I'm Tired of these Cameras

            When I went to the Spring Fling concert for 3OH!3 and Fabulous I leaned over the fence right in front and as I watched the performers begin the show the boy next to me pulled out his iPhone and started recording.  This kid must have taken a million pictures and made several videos.  To my disappointment he wasn’t the only one; several people had their phones and cameras out during the entire concert, getting every second of it on film.

            I say “to my disappointment” because this makes me sad for our society and what it is becoming.  I’m disappointed that people feel the need to record every moment of every interesting activity in their lives.  A few pictures, sure, you want your friends to believe you when you say you got a selfy with the lead singer, but recording entire performances is unnecessary and a waste.  We were in the FRONT ROW, and all the memories that guy next to me will ever remember are the views of his phone’s screen making sure the video comes out alright.

            This weird concept of recording things resembles hoarding.  People today hoard their photographs and videos and continue to collect hundreds per event in their lives.  Humans are materialistic, and now with new forms of technology we have a way to “possess” things like the Eifel Tower or the Great Wall of China with just a click of a button.  The only good thing I can see out of this is the fact that this concept undermines the need for souvenirs like little Empire State Building figures or Taj Mahal key chains; why get a souvenir when you have pictures by which you can remember your trip?

            The worst thing about this new trend in behavior is the fact that those who partake in it miss out on truly experiencing whatever they’re recording.  The view of Sean Foreman singing was a lot better in person than through a camera.  When one spends their entire time looking at things through a camera or on a screen they do not get to fully experience seeing what they’re recording because they are too busy making sure the video or pictures turn out well.  People need to stop wasting their precious time trying to keep tiny pieces of an event or place and start trying to enjoy the experiences of life when they come.

            Go out and do something extraordinary without spending time looking at things through a lens or screen, I promise whatever it is looks better in person.  The people on Facebook and Instagram don’t really care anyway, and if they do then you should feel sorry for them.  You can’t truly live behind a camera or cell phone, so go out and live!

Art Appropriation Then and Now

            As I’ve sat through my Western Art History lectures this semester I have noticed something about society’s view of art as time has gone by: plagiarism is a new concept that continues to become more and more popular in the world of the visual arts.  In the Middle Ages art was made for religious purposes and it all looked the same; no one stood out so it did not matter if people copied each other’s styles.  The Renaissance is based off of the idea of copying the Greeks and Romans so much so to the point that if artists incorporated Greco-Roman images into their work it was considered better than those that did not.  In the Baroque and Rococo periods artists took what was being done in the Renaissance and simply made it more detailed, dramatic, and elaborate.  Artists in the neoclassic period actually gained recognition and respect for using techniques and compositional aspects from older artwork.  Even during the realist movement when contemporary life was the most prominent subject matter artists like Manet gained credit as an artist for clearly using compositions from older artists’ works.  However today, this is not the case.

            When someone uses another’s person’s artwork they are usually met with opposition.  Artists who use parts of older works do not get credit for the work because people who recognize famous artwork but are uneducated in the arts (most people today) say things like “Well he stole that from Titian and just put it in a different setting.”  Artists who use aspects from famous old artworks have a conceptual need for people to recognize the original work, such as Faith Ringgold who made a copy of Picasso’s Les Demoiselles d’Avignon and added a black woman into the scene of white nudes.  Doing this made a statement about racism by showing people they were racist when they looked at the painting when they thought the black woman looked out of place.  But some people claim it is not all her work because she stole most of the image from Picasso’s original work.

            An even more controversial form of using others’ art in your own is when someone takes something from an artwork made recently.  When Raphael and Michelangelo were working on different pieces at Saint Peter’s Basilica in Rome Raphael incorporated a character in School of Athens with the same large build as Michelangelo’s work that was supposed to represent Michelangelo.  Taking a style or compositional idea from Michelangelo back then was seen as flattering to the artist, but not today.  Because the artist who made the original work is still alive or because the original work is commercially used, artists face more problems when using others’ work.  Today artists sue each other, like when a photographer sued Jeff Koons, a contemporary artist, because Koons made a sculpture based off of a picture the photographer had taken.

            Imitation is supposed to be a form of flattery however artists working today are touchy and spoiled.  They are offended that other artists want to use their work and incorporate into their own so they sue the artists to get more money for coming up with the image first.  It should not be this way.  A long time ago artists were valued because they had the talent to create something new and recognizable on a flat surface or from some metal or stone, but art is not only about technical skill and compositional creativity.  There is a third part to art making that many people overlook: the conceptual meaning behind the artwork.  People who do not take the time to interpret this meaning do not respect artists who use others’ work to get a meaning across.  An example of this artwork would be Manet’s Olympia, which obviously imitates Titian’s “Venus of Urbino”.  Titian’s piece celebrated the classical style of Greek and Roman ideas about human beauty while Manet’s piece showed the society at the time that their actions involving prostitutes was not as glamorous as they imagined it to be.  If both those artists were working today, Manet would probably lose a lawsuit.

            As artists we should not be so touchy about if our work is being used in a new and innovative way.  Whether we enjoy the appropriated piece made from our own or not is not important: respecting another artist’s conceptual art ideas is.  As long as a new concept clearly comes through the appropriated artwork, artists and courts should allow this style of art to continue without opposition.

My Stance on Death

   There are things we need to do before we die, and there are things we want to do before we die.  Some people think all these things belong together on a bucket list, and that there is little difference between the two.  Others don't want to think about it and ignore the idea of death all together.  I have recently come to a realization about my position on the idea of death and what we should do before we die.  I have done all I needed to do in life, therefore the rest of what I do from here on out will be things I want to do before I die.
   I don't need to see the world, have children, get married, or bungee jump into a lake before I die, I just want to do those things.  Those wishes or hopes for things I'd like to do in the future are one third of the reason I keep living.  The people who care about me and don't want to see me leave this life are another third, and finally the pure enjoyment I get from living is the final reason for me, personally, to live.  Goals give me something to work for, people provide company and make me feel needed, and even without those two things, it is so pleasurable just to exist in the world we live.
   Coming to college and finally living away from my family while being able to study art has brought me to the highest point in my life; I have never been happier.  In a given moment I felt nothing but happiness, and that's all I really needed out of life.  Being in a place where I can learn from phenomenal professors about things I actually care about while not living with my parents but still maintaining a close relationship with my boyfriend was all I needed to get me to a point of happiness that satisfied my desire to live. And now life is all the more better that I don't worry about dying; it doesn't matter for me anymore.  I know a lot of people who worry about death often, and maybe I'm just a really simple person with low standards for life, but they all seem to get hooked on the fear of leaving this place into the step of existence while I could care less.
   I thought this might be something easy to respond to and helpful to stir up conversation (especially for those people who haven't even made a post yet).  So, what would it take to satisfy you to the point where death doesn't matter?  What is it you think you need out of life? And what holds you back now from being truly happy?

Wreck-It Ralph: Ushering-in a New Era of Animated Movies from Disney

            While walking through Time Square in NYC I passed the Disney store and in the window was an add for the company’s latest hit: Wreck-It Ralph.  The poster claimed “We’re Taking it Up a Level” and I thought to myself yes you did.  This film was by far the most innovative movie from Disney I have ever seen.

            When I think of Disney movies I clump them into four different categories: old animated, middle animated, new animated, Pixar, and all those weird real-life movies. When I think old animated Disney I picture The Aristocats or Snow White.  I consider middle animated to be the era of the Little Mermaid, Aladdin, The Lion King, and even Lilo and Stitch. Pixar is Pixar and real-life is real-life; they speak for themselves. What I and many others of our generation are interested in is the new animation: the new wave of popular animated movies produced by Walt Disney Animation Studios (rather than Pixar). I consider this new era of Disney to be marked by Meet the Robinsons and so far the last made in this era is Wreck-It Ralph.  While younger children will like almost anything made for them and adults lose interest in childish entertainment, our current generation is at a time when we still appreciate the art of movies made for children and we now scrutinize every move Disney makes to assure that it will not fall into the old habits of creating the God-awful sequels and second-sequels that undermine the value of original movies such as The Little Mermaid, Cinderella, or Beauty and The Beast, each of which have two sequels.  We also keep our eyes on this beloved corporation because we hope to see it creating new and better work so that children today can appreciate it later as we do now.

            This movie is the fifth attempt at Computer Generated Imagery by Disney itself and while Tangled was arguably the first CGI hit, Wreck-It Ralph blew all the others away.  The use of CGI was vital to the film because there was an underlying aesthetic theme of technology and videogames shown subtly through things like the pixilated splatters of cake in one of the earlier scenes.  This form of animation helped define the film, enforce the aesthetic theme, and connect the setting and plot to the actual art of the movie.

            What I found particularly interesting about the movie was the fact that it held so many firsts.  It was the first Disney animated film to incorporate music that was not originally made for the movie.  Rihanna’s “Shut Up and Drive” was not made for the movie originally the way other songs such as Billy Joel’s “Why Should I Worry” were made first for a movie then later distributed as part of the artist’s work.  This is the first movie Disney has ever had a short film made for it, while others have been given premade short films.  It even transcends Pixar with the innovative choice to place the short film at the end of the credits rather than right before the movie begins; cleverly giving the viewer a reason to stay and watch the credits.  Another striking difference from Pixar’s shorts is how “Paperman” (Wreck-It Ralph’s short) was drawn.  It is hand-drawn which is completely different from every Pixar short and the host movie itself, showing contrast between the short and film to give the short more weight as its own entity apart from the movie.  Finally, this masterpiece is the first Disney movie I can recall with cheeky potty-mouthed jokes.  Children are more sensitive to media content than they once were.  As a child I recall seeing old cartoons like Looney Toons with political commentary and incredible amounts of violence; you won’t see characters dropping anvils on each others’ heads in the new shows for children these days.  Language, content, and plot were far more inappropriate at the time because it was more acceptable then, however today parents call for less dirtiness in the shows their kids watch.  Disney has always done its best to stay appropriate with what society calls for in children’s entertainment until now; Wreck-It Ralph spews endless poop jokes and references to violence throughout the film in addition to using creatively harsh insults.  With this film the writers walked right up to the line of appropriateness and wrote on the edge, straying dangerously close to a side no Disney movie will ever go with lines like Calhoun’s use of the insult “pussywillows”.  There is even an allusion to sexual ambiguity when Satan, a villain from another game, claims he has changed the name to “Satine”.  Needless to say this subject matter is far more inappropriate for the standards children are used to today, and it’s genius!

            Wreck-It Ralph is a small step from Tangled but a huge step for Disney as a whole.  While the animators at Disney have slacked off and let Pixar work its magic the differences between each studio have become more and more noticeable.  It seems, with this film as evidence, that the writers working for Pixar have rubbed off on those in Disney Animated Studios.  Now the tables are turning; Pixar is slowly running out of ideas and beginning to create sequels and spinoffs like Planes and Monsters University while the magic has returned to headquarters as Disney creates more original movies like Tangled and Wreck-It Ralph that both children and adults can enjoy.

Response to Heather's Response of Lani's "Hartford Food System"

            After reading Lani’s post and Heather’s response I felt like playing devil’s advocate, so here I go. Both posts are absolutely right: the food system and meal plans for campus are horrible. The majority of options are only available during limited hours of the day, most options are unhealthy, and the price is outrageous. This is just a small taste of the real world.

            Many people here live on campus because they have to; commuting from California or Alaska every day of the week is out of the question. For some of the people here, not much has changed, but for many everything is different. Most of us were accustomed to being able to go downstairs and check the fridge; the food would just magically be there for us. Now we have to actively work to go out and get the food we need. We can go shopping at Konover or stores off campus, “go out” to Commons, Hawk’s Nest, Gengras, or Konover for ready made food, or order food for delivery. Those are the three main options we will have when living on our own later in life. Similar to being here, ordering in can be expensive on your own. Going out to restaurants is less healthy just like how eating meals made for you at Commons, Gengras, Hawk’s Nest, or Konover can be unhealthy. Of course there’s always the cheap yet unwholesome choice of fast food, which exists on and off campus as a terrible temptation. Finally going shopping for food to make takes more time and work but can be cheaper and healthier, just like it will be when we get sent out into true adulthood. Looking at our options here I can see an overwhelming resemblance to what we will have to face as adults living on our own in need of nutrition. The only real difference is that food will be even harder to get because we will have to spend even more money for a four month period and all the places to eat will not be clustered together within a ten minute walk from our homes.

            Living on campus is supposed to help people learn how to be fairly independent by taking it in small steps. We do our laundry, clean our rooms, manage our time, and adjust to a new way of getting food all on our own. College is a big step for a reason; we are supposed to become more independent here as a result of living away from our families. Part of growing up involves adapting to the environment of an adult, which is usually, hopefully, an apartment or home of some kind (they do not come with a bottomless refrigerator and cabinet). The majority of options here are unhealthy and it is incredibly hard to stay healthy and not get broke while eating the food here, but it is just as hard to do the same when living off of campus. Our food system at the University is an appropriate way to ease people into what lies ahead for us when we leave the school and live on our own.

            Heather says, “Having healthy options, that can be accessed as many times as our meal plan allows for, should be what is most important. Not ripping us poor college students off with the time slots of the meal plans, and, leaving us with no choices but unhealthy if we happen to miss Commons hours.” I laughed when reading this, because it presumes the school should have our best interest at heart the way our previous schools were supposed to do so. Public high, middle, and elementary schools are funded by the government and paid to have our best interest at heart, the University of Hartford is paid by us to give us a degree. That is all. The school is not paid to care; it is a business and businesses only care about making more money. Sadly, that is the case for every single place we will be getting food from when we enter the adult life; Walmart does not care if you are poor, McDonald’s isn’t going to change it’s menu because you want cheap healthy food, and Commons won’t extend it’s hours because you want a salad at midnight. You say “college is hard”, well life is hard and college is supposed to prepare us for life, therefore I’d say our school is doing a good job at preparing us for what comes next and I for one appreciate it because I’d rather be ready for adulthood rather than be babied for four more years.

Response to Chris’s Bro Code Discussion

            I absolutely cannot relate to this.  Just kidding, I may be female but I can connect to some of the points in this post.  You claim men are more pressured to follow a Bro Code than they let on compared to women who admit they are pressured by friends more easily.  I agree that men are more pressured to follow the code, however I believe that is caused by the fact that women do not have a Girl Code the way men do.  As children we hear “bros before ‘ho’s”; I never recall hearing “chicks before dicks” (excuse my French please).  Girls in that sense are ahead of men since not only have we accepted following these social rules does not yield success, but we’ve abandoned them all together.  Your description of the Bro Code as guidelines or a fallback reminds me of the quote from the first Pirates of the Caribbean movie when Barbossa says the pirates code is “more like guidelines anyway”.

            As a female I must admit it would be nice to have that fallback when deciding what one should do when dealing with friends.  I noticed our need for a Girl Code comes up mostly when dealing with the opposite sex, as the Bro Code is used mostly to deal with female-involved situations.  Before I began dating my boyfriend, four friends had already claimed they “liked” him.  As a group of girls all liking the same young man we found ourselves lost as to what we should do about the dilemma.  If he made a move toward one of us were we allowed to flirt back or start dating him?  Could we ask him out ourselves? We had no clue as to what to do because there has never been an established set of rules declaring what is appropriate behavior between girls.

            The article is correct that “positive consequences occur when a man acts authentically”.  While lying does work for one night stands, being honest and keeping open communication works to maintain a successful relationship for both women and men.  When people act like themselves instead of trying to be what they think others want from them then people can connect more on a truer level.

Response to Jake's "What is Art?"

            My first high school art teacher told the class something on the first day of school: everything is art.  No one really took that seriously, we just filed that information in the back of our heads for future tests or exams.  Not until my freshman year of college did I truly understand the phrase “everything is art”.  There is an art to creating a pen, a shirt, a rug, and a chair just like there is an art to making a beautiful painting, photograph, drawing, or sculpture.  While most people do not fully appreciate every object in their environment, each and every object was designed by an artist, such as the blue chairs with desks made by Emilio Ambasz and Giancarlo Piretti.

            You are right, Jake, “most people have different opinions about what should or should not be considered art”.  Everyone has their own opinion about art.  For those less educated in the arts they hear the word “art” and imagine the Mona Lisa or a painter’s pallet and a paintbrush.  For some, art is fleeting and takes place in the moment, like a theatrical or musical performance, while others’ ideas of art are limited to 2 dimensional images on paper and canvas.  The concept of art is similar to the concept of a hero; they are both relative terms.  A hero is determined not by his character or strength; he is determined by someone recognizing him as his “hero”.  One cannot be a hero without having a “heroee” to say “he is my hero”.  Art is not art when no one can recognize it as art.  While that seems contradictory to my first message, everything is art, the truth of the matter is there will always be someone somewhere out there who can look at an image that no one else likes and see something good in it.  There will always be a handful of nut jobs who love the Trachtenburg Family Slideshow Players, likewise there will always be someone to love every terrible piece of artwork ever made.  Everyone has a different taste in everything.  My dad prefers funny Hallmark cards while my mother enjoys heartfelt letters.

            You bring up a valid point about art that “it is almost unanimously agreed upon that it needs to express something or have an emotional impact”.  We try to find meaning in artwork and the most famous pieces we are shown come with notes about a certain message in the piece or collection.  However we have no way of knowing if these analyzed messages are really what the artists were going for when they made their work.  Maybe Jackson Pollock just got bored and really liked annoying art critiques in his time, we have no way to really know his goal for making art.  Like I said before, everyone has a different taste in everything.  Some may experience the feeling of peace when viewing Morandi’s still lifes while others are bored and insulted by their lack of proper compositions.  You’re right, no one can be objective about an art piece because an artwork can be expressive for some and not for others.  It’s all a matter of opinion, so there is no one person that can judge what art is good or bad.

            I believe that as students studying art we do not study what is art and what is not, we study what is good art.  Good art is just another phrase explaining one’s opinion of a work.  We can break a piece down into different aspects and judge them based on set guidelines such as line quality, realism, composition, etc., but we seem to learn most about the people that break the rules of art.  I agree that there is value in discussing the credibility of a work of art, and I also agree that there is no point to become aggressive about art upon which people may disagree.

            It is easy to rant about this subject; some say you must follow the rules, others say some rules can be broken, and still others say that only those who learn to break rules in new ways are true artists.  No single opinion is correct, when you take all the differing opinions and add them up everything is given the status of art.  I think what matters most isn’t what our professors tell us is art, but what we view as meaningful to us.  You can look at Mondrian’s work for a few seconds and walk away bored, then look at Leonardo DaVinci’s paintings and feel inspired.  All that matters is how you relate to artwork that inspires you.  At the end of the day you won’t even care about Mondrian’s work because Leonardo’s work is what spoke to you.