Just a shameless plug for my online portfolio :)
www.serenae.com

I’ve been meaning to blog this for quite a while now.

What does everyone else think of this video? I saw it (partially) as a statement on the media’s influence over us, but perhaps it’s also saying something about human nature. What makes it so sad? The very end, or everything leading up to it? (Or do you even think it is sad?) Just something to think about.

“All creativity can be understood as taking in the world as a problem.”
I know we already talked this one to death, but I’m feeling the need to explore it further. We explored the nature of the statement, but not really the statement itself. We asked what was meant by “creativity”. What qualifies as creativity? What is the connotation of the word “problem” in this context? Why is it phrased as “taking in” rather than “approaching”? Is it even possible to approach these question in a way that produces answers?
I …

“All creativity can be understood as taking in the world as a problem.”
I know we already talked this one to death, but I’m feeling the need to explore it further. We explored the nature of the statement, but not really the statement itself. We asked what was meant by “creativity”. What qualifies as creativity? What is the connotation of the word “problem” in this context? Why is it phrased as “taking in” rather than “approaching”? Is it even possible to approach these question in a way that produces answers?
I …

This isn’t directly related to what we’re discussing in class, but I find myself very intrigued by this ongoing blog discussion about art and its value. After this post, I’ll give my full attention to Vertigo.
Call me morbid, but ever since I first glimpsed the painting “Watson and the Shark” (by John Singleton Copley) when I was about 6 years old, I’ve been in love with it. I don’t even know why, but perhaps this is a good opportunity to explore the effect it has on me, and on others …

Beth’s post got me thinking about art again, and I’d like to explore, briefly, the connection between happiness and quality or depth of art. It was mentioned that artists rarely seem to be happy, and the more tortured they are, the greater or more intense their work is. But the more important question to ask is “Do we tend to view more serious artwork as ‘greater’ simply because it has more depth and intensity?” Are we trivializing ‘happy art’ just because we have decided that it cannot possibly be taken …

The debate in class today affected me far more than I expected it to. The discussion of ‘true love’ almost brought me to tears, something that is generally extremely rare. I felt so emotionally invested in the exchange that I simply couldn’t handle participating directly in it. Many issues were raised and discussed, some of which I agree with but most of which made me realize how much I truly dislike the characters in this book. Also how incredibly cynical I’m becoming, but that’s a separate issue. I ended up …

My apologies in advance to Dr. Campbell for the enormous tangent I’m about to embark upon.
I was going to write a post analyzing exactly what it is about eye contact in film, photography, and traditional art that captures the audience in such a unique way. However, I discovered something else along the way. Artists are always staring straight at the viewer in their own self-portraits, whether photographed or painted. In over an hour of searching, I only managed to find ONE famous self-portrait in which this was not the case. …

Another thing that I thought would make an interesting class discussion is the question of the creative commons license. Nokuthula Mazibuko published her book under this license, which basically gives permission for anyone else to add to it as long as it’s not offensive in some way. She explained that her reason for doing this is that it’s not just a story that can be told by one person–many people are involved with stories, and they should be allowed (and encouraged) to add to this. Also coming into play is …