sound influences the feel and the mood of horror films. In my opinion sound brings out the scary parts in the movie and will tell you when something bad is going to happen so you are at the edge of your seat.

I personally have grown up being terrified of horror films and so for me personally I do not enjoy watching horror films but I think the plots of horror films are creative in the sense that I want to keep watching just to see what happens in the end. “Thus it is not the tragic event in itself that imparts pleasure, but rather, the way it is worked into the plot.”  Which is essentially one of the ideas Carroll presents in his article in stating that people enjoy watching horror films, not because they like watching slayings and gruesome scenes, but it is because we are drawn to the way these scenes and how they are incorporated into the plot. “Pleasure derives from having our interest in the outcome of such questions satisfied.” This idea makes sense because, if you think about it who seriously likes watching people being slain the reason why people are drawn into horror films isn’t because they enjoy watching people suffer rather they enjoy seeing how these events are incorporated into the plot.

Having this idea been said because we’ve been exposed to so many gruesome plots through horror films I wonder if people when they do see something in real life that they find revolting are they more likely to accept it due to the exposure that we have had in horror films?