What is Art?

What is Art?

This week, I asked several people, “What is art?”  Every description I heard included the word “expression.”   

 For me, art can be a means of expression, but it must first meet (my) two criterions:

      1) It is the result of a person attempting to create something new; and

      2) The creation was composed for the sake of art. 

By my definition then, a computer-generated work is not art- it is simply an output.  (Please know that I do recognize the skill it takes to program a computer to create something, but it still doesn’t count as art, for me….)

Also when a person attempts to create something new, but not for the sake of art, it is not art.  If I bend a paperclip into a fancy design because I’m antsy, it’s not art.   

And to elaborate further, once someone is known for creating art, it doesn’t necessarily follow that everything he touches becomes art.  If Michelangelo dropped his paintbrush while hanging from the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, the spatter-pattern on the drop cloth would not have been art.

To illustrate my definition, I thought of a basic item to search on Google:  a Band-Aid.  I typed in “Band-Aid Art,” and a bazillion images appeared.

Here is one image. To me, this is not art, as nothing new has really been created.

  

   

 However, I would consider this one to be art, as the Band-Aids have been transformed into something new.                                                                                     

Do I find this aesthetically appealing?  Not really, but that doesn’t mean that it isn't art.  Aesthetic value and artistic value are not necessarily synonymous.

So now what is your definition of art?

A Lesson in History....

When I first met my husband, he was studying to become a United States citizen.  He would read for hours, then ask me to quiz him.  To my embarrassment, I didn’t know more than half of the answers.  Twenty years earlier, I experienced a similar sense of shame when I was studying in France.  The teacher was drilling my classmates about intimate historical details and about their country’s predecessors.  I realized that not only did I not know the answers to the immediate questions, but I also didn’t know those types of answers about the history of my birth-nation.

Unfortunately, I am not alone.  With each passing generation, Americans have become less and less aware (or interested) in our historical past.  This is why we find our grandparents and parents reminiscing about past events; but starting with Generation X, this phenomenon began to wan.

But is this, as Ken Burns suggests in his Stanford University address, a result of the spread of social media (Perry, 2016)?  I think not.  The use of social media may perpetuate this issue, but it is not the root cause.  Rather, it is the egocentrism that began to develop when the nation became tired- right after the war in Vietnam and the civil rights movement.  People began to “de-focus” their attention on history and generally developed a laisse-faire attitude toward our past.  We started “sugar-coating” events, to make them more digestible for the country’s sensitive youth.  Rather than embracing our history and taking accountability for our actions, we diminished their impact by breaking them down into tiny, disconnected morsels of the original context.  

The shift towards watching television further catapulted this trend, by presenting the negative (and positive) pieces of current events and political happenings into rapid fragments, so that no one would have to process too much information at any given time. 

And while today’s social media may graze upon important issues, these are diluted by the attraction and sensationalism of other, more-trivial and interesting links to data.  For example, it is not uncommon for someone to read about political unrest, while simultaneously wishing their childhood friend happy birthday, as prompted by a Facebook reminder.

If anything, the use of social media may be nudging our society forward, because after thirty years of not devoting attention to critical issues, people are now aware of (and exposed to) current issues.  We might at least comment upon or “share” a story about an issue of national or worldwide concern, whereas before we simply remained passive.

Ask any young French student to tell you about Putin and he will quickly explain.  Ask any young American the same, and he’ll show you how to “Google” it……

References

Perry, D.  (2016).  Ken Burns on how social media gave us Donald Trump and why ‘there is not

yet armed rebellion.  Retrieved from http://www.oregonlive.com/today/index.ssf/2016/06/ken_burns_on_how_social_media.html

The Role of Media

This week, we will consider if the fourth estate, “media,” still exists; and if so, what is its role?

 

What is the “Fourth Estate?”

First, we must understand what is meant by referring to media as the “fourth estate.”  As Blackwell references, it “denote(s) the role of the public media as a pillar on which the smooth functioning of a democratic society rests, together with the other three estates- legislative, executive, and judiciary.  A free press is also a counterbalance to these powers, a watchdog guarding the public interest, and providing a forum for debate” (Blackwell, n.d.).

 

Should today’s Media still be considered as the “Fourth Estate?”

In this context, today’s media rarely acts in this capacity.  Instead, media merely serves as a means for spotlight entertainment.  Ask yourself how many times the media effects your cognitive thinking.  Do you question the truth of what you hear (or read), or do you simply accept that what is being fed to you is the truth?  As more eloquently observed by Neil Postman, “How often does it occur that information provide you on morning radio or television… …cause you to alter your plans for the day, or to take some action you would not otherwise have taken, or provides insight into some problem you are required to solve?” (Postman, 2005, p. 68).

 

Furthermore, Postman recognized that it is difficult to draw meaning from “news” that is presented in a rapid, disconnected manner (Postman, 2005).

 

Today’s Media

To illustrate how media does hold an entertainment value and is presented in fragments, let us review how the media “enlightened” us regarding the recent massacre at a nightclub in Orlando, Florida.

 

I tuned in for the New for Jax 5:00 p.m. broadcast, which in all fairness, did devote more than 45 seconds to this story.  The anchor’s segments, however, were broken into bursts of information, which first covered a recap of the events, then jumped to mini exposés, such as where the shooter purchased the gun and remembering a local victim of the shooting. 

 

This information could have potentially been valuable information for the public to know.  For example, if the shooter had gone to a gun show and purchased the weapons without any screening, this could shed light on the fact that the gun-purchasing system is flawed.  However, that’s not what happened.  The shooter went to a gun store, completed the proper paperwork and background screenings, and went home with his guns.  How was it valuable to us (the public) to watch an interview with the gun store owner, while he explained that he had never seen the customer/shooter before, and that he voluntarily closed his doors for the day, as opposed to being forced to close?  What does that change for us?  How does this influence our lives or call us to any sort of action?

 

Furthermore, the anchor demonstrated that our level of thinking is (apparently) very basic, because he consistently reminded us of what just we heard.  He made statements like, “we told you exactly how many victims there were,” and (to paraphrase another statement) “we showed you how these police cars have been parked here since yesterday, because the investigators are working around the clock.”  At first, I thought this was meant to prove how diligent the station had been in their coverage, but then I realized that this step was necessary to clarify and recap (for us) what we had just heard, as if we are no longer capable of such a logical summary independent of guidance.

 

So, what is the role of today’s Media?

Sadly, today’s media has moved from the role of the “fourth estate” to the role of “tastemaker.”  As The Free Dictionary explains, a tastemaker is a group that strongly influences or sets current trends, styles, or fashion (The Free Dictionary, n.d.).  This means that what the media presents as content becomes that which is important, noteworthy, or trendy in our society.  I believe the media could tell us the importance of making sure the paperclips we use are clean, and we would see a surge in the sale of alcohol wipes, or whatever other cleaning agent the newsperson might suggest.  For the most-part, Americans have been the puppets of media, blinding accepting whatever content is fed to us, as long as it’s done in a low-brainwave, highly entertaining manner.

 

There are a few media experts that adhere to more traditional media values- who are truthful, thorough, and unbiased, but I fear they are fighting a losing battle in the three-ring circus.  That is, unless we decide to cut our strings and demand higher quality content and presentation, so that we can elevate our media back to its status as our fourth estate…….

 

 

References

 

Fourth Estate.  (n.d.).  In Blackwell Reference Online. Retrieved from

http://www.blackwellreference.com/public/tocnode?id=g9781405131995_yr2013_chunk_g978140513199511_ss39-1.

 

Postman, N. (2005).  Amusing ourselves to death. New York: Penguin Group.

 

The Free Dictionary. (n.d.) Retrieved from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/tastemaker.

 

Twitter vs. Graphic Content

The questions have been posed, “Should Twitter, as an immediate publication platform, take steps to remove or censor graphic content?  And, as an autonomous, third-party commercial enterprise, is Twitter’s oversight of posted content ethical?”

Terminology

To answer this, I first have to define graphic content. 

“The Twitter Rules” describes graphic content as being pornographic or excessively violent (Twitter, n.d.).  The social media site prohibits the use of this type of content in a user’s profile image or header image (Twitter, n.d.).  However, they “may allow some forms of graphic content in Tweets marked as sensitive media (Twitter, n.d).”  And lastly, they also forbid “gratuitous images of death” (Twitter, 2015). 

While this is helpful, I must also understand the meanings of “pornographic” and “excessively violent” in order to be able to identify content of this nature.  Because Twitter does not clarify their interpretation of these terms, I turn to the all-knowing Google search engine. 

Here, the first search result for “what is pornography” was a basic definition: Pornography is printed or visual material containing the explicit description or display of sexual organs or activity, intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic or emotional feelings.  Furthermore, no exact results populated from my search for “what is the definition of excessive violence…..”

Breaking the Questions Down

Should Twitter take steps to remove pornographic content?

My answer to this is ‘no,’ unless the images involve a minor child or an incapacitated adult. 

·      Online child pornography is strictly covered by the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 (CPPA), which has very clear guidelines.  And please note that what these guidelines do not prohibit are images of children just because they are naked.  Thus, the candid bathtub pictures that seem to be an inherent part of childhood would not need to be excluded. 

·      Incapacitated adults (even if the incapacity is self-inflicted), cannot truly consent to being included in a pornographic images.

Should Twitter take steps to remove content that depicts excessive violence?

May answer to this is also ‘no,’ with no caveats.

The Rationale

Let the user beware.  If one choses to participate on an open media forum, one should expect the unexpected. 

It’s like entering a public park.  There are basic rules governing how everyone should behave, but the rules cannot include all behaviors; and there will always be people who do not follow the rules.  It’s a risk you take by going out in public (a.k.a. participating in social media). 

It should also be noted that Twitter is rated Mature-17, so young children shouldn’t be using the site.  This squashes the argument that children may see something disturbing.  Parents shouldn’t let their children use this social media site. Period.

For me, the internet (along with television, radio, magazines, etc.) has reached the point of no return; and as such, every user is responsible for taking measures to protect their individual sensitivities.  This means the user is ultimately responsible for the items they view.  If you follow someone and they post something graphic, stop following them.  Don’t open the link. Don’t read the article.  If you’re getting random graphic posts that were not solicited and they offend you, stop using Twitter.

As a society, we have tolerated and/or encouraged so much offensive content that we have become desensitized and oblivious to the extent that this type of content has become the “norm.”  And while we started accepting foul language, sexual images and violent actions into our everyday entertainment regime, we didn’t notice that our characters were changing for the worse.  We lost our sense of integrity as we were groveling for more sensational media content. 

However, Twitter is a publicly traded company.  So if their leadership determines that it is the best interest of their company to ban graphic content because of the values of the organization, or because they fear the financial consequences otherwise, then that is their prerogative. But I feel the decision is solely theirs, and it should not be dictated by regulators or demanded by users.

If users don’t like the content to which they are exposed, they should ban Twitter until the rules change.  Otherwise, no reforms to our media content will ever occur, because almost no one has the energy, the desire or the patience to define his or her values and then stick to them………

Reference

Twitter.  (n.d.)  How can we help?: The Twitter Rules.  Retrieved on June 5, 2016 from https://support.twitter.com/articles/18311.