Loner…

dzeyarr’s photo essay…

Personal experience man ata ito..

Napasa ko na to kay sir sa cd,

trip ko lang i-upload sa blog..

pero feel free to comment..

coin operated boy/s… hihihihi

Kainis… pixelized siya…

anyway..

proud pa rin…hihihi

capturing moments…

 Photographs has that ability to freeze time and let moments last a lifetime or more…

One thing unique about photographs is the fact that it is nearly imporssible to have a concrete definition/classification of what an original photograph is..

I believe photography is an art because there is the simple intention of creating something and make it the best as it can be. Of course not all photographs are art, but so are paintings and sculptures made by other people whom are not considered artists and are just made because they only feel doing it.

There is a so called “taking pictures” and “making Pictures”.

different perspectives..

videos and films offer a different perspective in looking at things. adding to that is their ability to manipulate how images are seen and how they should be seen.

it has the ability to make you absorbed in a new unverse and would sometimes make you forget your reality and hypnotize you to believe that what is real is what you are seeing..

Seeing through a camera lens, just like in photographs, guides the viewers attention to a specific detail that is wanted to be emphasized by the maker. It is a small parcel of the totality of that particular subject. whew!!

Adding to it are the camera angles, movements, use of colors, lighting, costumes, sound and not onlt does the maker lets the viewer experience the shot visually, rather, the viewer experiences it psychologically, in a sense that the viewer imagines or percieves some depth where the shot is located even though it lies only on a flart surface.

Image of actors..

[there is a part in the trailer of the movie Babel that would show Brad Pitt as a desperate husband]

Even though the movie Babel is just a fictional series of unfortunate events, the audience were still absorbed in it.

I believe that the movie was very effective because only two characters in the movie are recognizable for the audience (Brad and Kate). This fact helps make the audience fully believe that each of the actors in the movie are embodiements of their characters, because most of the actors were not seen before, and there is no point of reference for the audience to know if they are appropriate for the role (which eventually was) or not. Hence, if the actors did good in portraying their character, and the audience believed them.

If the father of the two boys in the middle east had been in an earlier movie playing a role of a rich democrat, the audience might find him inappropritae and awkward for the role. This is because, previously, the audience had established in their minds that the actor was good at portraying a rich democrat, and may find it hard to reestablish in their minds that the actors is also good in portraying a poor man. If it was like that, the actor hould double of triple the effort of making the aduience believe that he is a poor man. But this was not the case, at first glance the actor is believable, and througout the movie, he was consistent with his role, which makes him very fit and believable for that role.

However, if there are cases wherein an actor was seen in a previous movie like Brad Pitt, he has the much greater task of acting much more convincingly than “normal”. Not only does he need to make the audience forget about his previous role, he also has to do it very convincingly, in which he did, that is why he can be considered as one of the better actors in hollywood. He was able to separate his character in Babel from his previous characters from his previous movies.

Looking at the two pictures of Brad Pitt, the left image was taken from the movie Babel, and on the right was taken from his previous movie Mr. and Mrs. Smith.. He was very convincing in each of the two characters that he portaryed.  He can be a spunky, cool sexy guy and a desprate husband.. (For additional reference, please watch the videos)

“For the stage, an actor works himself into a role, for the film the perfomer takes the role onto himself” -  Stanley Cavell

In the stage, there is always that tendency that the actor will fall out of his character, hence in the minds of the audience, the actor really is just portraying a role, and that the actor onstage would be different offstage.

On the other hand, on the screen, there is no tendency that the actor will fall out of character, which in turn would make the audience believe that the actor is the character that he portrays.

It maybe one of the reason why some people still has that feeling of anger when they see an actor in person whom played a very sinister role in his previous movie.

This is the reason why movie actors have to be very crafty and flexible in their art, because they always have to convince the audience that they are themselves the character they portray.

Without any reference of whom the actor is off the camera, the image of the actor in the movie is what sticks to the audience.

(I would like to add that in the case of Brad Pitt, he was believable in his role because i never saw him “balbas sarado” before. His facial features which is credited to ounstanding make up helped in making the audience avoid comparing Brad’s other characters to his character in the movie. Because in previous recent movies, Brad was always neat and tidy looking, unlike in this movie.)

[the movie Mr. and Mrs. Smith, is where Brad Pitt isplays a "cool" spunky guy]..

Sources:

Images:  Yahoo! Images

Videos:   You Tube

Playing with time..

heartbkreaking… ouch!!!

“Past, present and future within the world of film can be brought together in any way the film maker desires” – Sesonske

“the occurence of motion in cinema makes its three dimensional space a genuine visual action space, where we perceive not merely compositions but characters, actions and events…

But enough about the effect it gave to me…

The movie Babel played with time, which in turn contributed to the “Ouch” effect that it gave to the audience. The sequencing of scenes were not according to how the events in the story really happened. This is called the Dramatic time.

The first scene was just a precursor for the root of everything that would happen in the movie. It gives a little amount of sympathy for the family of the two boys. It is the factor that somehow makes the audience step back their emotions on blaming the boys of the tragic events about to happen, because the sympathy was the first one established, not the anger.

In the scene where the nanny and Brad Pitt(i’ll use Brad Pitt as the center of identification) were talking on the phone, which was followed by the scenes where the Brad and his wife were spending their time in the middle east, made the audience think that the phone call happened before the trip to the middle east.

In the succeeding scenes, it was all part of raising the emotions of the audience. There were scenes of a Japanese deaf-mute girl, the nany bringing the children of Brad with her because of her son’s weddinng and she has no one to leave the kids to, and the most significant scene in the movie where the wife of Brad Pitt was shot by one of the boys in the middle east.

Then, the succeeding events were how desperately Brad tries to save the life of her wife, and in between was the scenes on what was heppening to his children.

While these two events were happening, the audience were made to believe that they were happening simoultaneuosly. However, when the scene where Brad Pitt was the one focused on by the camera in his conversation with the nanny, everything went upside down.

All along, the phone call between Brad and the nanny was done after Brad’s wife was shot, which explains why he was very eager not to let the nanny go to her son’s wedding, he even offered to double her salary.

This unfolding of events made the audience give more pity to Brad and his family. The sequences where the unfortunate events came one by one was even more pitiful than them coming in simultaneously.

The director (obviously) chose to sequence the scenes not according to how it should happen because it would help build the emotions of the audience. This build up of emotions would contribute to the pity that the audience would feel for Brad.

If the sequence were done according to how it should happen, then the emotions of the audience would be very low. It would be as if the movie was giving facts one by one, which makes the level of excitement flat.

In movies, the biggest factor in making the movie exciting or thrilling is making the audience ask questions along the way and giving them something that they do not expect. This would make them anxious to know what was the cause of a scene and what would be its effect in future scenes. It helps make the audince in the edge of their seats. It makes them want to not miss any second of the movie.

In the mood for love… in secret..

Hmmm…. peeping and looking at something without getting noticed…

Looking at something which were meant to be hidden, or is tabooed by society…

The movie dominantly used close up shots, which results in highlighting the images focused on. It is mainly used to emphasize body parts, especially those of the contours of the female protagonist.

The camera acts like the eyes of a man, not only does it stare (while drooling), it also caresses the female body. Even though there is no physical contact, through an exaggerated focus on the body parts, the visual stimuli of the audience can compensate for the lack of it. This in turn makes the movie very visually sensual.

The movie also uses bizarre camera angles. a majority of which were under a table, through small gaps on the doors, outside of a window looking in. This kind of camera angle gives the audience the feeling of a “peeping tom”. Looking at someone or something with curiosity and of course, unnoticed.

The peeping effect, also gives the audience the feeling of looking at something which is not normally seen through the public eye. It is because, when peeping (of course), the object of sight does not know that he/she/it is beeing looked at.

It also adds to the secrecy of the affair between the male and the female protagonists whom have each of their own spouses.

The slow motion during scenes where the woman is walking adds to that carressing effect. Because when you caress somone, you do not do it fast, but rather very slowly, touching and feeling every inch of the skin of the person you are caressing.

The camera movements are also bizarre. There are time when the camera is static, does not follow where the actor goes, and there are times when there is a shot with no actors in it, only the place where the were or where they should be.

That kind of camera movement adds to the effect of “not being allowed to see something”. If “normal” camera movements were used, the camera would follow the movements of the actors.

This effect adds the notion that what we saw was “coincidental”, or we are only allowed to see what we saw. It mostly resembles a peephole. Wherein one could only see what is offered by the peephole and nothing more.

There are also instances in a scene where there are two people conversing, only one of them is shown in the camera. It is either the sender of the receiver. It somehow highlights the emotions of the person focused on the camera. It gives no attention or neglects the other.

Unlike the movie Citizen Kane, where the camera angles let the audience feel free to choose whom and where to focus their attentions, this movie commands the audience what to give attention to.

I also believe that the background music (just like in the video), helps add to that emotion and excitement that the audience feels. The feeling of peeping and being caught at anytime…

Sources:

Video:   You Tube

Citizen Kane!!

 Citizen Kane the first movie that i saw whose time is a long way back from my time…

Most of the setting or places where the movie took place was created or edited. Example is the interior of Xanadu.

“matte Shots” were used, example was in the scen where cars were driving along a coast line. According to sources, the sea and the cars were shot in California, but the beach was a picture taken in Florida, hence the effect was that the cars were driving along a Florida coast.

The time was during the early 1900’s, during the great depression, where Kane is a powerful media tycoon.

The movie used various lighting techniques in terms of the sources of light.

Spotlights were used to help ellaborate emotions and hidden motives.

Lights are brighter during Kane’s youth and gets darker as he gets older. It helps depict his inner being.

Cameras are maximized, especially deep focused and wide angled one. Deep focus, eliminates blurry objects far from the camera, and wide angled exaggerate distance.

Sound were used to further invoke emotions and to strike the audience.

When the scene has soft mellow emotions, the volume and beat of the sound are soft. In contrast, it could loud and almost shockingly abrupt, like the beginning of the newsreel. It really grabbedattention, hence the next shots, which are of importance, were well understood.

The flm’s sequencing of shots were maximized. The use of abrupt change from shot to shot depict urgency and high emotions, while mellow or dissolving shots, solemnity and subtleness.

In terms of acting, Welles did a very goo job in portraying Kane in every stage of his life, from birth to death. With the hrlp of make up, his physical features helped in justifying his movements and character.

After reviewing some of the comments of previous critics and watching themovie, i could most certainly agree that Citizen Kane is a movie way advanced for its time.

Not even, at this period does most movies come close to the brilliance and miximizing of the sifferent elements of film. Every detail was well though of. From Lighting, Camera angles, use of camera lenses, background, adding to that is the very good story and plot, which all in all rounds up to making the movie a marvel in film aesthetics.

But if you ask me, the movie is boring. i do not know why. It is good, aesthetically, definitely. I believe that its very serious story is a factor in the “boredomness”. Maybe because, the story is not that of a hit in todays generation. We want movies that would entertain us, though there are movies that are of serious genre but they do not fail to entairtain us.

Kane, well, is a very serious movie. Maybe because of the time when it was made. And add to the fact is that the people behind the movie are desperate to gain money and achieve succes, hence they put all their knowledge and artistry to this film, and almost made every shot as perfect as possible.

Let us admit, that when we think of comedy (maybe the opposite of drama?), there is not much “artistry” needed to portray the comedic effect, because its only objective is to entertain.

Sigh… to much thinking… Ugh..

nood muna kayo…

Sources:

Video:   You Tube

Cremaster Cycle…

 I don’t know why i felt a little headache after i watched the film. Maybe my mind paniced because as the film ended, the fragments of the film that ideally and usually is made into a single pieces afterwards, never came to be, in fact it got worse.

 If it should be accepted as it is, and my objections cannot be accepted, then it should also be accepted as something which cannot be immediately understood by “regular” people. It may be because one needs a comprehensive background about aesthetics and film in order to decipher (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) and interpret (!?!?!?!?!?!?) the film in their own understanding.

Well, maybe i understood some of it, because when someone asked me how i felt about the movie, my mouth opened, which is a good sign. But, my mouth stayed open. withouth any words coming out of it. It was like after i watched the film, all the knowledge that i have acquired througout the 19 years of my existence was all sucked out in an instant, leaving me without any words to puff out.

We were supposed to comment on the film based on our understanding on “performance art”. This is where all the ambiguities started. This is because, most people, when they hear something which is regarded to as “art”, their minds automatically process that what they will see is something aesthetically sound, pleasing to the eyes, and unconsciously accepted by the “norms” of the culture in which the group watching is included. Well, i may have i little prejudice about it, and that when i think about “art” it should be something beautiful, well in terms of what i think is beautiful and what my culture dictates as beautiful.

Hence, the oddness, pointlessness, lack of any story that would make it meaningful and beautiful which comprieses the Cremaster, there is no suprise that it did not “click” to the taste of the viewers, us veiwers.

However, if it was seen by people coming from a different cultural background, there is a chance that the reactions to it would be worse (Yes!!!!) or better( hope not!!!!).

Cremaster cycle is one of the weirdest whatever-kind-of-media-it-was that i have ever seen..

Though there is no need to understand the weirdness of the whole things, i just can’t seem to get the point of its purpose…

well, maybe there is no need for it to have a point, or better yet, there is no need for it to have a story.

It may be because it is performance art. It merely performs the art it represents. It is performing the art according to the understanding of the human being who made the film. it may be wild, weird, uneasy but that is how he preforms the art.

If I may peform the art of fridge magnets, hence i would stick my self into the door of the refrigerator. Because i want to perform it.  If i wanted to perform the Mona Lisa, i would sit on my chair and do her famous smile and pose. Well, no one can send me to jail or anything, i just did what i understood of what those art is for my own understanding of them.

It does not need to have a point… the creator just wants to express himslef!!!

But Creamster was just plain wierd!!!

Enjoy the video..

Sources:

Video:   You Tube

Unaccessorized…

Talk about being without any accessory… The play realy did not have any..

He only wore faded jeans and a shirt. On top of that, his props were only 5 chairs!

Yet, despite that fact, he was still able to put up a very good show..

The most important thing that he was able to do despite having a very plain, simple, and unaccessorized show was making the audience visualize everything that he was doing. He explained what he was doing, what he will be doing, what he was thinking about, what he was wearing, and what was happening around him as the play unfolded… Thus helping the audience “see” the play in thier minds.

His acting, and voice chracterization (most importantly) played a big part on the play’s success.. He was able to do different kinds of voices, which projects a different kind of character, very well and very distinct from each other. Each kind of voice, is definitely another character. But, the most admirable things is that, with just his voice, i was able to visaualize, and determine what kind of personality and characteristics that that voice had. If the character is little boy, his voice would be high pitched, and when the character is the father his voice becomes astala-vista-babeh type of voice. Not only was the tone pf voice amazing, but the vaiations of dictions among characters helped define them, were also incredible.

I believe that his performance also included the audience. There was a 50-50 or 60-40 in favor of him in terms of how the play progressed. Without his well timed, well portrayed, appropriately voiced cahracters, lively actions etc, and without the imagination of the audience kicked into high gear and decipering and understanding every movement, words and scenarions that he is giving, the play would be some kind of a “Huh?!”.  

I give him two thumbs up, standing ovation, cheers, and any other of those acknolwedging actions for his superb performance.

The story of the play was about a filipino-american gay wishing for him to be accepeted by his society and to be able to to what he wants, be himself (or herself in his case) and strip himself of any pretentious things, and just be unaccessesorized.

 He eventually lived his life according to his wishes. Doing everything he ever wanted, designing clothes and making it big time. Some would say that he lived life in a Dionysian way, wherein he had no worries, did everything he wanted, or in other words, unorganized. However, i believe otherwise.

Eventhough he lived to do everything he wanted, it was still done in an organized way. It is because of the sequencing of the events of his life. Everything that happened was because of something that happened previously. There was a clear cause and effect, and the sequences was logical and relevant. Hence, since it is sequenced, it is ordered. Or in other words, it was organizely unorganized.

One thing i would like to point out was his dream when he saw a bride pass in front of him. By that time, he knew that he is ready and needs to have a serious relationship with someone. Its’s one of those things that makes dreams so wonderful.

Tragedy…

A man with a heart of gold and the purest and cleanest of intentions being punished by the Gods – Tragic

A man with a heart of gold and the purest and cleanest of intentions having a happy ending – Not Tragic

 

watch oedipus the king, the most outstanding tragedy of all time…

Sources:

Video: You Tube

Antigong Agong…

Antigong Agong was not that bad but was not that very good also. It lies somewhere in the middle. But nonetheless, the most important thing for me, sometimes, is whether i understood the story or not. Because, if I did not, then it would be troublesome for me bcause I would not have any thing to write here.

I cannot fully express how and why the play was satisfactory for me, all I know that it is. However, looking at the play with someone else’s eyes, lets say Aristotle, i think that there can be an in depth explanation and justification why the play was as it is.

Aristotle has set standards on what a good play is. He starts of with what he states to be the most important element in a play, the Plot.

According to Aristotle, a Plot must be whole, or has a beginning, middle and end. Its length must be taken into memory by its audience, meaning not too short and not too long. The incidents should also be closely connected. Most of all, there should only be a single issue.

Taking this standard and using it too look at Antigong Agong, there is no doubt that the play has it all. It was not very long, two hours was just enough. There was a beginning, middle and end and the incidents are closely connected leaving no one asking “Huh?! Pano nangyari yun?!”.

After the Plot is the Characters. Aristotle said that it is the second most important element in a play. A play can have a plot without characters, but a play is not a play with only characters and without a Plot. According to Aristotle, good Characters must be, Good, Appropriate, A reality, and Consistent. In the play, The main characters, all had the said characteristcs.

They are good in a sense that they were all convincing. Their body gestures, expressions (which should be exaggerated because of the significant distance of the audience to the actors) were all fit for the portrayed image of the characters. Yes, they are also appropriate, the father of Amraida especially. His big muscular(?), anyway, his big body alone already demands respect. Add to that his tone of voice and commanding diction, then we have maybe the most strict father in the land. (hihihhi).

Thought, According to Aristotle, of the personages directly affecting their language – in every effort to prove or disprove, to arouse emotion (pity, fear, anger and the like). Their mental procedure must be on the same lines in their actions likewise.

The characters of Antigong Agong projected their actions and words according to their thoughts very well. There was no instance when the emotion they portrayed contradicted to what they said. When they were happy, all the words they uttered were words of happiness. There were no instances like, their emotions we sad and yet their words were happily tones and their actions were still swift and alive.

In action, there is no explanation. One does not need to elaborate his actions. In words there is an explanation. One would explain further why his words came out the way they did. Hence, by making clear your actions, one does need to explain it further.

Diction, as Aristotle said is the knowledge of depicting the dfference between command and prayer, question and answer . Hence when one’s intention is to arouse anger, he must do it with conviction rather than being soft, in order to concretly invoke the emotion to the receivers. In terms of this element, the characters of the play were successful in sorting out what kind of tone their statements should be. Especially the father of Amraida, who is a figure of authority, hence his words are very heavy and full of conviction. ALso the friends of Amraida and the people who searched for the Antigong Agong 

Melody, is the sound used in a play. The musical scores highlited the emotions eflicted the the performance and the diolouges of the characters. It gives depth to the play, so that it wont be dull. When there is a lively action (like battles), the sounds get louder, the beat gets faster. When the scene is mellow, the sounds are very calm and tranquil. Without the good musical scores, Antigong Agong would be lame.  

Spectacle, is the performance of the story of the play. It merely puts the story into live action to give it a sense of life and tofurther inflict the emotions wanted to be given by the story.   

It could be said that Antigong Agong satisfied Aristotles elements, but does it necessarily make it a very good play? i think not. It may be good but not that very good.

Tuhog..

Tuhog was one of the worst movies I had ever seen!

Well, some would say that i have my personal biases, which is true. It is my opinion. They should take care of theirs and i’ll take care of my own.

Maybe its because it is a “bold” film, in which there is a so-called “story” behind all the “bed” scenes.

However, taking the rapes, i mean “bed” scenes, immorality and incestuous facts and concentrating on the imitation aspect, i believe i can have a more rational explanation.

According to Plato, when an original is imitated, the imitation is no longer the same as the original. In addition, Aristotle said that, when an original is imitated, it does not necessarily mean that the original is no longer evident in the imitation. This is because, the essence of the original is still embodied by the imitation, the only difference is that, the imitation lacks things that the original has and even has things that the original has not.

In the movie, there is a movie within that movie. The life of the character played by Ina Raymundo (Floring), is played by Klaudia Koronel (Hasmin) in the movie of the life of Ina.

There is no doubt that the life of Hasmin, would have the same essence as to the life of Floring, which she portrays. Thier mother had sex (in the most basic sense, wherein a the reproductive organs of a male and female do their stuff, regardless of wilingness)  with his Amang. They lived a hellish life, wherein both of them and their mothers are controlled by Amang. They were also used by Amang for his sexual pleasures regradless of their relationship, (but why would he care, for in the first place, the mother of the girls is Amang’s daughter anyway).

There seems to be no problem in capturing the essence of the original in this movie because Hasmin’s life is the same as Floring’s. However, there are things and happenings in the life of Hasmin, wherein it did not happen in the life of Floring.

The first thing that caught my attention is that, in the life of Hasmin, her mother and her father had a consensual sexual relationship which was hidden under the knowledge of the then dead wife of Amang, (which was the mother of the mother of Floring, and Amang is supposed to be her father but is also her grandfather)!!!. (Whew!! these incestious relationships are hard to describe, i hope i made my self clear).

However, in the life of Ina, her mother was very much unwillingful to have any sexual encounters with Amang, but is forced to do so, hence the concept of rape is here, rather than consensual in the life of Hasmin.

Now, how does this difference affect the meaning of the original story? First of all, it was very painfull for the mother of Floring watching herself in the movie having pleasure while having sex with Amang, while in real life she was forced, harassed and could only cry as she watches the very opposite of what she felt during those horrible encounters!

In the movie, the mother of Floring has become the attention of scrutiny rather than being the lowly victim which she is supposed to be. The sympathy that should have been deserved by her because of her illfortune was turned upside down.

Next thing is that, in the life of Floring, (as seen in the movie) she was rather the conservative type of woman. So shy and obedient to her mother/sister and her father/grandfather. However, in Hasmin’s life she was rather the inobedient one(as portrayed in the movie), the very-outgoing-loves-to-be-semi-naked-in-the-river-and-loves-to-do-it-every-night kind of woman.(whew!) Hasmin, is very opposite to Floring!. Instead of the life of Floring being pittied for her misfortune, if i only saw her life through the movie, she would become the one person to be blamed for all it.

Another thing that makes the life of Hasmin so far from the life of Floring is the purpose in making the movie. In the life of Floring, she and her mother should be pittied by the viewers for their misfortunes in the hands of their Amang. While in Hasmin’s life, the puspose of the movie is all about “bold”, just as what the producer of the movie said “dapat bold na bold, ha?”. (The life of Floring and her mother should have been made by Maalaala mo Kaya, to give it a more pitiful and dramatic effect, rather than in a bold film)

Yes, the essence of the original is present in the imitation, but in this movie what should be lacking and what should be added was severly exaggerated to the point that the supposed imitation is different from its original.

Hence, in comparing the life of Floring and the life of Hasmin, their lives are totally different! Even though the end result could be the same, but the experience and way of going to that similar end makes the whole experience very much different from each other.

In addition, I see no point why the movie was made. There were no moral lessons to be taken from it. Only the horrible things that could happen if a father would have a sexual relationship with his daughter after his wife died.

The most awful thing a realized in this movie is that, this movie is all about sex or the “bold” aspect with a story, rather than being a story which includes sex. The movie is there for the sex rather than for the story.

imitation or not, lets just appreciate, ok?!

Is art an imitation of an imitation of the original? or is art just an imitation, but then it should not be degraded and neglected since the essence of the original is still present in that imitation?

Which one should we believe? Even though the two of the greatest philosophers, Plato and Aristotle, who made us think about art in a very different way, established a concrete foundation in thier arguments on how we should view art, we should still pick on which to believe.

Plato claims that, the original, is what the supreme being has created, which does not exist in this world and does in somewhere else. This originals are present in our thought, for without the thought of that original we could not create it in the flesh. When we create something out of that original, it is already considered as an imitation. This is because, there is an original and absolute form of the original. However, in the physical world, there are a lot of variations and interpretation of an original. A chair, which is used to be sit on, is in all of our minds (is the original). When ten carpenters make a chair out of that original, there would be ten different designs of chairs. It ii because the carpenters have their own interpretations and biases on how a “beautiful” chair should be.

When the time comes that an artist paints and captures the image of a chair, another imitative process undergoes, because that artist might add and delete some characteristics of that chair in accordance again to his biases and interpretation on how a chair should be. Hence, the image of the chair that the artist would create is thwice stripped from the original.

Now, what is the problem on being twice strippped out of the original, or being an imitation of the imitation of the original?.. Well, Plato believes that the more that something is far from the original, the more the two becomes diffferent from each other. In other words, there is a tendency that the imitation of the imitation of the original would be very different from the original itself, where the imitation was derived from.

Art is twice stripped from the original, meaning it is the imitation of the imitation of the original.  Hence, Plato believes that art is negligible since it is very far from the characteristics of the original.

However, Aristotle believes otherwise. He believes that even though there is a twice-stripped-from-the-original phenomenon, (or art), and that the imitation might lack something from the original and might have something that the orignal does not have, the essence of the original is still present in the imitation. Hence, even though a chair has so many different variations from the original to the imitation of its imitation, one thing still remains, its sessence as something that someone can sit onto.

It is hard to decide because each of the two has their points in justifying their claims. Hmmmmm… What are we to do then?.. Think! Think! Think!
STOP!!!

Why should we think about it?!?!?

It just makes our mind a little bit achy, right?

So, if it just makes our mind like that, then we should stop thinking about it!

Instead of critisizing what art is and how it should be treated, why don’t we just appreaciate it? Let us just admire the creativity, adventourous, colorful, engenuitive minds of the people who have made art. Let us give them a break, shall we? Let us not criticize them and look down on their fortes. have mercy on them and in Art itself.

Wouldn’t you be firy at someone when someone talks trash and nonsense about something that you are very good at? Of course you, and all of us would!! there are even people who are willing to fight for what they are good at.

So, let us stop the debate and appreaciate art.

If we continue criticizing what art is, there would come a time that these artists would be tired to continue what they are good at since they would feel that their craft is not appreaciated. If that is the case, then the next Shakespeare, Picasso, Da Vinci, Guillermo Tolentino, Botong Francisco, J.K Rowling and even Jose rizal and Juan Luna and company would not appear in the generations to come. Think about what kind of world would would we be living in if the mentioned artist did not push for what they are good at.

so lets stops thinking and start appreciating!

Sources:

Yahoo! Images

Beauty…

Beauty? What about it? Well, we all know the clichés that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, or beauty is very subjective. As cliché as those may be, it is undeniably true.

What is beautiful? Who is beautiful? How are they beautiful? Beautiful based on my eyes, your eyes, or somebody else’s eyes? Is there a certain standard? Or should there be a set of standard/s?

Beauty is one of the most difficult thing to explain, define and most certainly, to range. This is because, what is beautiful for someone might not be beautiful for the one beside him or the one across the street.

Have you ever noticed something when you see someone who is beautiful for you? Well, I noticed something, especially on beautiful girls that i see. It seems that I get attracted to them.

However, how and why are they attractive? Is it because of their physical appearance? The way they make me feel? Or just being extraordinary to my eyes?

I think that this attraction and beauty accidentally coexists. This is because, when we are attracted to a person, in a heartbeat, we would not know the reason., right? Of course. But then, most often, we find a way to justify our attraction, which is through beauty. Because of this we would say that we are attracted to them because they are beautiful, and they are beautiful because of those sparkling eyes, yummy lips, gorgeous body and etc.

What I would like to point is that beauty is just a mere attraction. You are attracted to that person because he or she possesses the qualities that are extraordinary to your eyes or even makes them standout at the most. An example of this is the time when I became attracted to my two classmates. One was white, long haired and taller than me, the other was not as white, short haired and shorter than me. If this was the situation, how was I able to have an attraction to the two girls who have different characteristics?

If I have an existing standard that I set consciously or unconsciously on my perception of beauty, then it would most certainly mean that I should have no attraction to one of them who does not possess the standards that I am looking for. If my standards were in favor of the white, long haired and taller than me, then i should have no attraction to the other girl and most certainly, i would not consider her to be beautiful at all. but then again, why did I experience being attracted to both when they have exactly opposite attributes?

If this is the case, then it could be said that we are attracted to a person because we find something in them that is likable for us, or what makes them appealing . What we like in a person overrides any other of their characteristics that is unlikable for others.

An example of this is the case that we have with our close friends. A close friend is whom you spend most of your time with, you do and share things together. You like this person because he or she is there for you every time and anytime, in need or otherwise. But then, certainly, as you go along with this person, there are times when you take a closer look of his/her face and overall physique, you might eventually realize that this friend of yours doesn’t really possess the qualities of being beautiful or attractive. But then, you do not care at all, because you found something in her that makes her likable to you. You realize then that this friend of yours doesn’t necessarily have to possess a god or godess beauty for him/her to be likable for you. That likeable characteristics of your friend that you found makes you go beyond the limits of his/her physical attributes and consider him/her beautiful in some other sense that you discover to be likable in him/her.

Hence i would say that beauty has no standards. Beauty is just redefining and justifying our attraction to another person. They are attractive because of certain qualities that you find very likable. You could see a person’s beauty out of the comforts of seeing or being with him/her, and you would neglect his physical appearance.

This is also true for everyone else in the world. What is beautiful for many should not be set as the standard in percieving beauty.This is because, the person whom i am very attracted to, or have a crush on could be the ugliest person for another. 

I hate to admit it, but it just boils down to onw thing; beauty is relative! Ouch..

Sources:

Yahoo! Images