Humes

I thought that Humes was the most interesting because I think that I believe in a lot of what he talks about such as open mindedness, miracles, and us not being born with a set of expectations. He is also an agnostic which I consider myself to be as well.

When he was talking about miracles he was saying that he didn't not believe in them or he did, he simply said that he has never experienced one there fore he couldn't say that they didn't exist. I can say the same because I have never experienced a miracle but I have heard of stories that are miracles. In Psychology of Living were learning about depression and suicide and we watched this video about people jumping off the Golden Gate Bridge. This one guy jumped and as he was falling he realized he didn't want to die. He fell to the water and came up, he should  have died either on impact or of a heart attack on the 220 foot drop. But a wave went over as he was falling which broke his fall somewhat and before his boots filled up with water two sea lions carried him to the surface. I consider this to be a miracle because he should be dead but he realized he didn't want to and something saved him. I can say that they can happen I have just never experieced it.

Hume believed that a set of expectations is not innate . The world is like it is and it is something we get to know. He talks about how a child wouldn't think that a man suspended in the air is as astonishing as a grown adult would because the adult knows that someone suspended in the air is supposed to be physically impossible. He goes into talking about cause and effect and how one thing is supposed to go after another, or if it simply exists with in itself. I found this to be very interesting because it shows that we can make of what we want out of the world, and it made me question if the laws of nature simply 'are' or if we make things to be impossible and possible.

Best of the Week

I thought that the "Best of the Week" was the movies by Leni Riefenstahl because we watched two contrasting works by her, which displayed her. The first one, which was the divers from the olympics, showed elegance. She also used different video editing techniques such as shooting from different angles and slowing it down at certain points. The second one started out elegant and displayed beautiful parts of Germany. Then it began to showcase Hitler and his power of the Nazi party. She shot from many strategic angles in this film to highlight the mass amount of people in the convention center. It also led to the class discussion of what is art and is racist idea's are considered art. I thought that was interesting as well because  our class got into some philosophy. I wouldn't Leni Riefenstahl's work art because it is more propaganda. Some propaganda can be considered art if it is a poster or something. But since it was more of a documentary I wouldn't consider her work art.

Aestetics

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCA6bdRgN8E

The choreographer is Emily Shock. She is a very cutting edge, contemporary choreographer. She choreographs for a very popular dance team and I kind of find her stuff over rated. But this piece I think is very good because she makes the bodies match the instruments. For instance when the violin is playing their bodies are melting and swaying. Or when the bass is being plucked they are sharp and intense. Also, the musicality, When the singer says "eye's" the choreographer doesn't have the dancers touch their eyes or do anything that the audience would expect. But instead she has the girls looking around. Or the singer say's "world" and the girls moving around aimlessly. She also has some repetition in the piece, which I generally don't like because I want to see something new. But in this case when the music repeats the dancer's are also repeating what they just did. At one part they are all slightly bent over and then they fall down, then that part repeats because the bass repeats.

There is also hardly any technical elements, (turns, jumps, etc...) which is unlike the choreographer. I liked how she didn't put in technical stuff because it show's off the dancing ability, and you can see the story behind the song rather than showing off the girls skills. I think that she actually took something presently and made it into this dance. I can tell that the dance has real emotion going on, not just a made up story to try to win a competition. Which is typically what most competitive choreographers try to do, just jam as much eye catching stuff into a dance as possible and make it look good, and I appreciate that she came up with something from the heart and showcased it for everyone to see.

Gabriel Orozco- First post

Over the past two weeks of school I think that the most interesting person was Gabriel Orozco. I thought it was really interesting how he could take the most simple thing like a spill on the ground and thing of it as art. It was also interesting how he was talented at so many different things like taking pictures and architecture and pottery. While he was making pottery in the video he felt a connection to his ancestors and to the piece itself. He explains that how he feels about all of his work. He quotes, "to be intimate you have to open yourself" which I took that in order to feel a connection to art you need to be able to tap into your emotions and look at things in a different light. An example of looking at something differently is while he's at the grocery he saw it as a perfect place because of the order. Then to mess up the "perfection" he took a bunch of stuff and put it where it didn't belong. I found this particularly fascinating because it is such an everyday place that we go to every day and just see it as a store with food. But he goes in and sees it in a total different way.

James Kunstler

While watching the TED video I agreed with some points James Kunstler was making, while disagreeing with one main one. In the beginning of the video he shows pictures of what he calls, "places not worth caring about" like intersections and the backs of buildings. I think that those spaces are necessary in order for people to get to these permeable spaces that he talks about. Of course it would be nice for every building to be eye pleasing, but I feel like it is almost impossible for every building like that. There are different functions for every building and a architecture isn't going to make a self storage building a beautiful space for boxes to be stored in it. On the other hand restaurants, town centers, and shops should be elaborate and eye pleasing because it is a recreational space that people use daily.

He also brought up the point of consumer vs. citizen. While we are both at the same time there is a difference between the two. The consumer is the everyday person in the economy, buying, spending, saving, wasting, exhausting resources. The citizen is the person in the community who is making a difference, and who is an active member in the community trying to make a difference. There is no way for people to not be consumer's but we can be smart about how and what we buy. But people can choose to be a good citizen by becoming involved in the community. Going to town functions, parades, fundraisers, etc... and trying to make a difference.

What if there was no "what if"?

If there was no "What if?" then we would have all the answers. There would be no questions, there would be no hypothesizing. There would be no imagination or creativity because people wouldn't know how to think outside the box. Nothing new would be invented because people wouldn't wonder how to create something. There would be no contemplation of to do something or not. The only reason why we contemplate now is because of the "what if". What if I broke the law?, What if I didn't go to work?. Would there be any consequences if there were no "what if" or would people know what is right and what is wrong? Would there be such a thing as wrong because people would never think of anything besides the right thing to do? If there was no "what if" there would be no regrets in life. What if I said something different?, What if I said bye one last time?. If there was no "what if" would there only be definitely in life and no maybes, because people wouldn't think of the "what if I did this instead of that?" Would there really be anything? What if the caveman never wondered what would happen if I took these two stones and made a spark? Would there be anything? I could go on and on if there was no "what if", but the one thing I do know if there was no "what if", I wouldn't be writing this blog.