This blog is indefinitely untitled!!

[viraj-nakum1]

In the conversation we had in class about Jezebels in The Handmaid’s Tale, we spoke of how they sold their bodies for sex and how Moira believed she had the freedom to live as she like in return for having her body used for pleasure by men. We also compared the Jezebels to models and prostitutes in today’s world relating how they also sold out there bodies for viewing by the models and for sex by the prostitutes.

This conversation however also sparked a question in my mind. Is the promiscuity of prostitutes and the flaunting of bodies by models really a mask? Is it a mask that they put on which hides the true inner beauty of their self and covers it up by what is ethically considered disgraceful just to gain the approval of society? The ideal body image of what is considered beautiful is embedded in our minds since birth by today's multitudes of different types of media. The actresses in movies, the athlete pictures in Sports Illustrated, and even the Disney Princesses all have a general body type; young, slim, curvy sides, fair skin, and a plump bust and bum. Do those people who fit into this category, put on a mask and hide what they truly are and use what society approves of more, which in this case would be their bodies, to gain the attention and approval of people around them? All the while falsely believing, just like the Jezebels in the book, that they have control over their lives when in reality, as soon as they fall out of that category they are removed from the stage altogether, just like with the Jezebels when their snatch gets overused and is no longer able to handle sex and or deliver pleasure, they get tossed out.

[mohiuddin-baig]

AP Lang Research Project - Change Please provide feedback by answering the following questions at #aplang15change              1) Has this impacted your view of the world around us?

2) What do you want to change in our world?

3) Will you join others, and build a relationship with them, to make a change?

[viraj-nakum1]

1) The list you give of what is wrong in American society is quite large. And I'm sure that's not all either. Knowing these things, it has not changed my view on society but your suggestions to fix them and how we can change it does as it gives a brighter outlook on things. The fact that it's all not hopeless does change my view because now there is a way out.

2) if I had to choose one thing which I would change or one thing I would change first, it would be the education system. Starting out with making a difference with kids gives you the option that you may not have to go further with as since kids are going to be the future of our society, if we make a change for them or in them, it is inevitable they make a change later on. Sort of like the butterfly effect.

3) like any sort of movement, you need numbers on your side to make something happen. If it is just one person, society will throw you aside and discard your opinion as an outlier from its majority. However, the more people that support a view or idea, the more chances it has to be taken into consideration and take action upon. So yes I would join others in order to make change.

[viraj-nakum1]

A lot of the girls' discussion circled around the fact that the photos that were displayed were taken with inspiration in mind or the fact that they were meant to show off the athlete's hard work and not their sexuality. The sexual appeal was not the focus of the article but rather encouraging others to strive to be almost the same. I completely disagree with this argument. The reason these pictures are posted on the front page of a magazine is to attract people to it. Is it is not the appeal then what do they attract audiences with. Magazines sell because they include attractive material within them. I say material because it is not always people that are in the magazine. What magazines usually include in them are physically appealing people and or very eye catching content that you can't hope to miss. The photos of naked muscular and sexually appealing people certainly achieves that goal.

[viraj-nakum1]

A medium used in my passion to calculate and play with numbers; the windows that clarify my world; that which plays to me melodies of my liking; the orange ball which endures the battering of my wrath at times, while at others, is the source through which ingenious revelations are birthed; and a final gift of a most loving father.

[crossconnectmag]

Dietmar Voorwold born in 1957, studied Graphics and Photography in Düsseldorf. In 1998 completed a further education for Art Therapy at the Institute for Humanistic Psychology (IHP) in Eschweiler, Germany.

For many years I worked with children, handicapped people and adults in educational and therapeutic institutions in Germany, Holland and Great Britain. I always put the main focus on self-expression, joy and inspiration.

In 2002 founded the Atelier Spurensuche Project in Wipperfuerth (GER) and in 2008 settled down in Scotland, where I now live for most of the year. Since then have preferably concentrated on outdoor installations.

“Nature is the perfect stage and canvas for the beauty and lightness, that I like to express.”

                                     :-)

—

Cross Connect Mag // Facebook - Flickr - Twitter

[viraj-nakum1]

Nature can’t be art? Ha. I laugh at thee. This is certified evidence that nature can have art. Even if not art than it can provide every material needed to create art. I mean think about it, all the paint, all the tools, all the STONES for statues, all the metals for sculptures, they can’t just appear from nothing. It all comes from nature, it comes from the very world around us. So if nature can’t be classified as art, then it surely as heck can provide whatever’s necessary for it.

Ps. the pictures above, I would consider as high art because I can’t even begin to imagine the time it took to find the specific colored pebble necessary to complete those peices among the bollions out there with each being a unique color of its own.

[lyngon-blog-blog]

Viraj, I agree on the fact that nature can provide anything needed for art, and it pretty much does since everything is in some way dirived from nature. I can say that I also consider these rock designs to be high art because quite frankly they look like they take loads of patience and time. Only thing is that when you mention that nature can be art I agree, but only when man is manupulating aspects of nature in order to create something. 

[katiemuczynski-blog-blog]

I completely agree with you Lyndia. Nature can be art through manipulation. While nature is beautiful, and has art in it, it is not high art. These pictures with the rocks and grass and leaves in certain patterns? That’s high art. I think that there is a difference between these two things: high art and nature. This man put his foot in both sides and combined them, creating something beautiful. But nature is still nature, and art is still art. It’s hard to keep these two things separate, because nature is so beautiful, but we need to learn the difference.

[hannah-bell-rae]

WOW!! This is amazing! I would definitely call this high because of the way they used not only photography but how they used so many things in nature! It’s stunning that you can make so much out of just plain old things like rocks.

[viraj-nakum1]

Wait a minute, I just had a thought, we’ve been going on and on about how nature can’t be considered art because it is does not carry purpose. Well if you think about it it kinda does carry purpose. A flower for example, its purpose is to attract bees. So every plant grows its own type of flowers each unique in their own way, each created with the PURPOSE of attracting bees and, it also turns into a comtetion among them as well to see who can attract the most insects. In that case wouldn’t the plant be considered an artist, attracting the most insects to promote pollenation, the purpose, and the insects the audience for it all. And competition wise, the one who attracts the biggest audience wins. Its kind of the same with our artists, they make a painting with the purpose of gaining a large audience to promote their work all the while competing against other artists and the one who gains the biggest audience wins and goes to fane while the others keep trying harder to do the same. Chameleons as well. Even though they use to protect themselves, their ability to change skin colors, how is that not art. Their purpose is to not attract an audience and when they camoflouge themselves making them harder to find, causing them to not attract an audience, that purpose is achieved. So I guess my question is, for something to be classified as art, does it have to be made by humans, meant for humans, and have an audience of other humans specifically? Why can it not be that art is anything made by a living thing, made for a purpose, and have an audience of any living thing?

[julia-rosander]

Hannah you have a great point! I think nature is art because of the purpose behind it. The things that nature can do is unbelievable. Their is a balance in nature where everything is intertwined. I think this in its self is nature. The cohesiveness is amazing.

[ochronowski9]

I feel that art can be made for other animals then human but I still don’t believe that nature is art. Regarding what you said about the bees and the flowers and how the bess use the flowers for a purpose, you are right that does happen but did the closer really grow for that purpose or did it just happen like that? So even though the flower is there for a purpose NOW it wasn’t originally made with a purpose. And i am not saying nature isn’t gorgeous because it is i love when the leave change in the fall and snow but i am just saying based on my views of what something has to be to be considered art nature doesn’t fit all of them. 

[viraj-nakum1]

I don't agree with your comment about if flowers just happened. I mean sure it could have started as some sort of mutation in a plant, but that mutation was favored by the "audience" the bees and due to that it took off to a point where now, almost all plants have flowers. Since they became so "popular" now the challenge is which color or style flower is most accepted by the insects. Same thing with artists as well, each artist has his/her own twist or common factor in their art and it then depends on us peole to choose which style we prefer. Those that we prefer become famous and their creators rise with their creations like van goh, picasso, da vinci. But we all know that those were not the only artists in history. There were thousands others that were hidden behind these famous ones' shadows. Ones that died off behind the scenes. Just like in nature where those or that which does not meet the standards fail as a species to survive on throughout ages.

[crossconnectmag]

Dietmar Voorwold born in 1957, studied Graphics and Photography in Düsseldorf. In 1998 completed a further education for Art Therapy at the Institute for Humanistic Psychology (IHP) in Eschweiler, Germany.

For many years I worked with children, handicapped people and adults in educational and therapeutic institutions in Germany, Holland and Great Britain. I always put the main focus on self-expression, joy and inspiration.

In 2002 founded the Atelier Spurensuche Project in Wipperfuerth (GER) and in 2008 settled down in Scotland, where I now live for most of the year. Since then have preferably concentrated on outdoor installations.

“Nature is the perfect stage and canvas for the beauty and lightness, that I like to express.”

                                     :-)

—

Cross Connect Mag // Facebook - Flickr - Twitter

[viraj-nakum1]

Nature can’t be art? Ha. I laugh at thee. This is certified evidence that nature can have art. Even if not art than it can provide every material needed to create art. I mean think about it, all the paint, all the tools, all the STONES for statues, all the metals for sculptures, they can’t just appear from nothing. It all comes from nature, it comes from the very world around us. So if nature can’t be classified as art, then it surely as heck can provide whatever’s necessary for it.

Ps. the pictures above, I would consider as high art because I can’t even begin to imagine the time it took to find the specific colored pebble necessary to complete those peices among the bollions out there with each being a unique color of its own.

[lyngon-blog-blog]

Viraj, I agree on the fact that nature can provide anything needed for art, and it pretty much does since everything is in some way dirived from nature. I can say that I also consider these rock designs to be high art because quite frankly they look like they take loads of patience and time. Only thing is that when you mention that nature can be art I agree, but only when man is manupulating aspects of nature in order to create something. 

[katiemuczynski-blog-blog]

I completely agree with you Lyndia. Nature can be art through manipulation. While nature is beautiful, and has art in it, it is not high art. These pictures with the rocks and grass and leaves in certain patterns? That’s high art. I think that there is a difference between these two things: high art and nature. This man put his foot in both sides and combined them, creating something beautiful. But nature is still nature, and art is still art. It’s hard to keep these two things separate, because nature is so beautiful, but we need to learn the difference.

[hannah-bell-rae]

WOW!! This is amazing! I would definitely call this high because of the way they used not only photography but how they used so many things in nature! It’s stunning that you can make so much out of just plain old things like rocks.

[viraj-nakum1]

Wait a minute, I just had a thought, we've been going on and on about how nature can't be considered art because it is does not carry purpose. Well if you think about it it kinda does carry purpose. A flower for example, its purpose is to attract bees. So every plant grows its own type of flowers each unique in their own way, each created with the PURPOSE of attracting bees and, it also turns into a comtetion among them as well to see who can attract the most insects. In that case wouldn't the plant be considered an artist, attracting the most insects to promote pollenation, the purpose, and the insects the audience for it all. And competition wise, the one who attracts the biggest audience wins. Its kind of the same with our artists, they make a painting with the purpose of gaining a large audience to promote their work all the while competing against other artists and the one who gains the biggest audience wins and goes to fane while the others keep trying harder to do the same. Chameleons as well. Even though they use to protect themselves, their ability to change skin colors, how is that not art. Their purpose is to not attract an audience and when they camoflouge themselves making them harder to find, causing them to not attract an audience, that purpose is achieved. So I guess my question is, for something to be classified as art, does it have to be made by humans, meant for humans, and have an audience of other humans specifically? Why can it not be that art is anything made by a living thing, made for a purpose, and have an audience of any living thing?

[ryanrocca1]

Juggling is a form of incredibly high art.  The Mona Lisa is cool and all, but if a five year old were to watch an incredible juggler and look at the Mona Lisa, they would prefer the juggler any day.  The amount of work and countless hours spent practicing is much greater than that of any average painter per piece.  Each routine I do is truly a form of art, and can be more intriguing than millions of paintings or even sculptures.  I’m not trying to brag or anything (not too much at least) because I believe juggling is definitely a work of art, and the fact that I do it and choreograph it to music has nothing to do with it being high art.

[tristan-wright-avondale]

You are right on Ryan. Even I would chose juggling over the Mona Lisa because juggling is so fascinating. I believe that juggling in itself should be considered high art because it is an amazing talent, however, adding the choreographing to music with the impressive skill of juggling causes me to believe that your juggling skills are most definitely high art.

[viraj-nakum1]

I totally agree with the fact that juggling is a form of high art and that I would rather watch you perform than stare at some ancient paint on cow hide, cased within a box made of metal, with a sheet of sand through which I can get glimpse of a representation of a woman barely having the courtesy to give a smile to the person who is putting his time into drawing her, all the while being glared at by a million security cameras who relay images through some, supposedly, top quality screens to a severly underpayed 'security guard.' I truly, honestly would rather watch you. But in that case though, wouldn't all talent be considered high art since and type of live talent usually generates a larger audience than say.... oh I don't know...... the Mona Lisa for instance.

[alexaaalonso]

I wonder if handwriting can be considered art. Handwriting is like painting a picture but with words. All handwriting is different, just like artwork. It can be elegant, smooth, small, large, bubbly, girly, loopy- it comes in all shapes, sizes, and forms. Some people take a lot of time on their handwriting and others write so quick you can barely make out the letters. People can use their handwriting to express themselves also. This is just like how a painter picks up a paintbrush and paints a picture, except this time someone picks up a pencil and creates words.

[alexisbrownaplang-blog]

It’s cool that you bring that up. I’ve never thought to look at handwriting as a art but when you look at it and consider it it actually could be. Handwriting is a form of expression and unique to each individual.

[viraj-nakum1]

I would jave to agree as well. We talk about art all the time and how it has meaning behind it, it has a purpose with which it was created. Writing is the same. It was done for a purpose, to convey a message, which is also what art is done for. Although writing is meant for a specific message, according to me. And besides, just like how we try to make meaning from art, like what we think an artists purpose is or what message they are trying to convey, we can also do the same with handwriting. Well, when I say we, I mean people who can translate a type of handwriting into an inference of what the person would be like. Each person's handwriting, experts say, is like a finger print. Even though two people's handwriting may seem different, there are subtle differences that they can pick up on. I believe it's called graphology.

[crossconnectmag]

Dietmar Voorwold born in 1957, studied Graphics and Photography in Düsseldorf. In 1998 completed a further education for Art Therapy at the Institute for Humanistic Psychology (IHP) in Eschweiler, Germany.

For many years I worked with children, handicapped people and adults in educational and therapeutic institutions in Germany, Holland and Great Britain. I always put the main focus on self-expression, joy and inspiration.

In 2002 founded the Atelier Spurensuche Project in Wipperfuerth (GER) and in 2008 settled down in Scotland, where I now live for most of the year. Since then have preferably concentrated on outdoor installations.

“Nature is the perfect stage and canvas for the beauty and lightness, that I like to express.”

                                     :-)

—

Cross Connect Mag // Facebook - Flickr - Twitter

[viraj-nakum1]

Nature can't be art? Ha. I laugh at thee. This is certified evidence that nature can have art. Even if not art than it can provide every material needed to create art. I mean think about it, all the paint, all the tools, all the STONES for statues, all the metals for sculptures, they can't just appear from nothing. It all comes from nature, it comes from the very world around us. So if nature can't be classified as art, then it surely as heck can provide whatever's necessary for it.

Ps. the pictures above, I would consider as high art because I can't even begin to imagine the time it took to find the specific colored pebble necessary to complete those peices among the bollions out there with each being a unique color of its own.

[mohiuddin-baig]

I consider the Guardians of the Galaxy movie to be a form of low art. It is art, and very good art, but it is low because when compared to the sophistication, intention, and recognition of other pieces of art, it would considered below them by the majority. This is artwork because it has intention, and the primary intention is to entertain and delight people, probably within the age range of teens-20s. I have seen the movie, and I think it has accomplished this due to the amount of laughs I, and others, had. It also accomplished this by visual effects and music, which were done amazingly well. Colors fit the mood of different parts of the movie, such as being vibrant when there were happy times, or action filled times with explosions, and dark when portraying evil characters or somber moments. The music is what many would consider to be classics worthy of recognition for many more years to come, and so I suppose that would have even increased the audience to include slightly older people. 

[viraj-nakum1]

Yeahhhhh..... I'm going to have to disagree with you on this too. It iz actually very sophisticated because most of the movie was done on a green screen and the fact that the actors are able to get into such a realistic mood as if they actually are in space or on a different planet or even fighting a battle with superpowers when in reality they are just in a closed room where everything is painted green, that to me is an acomplishment worthy of the awards that movie will most likely recieve. And even if not the acting, all the incredibly detailed animations and backgrounds and the music that all work in tandom to create each specific moment to make it seem actually possible, that level of perfection shown, is alone is worthy for it to be called high art.

[hifructosemag]

[crossconnectmag]

from our friends at hifructosemag:

London-based illustrator and artist Martin Tomsky turns the dancing line of the pen into dynamic sculpture with his multi-layered woodcuts. See more on Hi-Fructose.

[viraj-nakum1]

This is definitely a beautifully crafted peice of art. The choice of it being high art or low art depends on the spectator's view point but for me, I would difinitely consider this as a form of high art. It was created by carving multiple peices of wooden boards and then laying them on top of each other so that the designs match up to each other and makes it look like one big carving. The amount of percision needed to make it so that every single layer matches with one another is astronomical, and that is what pushes me to classify it as a form of high art.

[viraj-nakum1]

Now step aside, look upon life as a disinterested spectator: many a drama will turn into a comedy. It is enough for us to stop our ears to the sound of music, in a room where dancing is going on, for the dancers at once to appear ridiculous. How many human actions would stand a similar test? Should we not see many of them suddenly pass from grave to gay, on isolating them from the accompanying music of sentiment? To produce the whole of its effect, then, the comic demands something like a momentary anesthesia of the heart. Its appeal is to intelligence, pure and simple.

Philosopher, Henri Bergson

[viraj-nakum1]

Art

I'm Viraj Nakum. To me High art and Low art are just simply opinions. High art being what we like and low art being what we don't like. However often times, like in class with Family Guy and Shakespeare, we choose that which we would not like from the two to be high art. I believe this happens because we are raised being told what is high art or should be high art. Therefore our choice, our opinion of what we consider high art, is then quenched by what is taught to us as fact of being high art.