Author: cmhall20 (page 2 of 2)

How do we define a new paradigm in Art

As a die-hard humanities academic, I was overjoyed to see the familiar face of an English professor standing at the lectern for this week. Though I have never studied the Royal Society, the topic of novels is a familiar one. I had never studied the specific origins of the Novel, though I am aware of many of the early examples which he mentioned. The Royal Society was a fully new topic of academic inquiry for me, as I have never so much as heard its mention prior to this lecture. As such, this lecture was a fascinating and invigorating ride. I found myself simultaneously understanding the topic more deeply than I ever had, but also having more questions that I never had even thought to wonder about. This led to a simultaneously satisfying, but frustrating experience of learning a great deal, while also becoming aware of how much I don’t understand. As I have found with many of these lectures, I leave with more questions than when I arrive. Having known very little about the origin of anything from the universe to Italian Poetry or Novel Writing, I am repeatedly exposed to a new corner of the world which I know little to nothing about. In the brief time, it is impossible to learn the origins of anything to a satisfactory level. However, opening up these corners of the world, and shedding a bit of light on them makes me more curious, and I find myself wondering about the finer points of origins often. Can we prove an origin, or separate it from an evolution? If we can prove that it happened, but we can’t prove how or why, then is this finding really significant? Does investigating this idea bring us more answers or will it lead to more questions, as the brief lecture on it has for me? How is is possible to define the first novel except by the definition used at the time when it was written? Is it possible to define the boundaries between poetry and music, or does doing so pigeon-hole a broad art form into a claustrophobically tight academic category? It was fascinating to learn so much about both a topic that I was previously very uninformed about, as well as a whole different method for investigating the topic. The origins of the novel was a topic that I found very interesting, as the lecturer indicated that he believed a bias to exist in the academic world, which identified the writings of male writers as the original novels, but does not recognize similarly formatted works by female writers. He indicated that if the female writers had instead been male, that the origins of the novel would be looked at in a fundamentally different manner. This points to a lingering question that exists in the world or art in a broad sense. Who determines greatness, and importance, and how is it determined? It is possible to have a truly objective understanding of who wrote the first novel, or are we doomed to interpret the origins of this art form based on our pre conceived notions of the authors.

 

Art Museum

As a newfound student and fan of art, I was excited to see find we were looking at the art museum for this week’s lecture. Though I have never studied the origins of art, the topic is of great personal interest to me. I had never studied the specific origins of art, though I am aware of many of the early examples, and the perpetual potential for argument as to the specific origins of different kinds of art. I was somewhat surprised by the many different origin themes present in many different styles of art. As I have found with many of these lectures, I leave with more questions than when I arrive. Having known very little about the origin of anything from the universe to Italian Poetry or Novel Writing, I am repeatedly exposed to a new corner of the world which I know little to nothing about. In the brief time, it is impossible to learn the origins of anything to a satisfactory level. However, opening up these corners of the world, and shedding a bit of light on them makes me more curious, and I find myself wondering about the finer points of origins often. Can we prove the big bang? If we can prove that it happened, but we can’t prove how or why, then is this finding really significant? Does investigating this idea bring us more answers or will it lead to more questions, as the brief lecture on it has for me? How is is possible to define the first novel except by the definition used at the time when it was written? Is it possible to define the boundaries between poetry and music, or does doing so pigeon-hole a broad art form into a claustrophobically tight academic category? It was fascinating to learn so much about both a topic that I was previously very uninformed about, as well as a whole different method for investigating the topic. The origins within art is a topic that I find very interesting. However, the origins of different styles of art. Given the ambiguous nature of art and the nuance between different styles, there seems to be an endless ability to argue the minute differences between differences in styles of art and the origins of these various styles. This points to a lingering question that exists in the world of art in a broad sense. Who determines greatness, and importance, and how is it determined? It is possible to have a truly objective understanding of who started a certain style of art, or are we doomed to interpret the origins of this art form based on our pre conceived notions. It was very interesting to explore the origins of art through the museum, which hosts many different beautiful pieces of art from many different periods and styles. Having an experienced critic of art to explain the pieces and their meaning, and connecting it to the context of the origins was a very interesting way to change up the lecture.

Innovation and Adjacent Possibilities

The topic of innovation is a very important one, as it relates directly to the future of our world. Finding the pace of innovation is also an important, though very complicated question. However, it is essential to know how quickly we are adapting as a society so that we can predict our responses to new challenges. As the world is changing it is important to be able to continue the pace of innovation. Artificial intelligence may be the future of our world, but it is important that we are able to keep innovating to keep up with the continuing challenges that will come with the new changes in our world. As I have found with many of these lectures, I leave with more questions than when I arrive. Having known very little about the origin of anything from the universe to Italian Poetry or Novel Writing, I am repeatedly exposed to a new corner of the world which I know little to nothing about. In the brief time, it is impossible to learn the origins of anything to a satisfactory level. However, opening up these corners of the world, and shedding a bit of light on them makes me more curious, and I find myself wondering about the finer points of origins often. Can we prove the big bang? If we can prove that it happened, but we can’t prove how or why, then is this finding really significant? Does investigating this idea bring us more answers or will it lead to more questions, as the brief lecture on it has for me? How is is possible to define the first novel except by the definition used at the time when it was written? Is it possible to define the boundaries between poetry and music, or does doing so pigeon-hole a broad art form into a claustrophobically tight academic category? It was fascinating to learn so much about both a topic that I was previously very uninformed about, as well as a whole different method for investigating the topic. Her discussion of adjacent possibilities was also a fascinating topic which I previously knew very little about. As a newfound lover of the show stranger things, which features an alternate universe known as the upside down, it is hard to imagine adjacent possibilities in a serious sense, without cartoonish gel oozing everywhere. However, it also makes the idea of actual adjacent possibilities all the more frightening. They are inherently incredibly mysterious, and therefore go perfectly alongside the idea of innovation, as there is no way to quantify our ability to innovate, or accurately predict what or how quickly things will be innovated in the future. Until we can see into the future, something that will inevitably be an important innovation, there will be no way to know what challenges will be faced in the future, or how they will be solved, how quickly or by whom. However, it is still important to be able to estimate what can be solved by innovation.

The Brain

The Human brain is something that is fascinating to me, but I also know very little about it. Though I have been lectured to about the various effects of drugs by a few different people, and therefore have a few sections of the brain, namely those that process dopamine, serotonin and other chemicals that are associated with addictive drugs. However, the little I know about the brain begins and ends with humans. Prior to this lecture, I knew nothing about insect brains. Though I assumed that they share many of the same characteristics as human brains since they are often studied, it was incredibly interesting to learn the specific differences between the human and insect brain. The brain has always captivated my attention, its nuance, its complexities, and most importantly its ability to adapt, learn and develop. As I have found with many of these lectures, I leave with more questions than when I arrive. Having known very little about the origin of anything from the universe to Italian Poetry or Novel Writing, I am repeatedly exposed to a new corner of the world which I know little to nothing about. In the brief time, it is impossible to learn the origins of anything to a satisfactory level. However, opening up these corners of the world, and shedding a bit of light on them makes me more curious, and I find myself wondering about the finer points of origins often. Can we prove the big bang? If we can prove that it happened, but we can’t prove how or why, then is this finding really significant? Does investigating this idea bring us more answers or will it lead to more questions, as the brief lecture on it has for me? How is is possible to define the first novel except by the definition used at the time when it was written? Is it possible to define the boundaries between poetry and music, or does doing so pigeon-hole a broad art form into a claustrophobically tight academic category? It was fascinating to learn so much about both a topic that I was previously very uninformed about, as well as a whole different method for investigating the topic. I was fascinated by the video that he showed of cognitive functions within insect brains, particularly given the express similarities between the human and the insect brain. It was very cool to see the brain function in this way. Given the similarities between insects and humans, it is interesting to think about how we can use the insects brain to improve upon the human brain. What diseases, mental and physical can be solved by the using the same adaptations that insect brains are able to use? By using adaptations from different animals to help solve the problems that currently plague the human brain, there are infinite possibilities to make humans smarter, happier and healthier. We could improve our physical and mental abilities by great amounts, and therefore expand the possibilities for future technological innovation.

Italian Poetry

As a die-hard humanities academic, I was pleased to here that we would be examining another timeless art form, Italian poetry. Though I have never studied specifically Italian poetry, I have always been interested in the general genre. I also was happy to see that many of his examples were ones that I was previously aware of. As such, this lecture was a fascinating and invigorating ride. I found myself simultaneously understanding the topic more deeply than I ever had, but also having more questions that I never had even thought to wonder about. This led to a simultaneously satisfying, but frustrating experience of learning a great deal, while also becoming aware of how much I don’t understand. As I have found with many of these lectures, I leave with more questions than when I arrive. Having known very little about the origin of anything from the universe to Italian Poetry or Novel Writing, I am repeatedly exposed to a new corner of the world which I know little to nothing about. In the brief time, it is impossible to learn the origins of anything to a satisfactory level. However, opening up these corners of the world, and shedding a bit of light on them makes me more curious, and I find myself wondering about the finer points of origins often. Can we prove an origin, or separate it from an evolution? If we can prove that it happened, but we can’t prove how or why, then is this finding really significant? Does investigating this idea bring us more answers or will it lead to more questions, as the brief lecture on it has for me? How is is possible to define the first novel except by the definition used at the time when it was written? Is it possible to define the boundaries between poetry and music, or does doing so pigeon-hole a broad art form into a claustrophobically tight academic category? It was fascinating to learn so much about both a topic that I was previously very uninformed about. Additionally, I was very interested in his distinctions between poetry and music, which are two categories which I believe have a great deal of overlap between them. As music is poetry, and poetry is also music in its own sense. This is another case where the lines between art forms are clearly obfuscated, and it is impossible to define a clear definition of one that completely excludes the other. Therefore, it can be endlessly debated what is poetry, what is music, and what is neither, as there is no possible way for anyone to materially define the boundaries of either form of art, or draw a line which divides and separates them. To me, that is what makes theses different types of art so interesting, is the ambiguous nature of them. They are impossible to pin down, and that is what makes them so satisfying. It is impossible to explain what they are, but yet they still exist, and are still important.

Newer posts »