real horror show

Carroll suggests that people's fascination with horror does not come from our obsession with tragic events but rather the way in which these events are worked into a plot. I would like to think this is true in some aspects for example, I might go to a Quentin Tarantino film because I enjoy his ability to thrill me with plot twists and his outlandish camera work, despite the fact that his films are extremely violent and often notably filled with gore. Humans enjoy participating in their "mental game" which involves submerging ourselves into fictional situations which force us to consider our own morals and question ourselves. Audiences often find themselves thinking "would I have done that?" or "I would have gotten away differently" in a way similar to how other art forms help us to do the same. Villains in horror represent those things that we hate, find socially unacceptable and often, some form of the "seven deadly sins" which we are told not to overindulge in or we will turn out like these villains. The psychological game of learning about this villain as it impacts our life, struggling with it, finally confronting the villain (i.e. our own conflicts), and finding a way to defeat it is symbolic of our everyday struggles and problem solving conflicts. People can find an outlet for these struggles in horror, it has the attractive element of indulging in these horrific, sometimes animalistic situations which we are deprived of in everyday life.

But what is it about this specific genre that draws people in? What is the psychological explanation for the recent popularity of "slasher" films which lack plot development (excluding the "low-cost" element which explains reality TV shows, etc)?

Response to Ed

Might video games be considered potential works of art?

I would argue that yes, video games can indeed be considered works of art. It seems that although video games may not be an ideal form of art, they follow the criteria which were set in previous chapters which we have read. Video games are interactive art, which allows the gamer (for their benefit or not) to become consumed in a fictional situation where they actually have a level of control over the storyline. When playing a video game, gamers often are completely submerged in the fictional story. Game systems like Wii even allow the gamer to move their body in realistic movements to control games. Unlike film or photography, video games do not require that the themes or characters in the game actually exist. Which for Scruton, this makes a big difference. Video games also take a certain amount of artistic ability to create. The creation of complex games may take an extensive amount of time and requires attention to detail. The artist creating the game represents some sort of intent through their work which may be interpreted by the gamer. My only resistance here is the capacity for a video game to move someone. I have to think that video games do posses this characteristic for the simple fact that when I was younger I was afraid of playing "zombie" themed games and would nearly toss the controller when it got too intense. We could also argue that video games have caused some people to "copycat" in real life, extensive studies show that violence in video games can be translated into violence in life. This statistic is debatable for me. I am not entirely sure if people are more violent as a result of video games, or just if violent people play violent games?

Although I would not necessarily claim that video games are a "major" art form, I feel that the amount of artistic ability involved in creating a game, and the emotions and reasons for playing them correlate to the criteria we have discussed which constitutes a work of art.


With game systems like Wii which force the gamer to actively participate (let's say, bowling for example), when this much physical effort is needed to play a game, what is it that prevents the gamer from going out and actually participating in real-life situations (i.e. actually going bowling)?

The previous blog on "suspension of reality" got me thinking about Tania's take on Aristotle's theory discussing the potential effects of exposure to virtual traumatic fiction. As adults we engage in mental games, often through participation in the arts, to cope with the reality of understanding the actual world which is arguably not established during early childhood. Aristotle claims that contemplation of these fictional situations can be healthy in the way that it helps prepare or "cleanse" us for future situations in the real world. My question is about what happens when people start engaging in these fictional situations to the point that we begin seeing life as an imitation of art rather than art as an imitation of life? Turn the TV to any "reality television" show and you will see anything but. What you will see is people then imitating and getting ideas from these shows and using them in actual life which can be harmful. It is important to note that beneficial lessons can also be taken from the arts, but I must highlight that I am speaking to the quantity in which we absorb fictional material not to the material itself. I feel that by consuming large amounts of fiction in the way that (for example) American culture does, we go into a sort of overload where we become neurotic in preparing ourselves for obscure situations to the point where we are forgetting to live in the present. Going back to a blog I posted on Alan Watts, author of The Wisdom of Insecurity he equates this theory to trying to think about reading this sentence as you concentrate on reading it. You will find that you cannot do both at once, if we engage in these metal games to the point that we lose complete awareness of what real life is, it could have negative effects.

What is your take on this?

Considering most watch movies of the sort as adults, could is be that we are just maybe missing an element of physical play, which was found in childhood, during the time when one may not have enjoyed these sorts of movies as much?


This is an interesting point. I think it is possible that as we get older, we tend to react more strongly to concepts in films as a sort of "mental game" to put ourselves in fictional situations, which we then become emotionally involved with because of their symbolism to the actual world. I feel that children do not need a temporary "suspension of reality" to engage in play or imaginative games because they haven't yet gained enough real-life experience to have reason to believe that these situations might not actually exist somewhere. For example, a group of children playing pirates on the playground may very well believe that somewhere, real Peter Pan-style pirates could exist. As an adult watching Johnny Depp in Pirates of the Caribbean, we do not have to believe that these events are actually going on in the world to enjoy them. A child viewing Walton's slime on the movie screen may actually be afraid of the slime, and could even be moved to action (for a child that would be crying, seeking help from the adults), where as adults have lost that naivity of the actual world and therefore enguage in these mind games which requires suspending your awareness of the real world.

Watching a commercial on television a while back, I was confused when I saw an ad campaign for some prescription drug which opened with an actor from the show "E.R." in his surgeons outfit saying, "I'm not a doctor, but I play one on TV..." As adults, why is it that this actor who plays a doctor on television, has an opinion on a drug that would be just as justified as an actual doctor? I found an article later that made me rethink my question. The actor, James Franco was speaking of his experiences with films and specifically Pineapple Express. Franco talks about the work he did to prepare for these films including spending months living on the street to prepare for role of a junkie, and gymnastics for Spiderman. Hillary Swank lived as a man (binding, packing, and cutting her hair) for a full month to prepare for the role of Brandon Teena in Boys Don't Cry. A part of me feels that the line between our fictional situations and our perception of the actual world continues to merge as we go. My question is where is the fiction in the story if the actors in it had to live those events in actual life just to prepare for the role, generally speaking of course?

Observations of Photography

While attending a wedding two weeks back, I noticed lots of people taking pictures throughout the ceremony. I have often criticized this tendancy of people to choose "seeing through the camera" almost as if it is better than seeing in real life. Another example can be found at any concert. Look around at people who are watching large chunks of the show through their camera lense. I feel that in these situations, people become so focused on preserving memories from events that they forget to actually watch them. I find myself at shows telling friends to put their camera's down and actually watch the show, otherwise what are you preserving if you have no memory of ever watching the show with your own eyes?

Back to this wedding that I was at. Whenever the parents didn't get a 'good' photo of the brides during the ceremony, they would shout "wait, pose like you are doing that again! I missed the shot!" I kept thinking to myself, if the essence of photography as Scruton would say, is to preserve a copy of a moment, yet you intentionally stage the moment to get a photo of it. What exactly are you getting a photo of? Will these people remember that this was not their first kiss, it had actually taken place a few moments before and was then recreated for a photograph to be taken? I am confused by this common tendancy. I'm sure we have all done it at one point or another...

Question:

does anyone have an opinion as to why?

Question: What about 'representation' means that it must be something other than a mere moment?

Scruton’s idea of ‘representation’ focuses strongly on the existance of the photographed object in comparison to the created objects depicted in painting (the example that he uses). He makes the point that when viewing a painting, there are three points of representation. One being the intentional object of sight, which is the representation that the viewer is meant to see symbolized by the painting. The represented object is loosely based on the painters intention, the mode in which the painter used to portray their symbolism. And then there is the material object of sight, which would constitute as the painting as a whole. Scruton claims that when we view a painting, we can then make an inference as to what is being represented and what the intentions are.

This photograph, "Dali Atomicus" is Philippe Halsman’s (photographer) reference both to the new atomic age (physicists had recently announced that all matter hangs in a constant state of suspension) and to Dalí’s surrealist masterpiece “Leda Atomica” (which hangs on the right, behind the cats, and unfinished at the time). In 1941 Halsman met the surrealist Salvador Dalí and they began to collaborate in the late 1940s.

I don’t think that Scruton is claiming that a mere moment isn’t capable of representation. Rather he is implying that with photography, one is limited to photographing the existing world as is, and therefore leaves no room for artistic intent unless the photographer “becomes a painter of sorts”. His argument supports the fact that a photograph is simply a captured moment in time and although that moment may have represented the general feel of the times, or the like, it is not the photograph itself that is representational, it is the moment. The photograph has just captured a moment and provided the photographer with a hard-copy of that moment.
I would argue that Scruton’s ideals for what the essence of photography is, is skewed. His definition seems to only capture the very basics of what photography is capable of. There must be some artistic merit in the ability of a “good photographer” to choose their targets carefully and with the right timing to capture the intent that they are going for. Even in staged photographs, there are techniques used with lighting, shutter speed, exposure time, and a variety of other methods, many being specific to the art of photography and cannot be attributed to painting or other art forms. I would argue that one could find representation in the art of photography itself. Photographers often put themselves in the way of danger to capture photographs, with this the idea of having a hard-copy of a moment in time which would be otherwise inaccessible to most people, there is room for actual emotional responses since the depictions in the photograph are known to actually exist. In the next section we discuss the problem of evoked emotional responses from fictional characters. When viewing a painting, there needs to be some level of suspended awareness of reality in order to evoke a true emotional response. With a photograph, we are able to allow actual emotional responses because the photographed moment is known to actually have taken place at one time.


Question:

What would Scruton say about film as a visual art?