The Flying Man

Relativity is the key to processing anything. Simple concepts such as big or small, hot or cold almost all revolve around comparisons. Even more complex concepts, for example, good and evil, are based on comparisons. Without darkness, we would have no concept of either lightness or darkness because lightness would just be the way everything is all the time.

Therefore, a human being in a perfect state, suspended without senses, would not have thoughts. They could not think in sound, image, smell, feeling, or taste. They could not compare their state of being with anything, so they would not have a concept of not being, and therefore they would not have a concept of being.

The human brain is an organ that functions by receiving and sending messages to other organs. If the sensory organs don't feed the brain any messages, it can't react to anything. Babies and toddlers begin to understand things and formulate ideas as their brain develops. It is crucial for them to sense their environment in order for them to begin to form these ideas. From a purely scientific stand point, the floating person would not think about anything.

Most Christian and Islamic (probably Jewish too?) philosophers, such as Avicenna, who believe in a soul would disagree with me. But unless our brain is connected to some soul or intellect, separate from our physical bodies, it would be impossible for that person to think.

multiplicatives of negatives only result in negativity

i find it entirely odd that the mind reverts to the downside of things in any given situation, don't you? i suppose you could say humans are simply flawed in that sense, but i wonder why.


i hate that i have to trust in the receiver of my words to follow my gist.

the power of the human mind

I left class thursday a little disturbed, it seemed to me that a lot of people didn't have a lot of faith in the human mind's strength and it's ability to think. The question was "Does a human being suspended in air with no senses know it exists?" There was a lot of discussion leaning in the direction of saying it wouldn't which was surprising to me. Regardless, it got me thinking in large part about what the mind would be doing over long periods of essentially darkness and surrendering to a state of not feeling. We as humans, surrender our senses out of will for meditation in different ways, but I think the closest to complete unkowningness is a coma patient. What does the mind create in those dark periods of time? I think it would be something rather horrific, a second world filled with nightmares. If the brain isn't getting reference from things that exist the abstract forms it would create I think would be horrific in nature.

The Art of Basketball? Um, no...sort of.

First, let me say that I would not be the ideal art school student to ask about a basketball exhibit in an art museum. Unlike many of my fellow students, I am actually quite opinionated when it comes to sports, one of those main opinions being: I detest basketball. It's really nothing personal and I don't mean to be offensive to those who do like basketball but the last four years of my life have been spent in total devotion to wrestling. Being from the Iowa/South Dakota area wrestling generally takes precedence over basketball and that is especially true for me. It's more than a mild interest and anyone who's facebook friends with me knows that it consumes my thoughts, especially during the winter months. That being said, it is my duty as a wrestling fanatic to find distaste in anything basketball related. In a joking manner I believe I said something like, "I feel like they've defaced this poor beautiful museum", when I saw the tape applied to the floor.

That being said, Rebecca made a very good point as we discussed the exhibit. It was a fantastic marketing tactic on the part of the museum. Hundreds of people who might not have otherwise set foot in the Nelson went because of the exhibit. Regardless of whether or not the original rules of basketball belong at an art museum I think the most important aspect is that the exhibit only served to support the museum and gather a crowd of people that otherwise would not have ever gone and that's something that I can support.

unconscious inferences

After class and our little science experiments with optical illusions I decided I needed to know more. As it turns out, I retained very little knowledge from high school science. The short of it is that optical illusions are unconscious inferences that our brain makes. In its attempt to make sense of what we are seeing out brain puts things together that it might not otherwise. Basically, optical illusions aren't real but our brain interprets them as being true. I found the definition of "unconscious inferences" to be especially important because I feel as though this is something our brain is always doing and not just with illusions. For me, unconscious inferences in illusions, translated to prejudices in every day life. We are constantly making judgments on things we have been conditioned to feel one way or another about. What's unsettling about this is that this tendency may be hard wired into our brains. It makes sense though, when our brain sees something it can't naturally understand, it mashes things together in an attempt to comprehend. I feel like this works in a few ways. The illusions can be pleasing or not and much like what we see everyday we generally find distaste or acceptance in it because of how are brain interprets and makes sense of it. And in that way, life is just an illusion.

Basketball Exhibit

I didn’t leave the James Naismith “Original Rules of Basket Ball” exhibit at the Nelson Art Museum ready to lace up my Nike’s. Instead, it made me wonder why sports memorabilia is being showcased as an exhibit at the Nelson. The Rules provide historical information about Basketball as a sport. I stepped back from all of the media attention and excitement from my dad about “March Madness” basketball this month and realize that the Naismith Original Rules of Basket Ball are actually an artifact.

I looked up the definition of an artifact which is “something created by humans usually for a practical purpose; especially an object remaining from a particular period.” Indeed, the Rules are a rare and unique piece of history, but I kept pondering to myself, is this a real art form that should be showcased as a cool exhibit for lovers of art to enjoy at the Nelson? On one hand, it seems like a piece of history about a sport that sports fans would want to see. The most logical place for the general baskeball loving public to have access to this history is our beloved Nelson (which partially looks like a basketball court right when you walk in now)! The Rules provide historical information about the sport but don’t provide artistic value. So Kansas Jayhawk fans wearing your crimson and blue colors, there you go, enjoy the exhibit and by the way, take some additional time to check out and learn from the creativity overflowing at the Nelson while you are there!

I might also add that it was publicized that a University of Kansas family purchased the Rules for several millions of dollars. This situation at the Nelson makes me think further that the exhibit is actually showcasing a rich family that loves Jayhawk basketball, and the museum is allowing the sport to be emphasized instead of expressing artwork. However, I’ll step back a bit and understand that James Naismith did invent the sport of basketball, and he did put down in writing the “Original Rules of Basket Ball” in 1891. An artifact does provide our community real value and historical importance. So, you could say it’s a “slam dunk” to make some room for the Original Rules of Basket Ball to be featured, and allow some sports fans the opportunity to see them. At the same time, these people can also experience Kansas City’s original rules of artistic expression and the most unique, and creative environment provided by our reliable Nelson Atkins Museum of Art. Lace ‘em up Kansas City….

Signs in Medieval Art Continued

I began to suddenly not feel well during the middle our class at the Nelson Atkins. I wish I could have paid more attention to others presentations of signs in their work, but since I can't go back and re-listen, I want to talk more about the piece that me and my partner picked, The Altarpiece with Scenes from the Life of the Virgin.

Since the piece is so complicated, we probably should have picked one panel. I'm picking the top left image, which shows a woman seated while receiving a flower from a kneeling figure which appears androgynous.

The signs directed by souls include the woman's hand gesturing toward herself and the angel's kneeling, both indicating that she is the focus of the narrative, and the more important figure in the image. The angel's gesture indicates he is offering the flower to the woman as a gift.

As far as natural signs go, most signs in this image could only be interpreted by a person from western culture, specifically one familiar with christian traditions. The writing is a sign, however, only a person who can read latin can understand it, which, during the time period it was created would be a person wealthy enough to afford an education (and or paper for writing). The wings on the angel indicate that he is angel, also his androgynous features were associated with angels during that time period. The fact that the woman is mary and that the angel is informing her of the fact that she with give birth to jesus can be assumed from the similarity the scene bares to other annunciation scenes as well as the image of a small man in the clouds with speech lines coming down toward Mary in the same path that a dove is flying, which can be assumed to represent God sending his holy spirit down to Mary in the form of Jesus. Also we can assume both figures are holy by their halos. The flower most probably represents purity and the virgin Mary. I can't even tell what flower it is, maybe a lily, but lots of flowers symbolize the virgin Mary.

Most of these signs are probable. It is theoretically possible that another religious scene is depicted and the figures aren't Mary and the angel Gabriel, but it is probable that they are. Probably if I could read latin, it would be certain that that is who is depicted.

The Art of Basketball?

Since so many of you seemed to feel strongly about the "Rules of Basketball" exhibit at the Nelson-Atkins this weekend, I thought it could be interesting to open up the topic for further discussion here. Do you think this is a legitimate exhibition for an art museum? If so, why? If not, why not? If you do think it is appropriate to show the rules of basketball in a museum of art, do you agree with the way the Nelson-Atkins carried it out? Look forward to hearing your thoughts ...