Death of the Renaissance Personality?

     ****Sorry it's so long, I guess I had a lot to think about/write about from this!****
        I was inspired to write this entry by a recent Psychology Today magazine article entitled "Endangered Arts." In this article, the author discusses a number of things in our society that are deemed "endangered" and quickly fading into nonexistence. Ranging from the art of writing a letter to meaningful conversation to the threat of the "Renaissance Personality" coming to an end, it was incredibly interesting to see just how many "arts" are no longer normal parts of our culture as they once were for decades and decades.
      Since this class is centered in a multitude of various mediums ranging from music to art to graphic novels, I thought it would make sense to focus of the threat of the Renaissance Personality for this entry. In the article, they reference how at one time not too long ago, students could speak several languages, play the piano, and recite poetry after a meal. In their eyes, they believe that this type of person is disappearing rapidly.
       While our society seems to be light years away from times in our society's past in a number of different areas, I will have to disagree with this idea. I might be biased since I go to an art school where a countless amount of my friends and peers are multi-talented in so many forms of art and constantly wow and impress me with their infinite amount of talents, interests and interdisciplinary skill set. I strongly feel that they're are so many people in this country and in this world who excel at music, writing, film and other mediums. While it is important to work to get better at each craft, I don't think that we don't see people who sort of have their hands in everything.
     If someone is trained in piano or a certain instrument, but still excels in painting or singing, are they not a Renaissance Personality because they aren't an expert in all three? Also known as a "polymath," the true idea of a Renaissance person, dating back to Renaissance Italy, embodied the idea that humans should feel empowered and limitless in their abilities for development, and that people should embrace as much knowledge as possible and develop their abilities and talents as fully as possible. The definition shows that is a person whose expertise covers a large number of different subject areas but it can also mean someone who is just very knowledgeable. More and more in this day and age, we are constantly told that we need a wide array of skills in the work place such as knowing the ins and outs of blogging, using social media, using video and other mediums. I think the true leaders of the world are among us, in our age group, who are knowledgeable in so many things and will use their knowledge of a variety of interests for the better. Has this magazine truly forgotten about those who are Renaissance Personalities and have allowed those who seemingly lazy and uninterested to cloud over these talented people? Is being a Renaissance Personality a good thing or should we all just focus on one thing and become experts at that? Is having your hand in too many pots something negative? Do you think you're surrounded by Renaissance people or have they died in your eyes?  I wonder.
-Regina

Dear Columbia, Where Did All the Girls Go?

After last weeks discussion of women in the art world it was evident that although the thought of women being able to be active members in the art community and produce worthwhile art is becoming much more widely accepted, the truth of the matter is that in the actual industry there are still not many women artists being represented. Also, in the article we read titled ‘Beauty and the Geek’ we learned that women have also been having a similar problem in computer related trades. Although being a woman and a computer programming “geek” is now acceptable, it is hard to deny that the “geek” jobs are still primarily male dominated.
    Both of these articles bring us to an industry that, I feel, combine both art and technology. The incredibly male dominated audio industry. When I started at Columbia for Audio Engineering I had no idea that I was going into such a male dominated major, but I soon found out when I started my classes that I was very out of place. I’m a senior now and over the four years that I’ve been at Columbia, I’ve still yet to have an audio class that had another girl in it! As you might be able to imagine, this can be very intimidating at times. You’re showing your audio project in front of a room full a guys and you just can’t help but think that all eyes are on you while they intensely listen to what you’ve done, seeing if you can actually produce something worthy. Every semester I get comments about being the girl in the class, both by classmates and teachers, you’d think they never saw a girl before! For example, just this semester at the start of class a classmate leaned over to me and asked, “So...how does it feel to be the only girl in this class?” to which I responded, “...Um, feels like every other audio class?”. He didn’t like my sarcasm too much.
    If I can go through a four year school program for audio engineering and not encounter one other girl in my classes, I wonder how many women there are out in the field right now actually working in the industry. My guess is not very many at all. So the question arises: Why aren’t there any women studying audio let alone working in the audio field? There are many female musicians, and usually how you get into audio is because you are an artist that becomes interested in the recording process. At least, this is what happened with me. Is this possibly because, unlike me, women already know that audio is male dominated and so they don’t want to put themselves in a situation that might be uncomfortable? Whatever the reason is, I wish that women would start to pursue audio because it seems to be the most lacking of any other major at Columbia when it comes to the woman count. Of course there are some up sides, there’s never a line at the bathroom for instance,  but come on ladies I think it’s about time for some female company! 

Anastasia

Mash-Ups And Other Things

So the other day I was at a party and the Biggie Smalls/Part in the USA mash-up started playing. One of the people I was talking to said he didn't like mash-ups, because he didn't think it took any talent to create a mash-up. I disagreed, because I think to make a great sounding mash-up, you have to have an ear for music, and you have to know the elements of music and make them work with one another. I thought it would be difficult to intertwine songs to make a catchy track. The guy also argued it wasn't an art form, because the remixer(?) was just taking songs already created, therefore he wasn't creating anything new. I also disagree with this, because a remix can totally change song(s) dynamics, creating a new piece of music, even if it is out of two+ other pieces.

It is an interesting discussion, though. If others feel the way this guy did, then there are other things I consider to have artistic value that may not be so. For example, the Garfield Minus Garfield webcomics we had to read. While the original comic strips were created by Jim Davis, Dan Walsh added a new take on the strip by removing certain characters. This was a creative decision, and it adds a completely new dimension to the former comic strips.

Another similar example would be Red Vs Blue , the comic adding voice-over to videos of Halo. All the visuals and the "camera work" are the creations of Bungie (the Halo developer) but the content is made by Rooster Teeth Productions. So while the episodes often play on the fact they're in the Halo universe and they're using visuals from Halo, they make it their own story. Is this form of web series deserve to be discredited, because it wasn't animated by Rooster Teeth? Or is this a creative decision that makes the web series work better? Something to think about.

- Zach

What about Charlotte?

            This week’s reading, “The New Girl Order” by Kay S. Hymowitz really struck some chords with me – both good and bad. Hymowitz rings the bells of feminism in this article, praising every woman who has spit in the face of tradition and carved her own path full of designer bags, cocktails and careers.  While reading an article full of examples of the independent-no-need-for-men Carrie Bradshaw’s around the world, I found myself asking, where are the Charlotte York’s? The romantic women who really thrive on the tradition and sanctity of marriage? Are we to assume that every woman’s inner desire is really to go out partying in high heels every night? (I can tell you it is definitely not mine.)

            Feminist movements, if that’s what we could even classify this as, seem to always be about each woman doing what she truly wants with her life and not being told what to do by her parents, or even worse, by men. My issue resides in this notion that every woman wants to be single until 35, and anyone who does otherwise is “giving up” on the potential for her life. Do we really no longer value our own mothers?

My sister, Alison, was married at age 22, had her first child at 23, and the second at 24. Let me guess, 85% of you just thought, “oh my god, what was she thinking? She is too young!” I even find myself having this reaction about young married peers from time to time, but let me tell you, from as early as I can remember, all I have ever heard my big sister talk about is how much she wanted to be a mom someday. When attending college she had no idea what she wanted to study, she just felt like she had to be there or people would look down on her. She ended up dropping out, and instead, starting a family – her life-long dream, and she could not be happier. I know plenty of people who look at young married women as the anti-feminists, when in fact; I would consider my sister to be the very definition of a feminist. A college degree is expected of almost all women these days and to drop out in order to start a family is something that has almost turned into some sort of freak show. Instead of following what society and my parents had always told Alison to do, she said screw it, and followed her own dream instead. Now she faces a plethora of judgments and discrimination because instead of what used to be the norm, she is now living what would be considered the most undesirable life to most of her 25-yr-old peers.

Hymowitz writes about our mother's and grandmother's generation and says, “Those women reached adulthood, which usually meant 18 or even younger; married guys from their villiage, or, if they were particularly daring, from the village across the river; and then had kids – end of story, except for maybe some goat milking, rice planting, or, in urban areas, shop tending. The New Girl Order means goodbye to such limitations.” While she is right in that this new way of life is providing more opportunities for the women who want them, I also think it is creating a caste of women who are being shunned or looked lowly on just because their own choices in life don’t include partying ‘til 3am and having ambitious careers.

Bottom line, all I’m saying is that true feminists believe in doing what you want without adhering to some lame expectations for what you “should” be. So, go forth women, be who you want to be… whether it’s a fashionista or a mother, I will admire you for being yourself either way.

- Kris Hendon

Why I'm Terrified of "Wall-E"

It seems like in today's world, I would be considered kind of strange. I hate texting. I prefer mixing batter with a spoon or whisk rather than a mixer, and I really like writing by hand. I hand-write almost every paper, story, script or whatever before I even go near a computer. I turn the computer off. I think, first of all, that it keeps me from being distracted. My notebook has no internet, no friends to talk to, no silly cracked.com lists to read. It's just me writing, uninfluenced by spell check or auto-correct.

I think the biggest part of it is that I like seeing my work in my own handwriting before I type it. It feels more personal. The words on that page are entirely mine, written in the way I like to write them and void of any green squiggly lines. I like breaking (some) grammar rules. I like exploring my options and inventing new words without being told by my computer that I'm wrong.

For me, technology cannot make the art. It makes the wrapping paper. It takes what I've made and packages it into a pretty box with a ribbon, but I get to take full credit for the present inside. This is necessary for professional-looking work, which is necessary in the professional world. But technology cannot replace the decisions we make, even the bad ones, that make our art unique and interesting.

I see technology as a double-edged sword. Internet and cell phones allow us to communicate with so many people we probably never would otherwise - we catch up with old friends, keep in contact over large distances, and make new friends without even leaving our houses. However, it becomes a problem when emails, texting and chats replace actually talking to people. I like having conversations. I like physically talking to people and having my sarcasm fully understood and appreciated. I also like drawing with a pencil or painting with an actual paint brush. I like feeding real dogs and real fish, and harvesting real strawberries. I like playing a real guitar (regardless of the fact that I only know one chord).

Here's where my title comes in - I am really incredibly scared of the future. I don't care if the apocalypse comes. I don't care about zombies. I'm scared of spending all of my time zooming around in a little pod because I'm too fat to walk. I'm scared of not speaking to anyone in person. It's great that technology is there, but I don't want to lose the option of ignoring it.

- Lauren Piester

Creative Commons; what are people afraid of?

Photo By Jassy-50 via Flickr

When it comes down to what most people consider art, we think of what we see in museums. And museums, too, consider what they hold in their collection and archives art. There are many stern rules about recording, documenting and viewing art within the death-grip of modern museums. Work in museums is limited to those who can spend the money and time in the space it self. Many people do not fit this category. Opening the museums up on the terms of the individual may be what we need.


After reading the article "Policy of Reality Versus Reality of Policy" by Douglas McLennan the importance of Creative Commons world, where we share imagery and ideas without the fear of losing something by making it public, became even more evident. Douglas writes: 

I believe in net neutrality, in Creative Commons and sharing and transparency and giving away things not because they seem like cool concepts, but because they seem like good common sense business strategy. Good business strategy, by the way, that puts more control in the hands of the individual.

Creative Commons is a nonprofit organization that increases sharing and improves collaboration through a new sort of Copyright. By declaring a work under a CC License, you allow other people to sample, use, quote, expand and collaborate on your ideas. This concept  makes art available and accessible. Some groups in the music industry are releasing albums free to the public through their websites and are seeing great increases in merchandise and ticket sales due to increased popularity. I believe people support what they truly like. The best way to get your art out into the world is to set it free.

I'm currently working on a project in efforts to bring archived imagery to the public. This is to share the works and legacy left behind by creators of the past on an Internet archive. The Museum of Modern Art in New York has been hesitant, to say the least, to release their images to the public eye. It would seem as if they would rather keep the images locked in their archives than risk someone having a copy on their hard drive. MoMA seems to think that these are proprietary images meant for their digression but in many ways they are just the ones meant to preserve the work. As the line becomes more and more unclear as what museums are actually used for we get many pieces of art and eventually history closed behind doors. 


Museums and archives around the world seem to believe the public is a scary and not to be trusted. I believe there is a better way. Now I ask you, and the world, what are you afraid of?


- Jeremy Mumenthaler

Except where otherwise noted, content in this post is
licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License

The News:

Ever read the newspaper?  I do at least once a week at work.  I find journalism a type of art, an art form which is tricky because it requires a certain talent for holding one’s audience while giving accurate information in an interesting manor.  As a Columbia Student I have a slight problem with our newspaper, The Chronicle. (I would like to note that I also have some issues with other newspapers but I’m going to stick to the Chronicle for the sake that we are all Columbia students)  When I sit down with it I always give the whole paper a once over, deciding what article to read first and every time I do this, there is always something disappointing or just silly in the paper.  As an example, many Decembers ago, there was an article on how to bake the perfect sugar cookie.  This lack of seriousness or lack of educational importance in that article is not just limited to that one particular paper, it is in every edition of The Chronicle.  

As a Columbia College student, and especially because I’m a writing student, I want the Chronicle to represent our school and me well.  I feel that too often various journalists view their shorter pieces as filler and do not write about pertain topics all while using juvenile language and poorly constructed sentences or structure.  Reading about ways to change up Ramen is an understandable topic to write about it but wouldn’t it be more pressing to speak about what junk food does to one’s body or about the obesity epidemic?   I know, it seems like I’m being a bah-hum-bug, but I’m not Scrooge I promise.  I feel strongly that if the Chronicle pressed for more out of their writers, better edited pieces, or just had a slightly more serious tone, that it would be taken more seriously and considered a better paper.  I’ll still read The Chronicle as long as I’m at Columbia, and I thank and applaud those who write great informative articles, but I hope over time, I see something change before I’m graduated.   

-Kelsey 

Photography: High Dynamic Range

In the fine art world, there has been a new genre of photography emerging called high dynamic range.  It's a digital imaging technique where three images or more are combined to create a higher contrast picture where the highlights and shadows both have detail, giving the image a dramatic feel without any use of studio lighting (can be achieved with one image only if it is extensively dodged and burned).  In short, it can give you a properly exposed image with little to no work at all.

As an avid flickr user, I've notice many photographers are now using this technique.  Although I feel that photography is a technical process just as much as an art form, it takes away a sense of dignity.

I find these images visually compelling, but they seem to be produced for that sole purpose only: how 'cool' can I make my image look.  I love digitally manipulating an image as much as the next guy, but as a photography major I feel it is necessary to learn the basics and foundations of the trait as like any other art form.

In an art school where you have no choice but to dig yourself into an early financial grave, I'd like to think my money and long hours spent in the darkroom aren't going to waste.

-Jonathan

Are videogames art?

Written by Jack

So I'm a huge nerd (as most of us are) and an avid gamer/wannabe game designer and in the circles I frequent there is a rather infuriatingly repeated question: Are videogames art?  Before I give my opinion, I'd just like to say that the purpose of this post is more to satisfy my own curiosity on what everyone outside of my circle thinks rather than to convert anyone.

I believe, wholeheartedly, that they (read: some) absolutely are the very definition of art.  They can be emotionally engaging in both their narrative and their gameplay, the process of making them (and making them good) is a finely tuned creative skill, and, at the most basic level, they be pretty.  Others would not agree, including critic Roger Ebert.

Mr. Ebert set the internets aflame a few months ago when he wrote a post entitled "Videogames Can Never Be Art."  Ebert has long held this position, but never expounded on it.  And even when he did, his argument was reactive and convoluted.  He didn't even give his definition of Art (until he recanted his position) and failed to even grasp what meaning a good game could bestow, let alone play one.

So I ask you, dudes and dudettes,  do you believe that games are art?  And if not, could they be?

Sorry for the late post y'all!

Jazz DJ Dick Buckley

Why Dick Buckley's Happiness?

Naming a collective blog isn't an easy thing to do. Of course in the blogosphere, there's always the pressure to sound witty and quirky and cool. Blogs, probably even more than columns in newspapers, are seen as umbilical cords to our persona. (I purposefully use the word persona, because we all know what's presented on the net is the edited version of us -- and we have the photoshop and autotune to prove it.) At least at newspapers, there's an editorial board that determines what gets covered and how that coverage will be shaped. If we think about it, long-standing columnists at respective papers are the precursors to bloggers -- the Homo erectus to us Homo sapiens. There is an implied credential with them, no doubt. They must have something interesting to say because somebody is writing them a paycheck to say it. Today, as long as we have an internet connection and reasonable typing skills -- some times not even that much -- we all get to give our two cents' worth.

But to name a blog that is about art and talking about art -- and not just my own opinion about art -- is a tricky matter. I had no editorial board with whom to confer. By default, I set it up, so I had to name it. Then, why "Dick Buckley's Happiness?" I can't remember when I first heard Dick Buckley on WBEZ, but I can tell you that I miss listening to him now. (Mr. Buckley passed away this summer.) His deep pipes and congenial manner -- with just a hint of irascibility -- made me tune in week after week after week. His voice was about more than his vocal chords. He knew the inside scoop that made the music into a story. He knew the names of session musicians that were left off the liner notes. He knew who was hung over during a recording session and who had just had their heart broken. He pointed my ear toward the instrument that would catch my breath in my throat if I listened for it or the one that would make me cringe, and he played tunes that made me dance around my living room because they were meant to get the blood going.

Dick Buckley was a fan -- most importantly a knowledgeable fan -- and he wanted to share his knowledge and infectious love for jazz with everyone who listened. He could tell you why the tune was exceptional or why somebody had missed the mark that day in the studio. All of his comments were respectful, but not all of them were complimentary. He'd tell you who his favorite trombonist was and why he wasn't a big fan of tenor sax. I didn't start out loving jazz. Dick Buckley made me love it because he taught me how to listen to jazz. His depth of knowledge was immense, but I don't want to call it encyclopedic. To say that would imply that he stood outside the work and catalogued it. Dick Buckley did a lot more than that. Every time he talked about jazz, you'd swear he was in every recording studio and every smoky jazz club. (I think the latter is probably true.) To me -- and I never met the man but I was friends with his voice -- he was a top-notch curator, an impeccable reviewer, and an educator. In other words, he was the voice in the wilderness directing his listeners through to the light.

So for the emerging voices who will be writing for this blog -- I wish you the spirit of Dick Buckley. You don't have to know as much as he did on any given art form. Just jump into the work with both feet as he would have. Find what interests you or confuses you or makes you want to find out more. That's what he did. And if we can get even an ounce of the love he had for jazz into any of our observations -- imagine, jazz set the path of his life -- then we'll be doing just fine.

Happiness? That was his signature sign-off. Here's to you Mr. B.