Academic Discourse

So here's a thing I learned in early 2009 from the late Professor Jeremy "Sweetwater" Mullins, the "Sweetwater System for Academic Discourse".

In what terms do we talk about art? That's like listening to two fanboys (and for sake of argument, let's call them Joe  and Paul ) argue about which movie was better: Dark Knight Rises or the Avengers.

Joe : The Avengers is the best movie of all time

Paul:  Nuh-Uhh, the Dark Knight Rises is

Joe: The Dark Knight Rises is filled with poo and so's your mom!

Paul: Well, the Avengers is Lame, because people who like Firefly are Lame

Joe: Nuh Uh

Paul: Uh huh

 etc. This conversation isn't going anywhere. on what grounds do we base this?

Isn't art just subjective anyway? 

"I don't know much about Art, but I know what I like."

Oh yeah, well There's no accounting for taste. My favorite movie is "Kung Pow: Enter the Fist".

When critics and scholars speak of comedies, either if it's Shakespeare or the Simpsons: they aren't talking about how funny they are(i.e.: how much they like it personally), but about three different (and variable) factors like:

Profficientcy of Craft

  This is the simpliest measuring stick. Every craft, profession (and sub styles and movements) have their own rules and standards.

  For instance, in Architecture, one of the requirements of a structure is that it's stable, and not liable to fall down in the environment in which it's built, or in auto design, that the car run, and not explode.

.

There is a little homework involved with applying the rules of the correct school of design.

 "How to Draw Comic Books the Marvel Way" by John Buscema with Stan Lee's name slapped on the cover to sell copies, has a chapter on 'Storytelling'. Which maintains the BEST way to draw comic books is with exaggerated, heroic poses, exciting compositions with large depth of field and plenty of dutch angles !!

 A comic book page that uses dynamic, changing camera angles and compositions doesn't have to be a fight scene, either. Like this David Mazzucchelli page from Daredevil.

  It's a good sample from a great comic book, and if you read through "Daredevil: Born Again" you'll find that it is indeed drawn "the Marvel Way'.

 But that's no the only way to make a comic.Would this Calvin and Hobbes strip really be improved by "the Marvel Way"? No, because Calvin and Hobbes is crafted due to a different set of rules, a different school if you will.

Profundity of Meaning in (and out) of  Context

  In an earlier post, I ranted about the insistence of meaning and depth for 'legitimate' works of art verses sequences designed just for "pure entertainment". 

   Generally artwork has meaning, sometimes this is very literal

  Such as the clear labels on the objects and elements in this March 2013 Stuart Carlson Political Cartoon.

 and often, that meaning is something different, and more universal than the subject matter. Say you're watching "Finding Nemo". And you see a bunch of full grown adults crying.

 

Here, adults crying.

  "Gosh" thinks you "All these folks are way into Fish".

 

Here, not so much crying.

Were that the case, all of these viewers would get misty eyed every time they saw an aquarium: "Fiding Nemo" may feature fish: but it's not about fish...more like parent/child relationships and stuff.

 Let's go back to that Political Cartoon...

 ...pretty easy to understand, huh? I mean, the events are common knowledge, I know what the Boy Scouts are, and I'm familiar with the BSA's reputed and disputed tolerance policies. I even know that the Boy Scouts' motto is "Be Prepared", so I get a bit of the wordplay. I can evaluate not only where this cartoon is coming from,  but also if the viewpoint is better expressed than others: a unique observation, rather than a common slogan.

Let's look at a different political illustration, this one from 1909...

 

 What the hell is exactly going on? Who are these people? It looks like a midget bellhop with a giant dildo is escorting a forest ranger out of a nondescript building while they leave behind a small clone with a cross-dressing fat maid-man. 

  It helps to know that these are specific likenesses to William Loeb, Jr. Theodore Roosevelt and  William Taft.  It also helps to know that in 1909, that Taft succeeded Roosevelt as President of the United States. Knowing about Roosevelts' public image as an outdoorsman helps explain the forest-ranger type outfit, and  his famous "big stick" policies explains why William Loeb is literally carrying a big stick.
  Like Carlson's 'Boy Scouts' gag, the Roosevelt cartoon personifies an event, and through metaphor, gives an opinion on what transacts. For instance, it seems that the editors of Puck think that Roosevelt's relationship with Taft is agreeable, but moreso on Roosevelt's terms, imagine an alternative magazine cover where william Taft is kicking Roosevelt out of the doorway...it changes the meaning.

It helps to do some homework, because simple context of "Who was President of the United States in 1909 and what did he look like", changes the image from  some kind of 'WTF' meme, to an understandable period opinion piece.

Pure Emotional Reaction on the part of the viewer

This isn't about whether the viewer particularly likes the piece, but if it elicits a reaction.

 Along with awe, arousal, laughter, warm fuzzies and excitement, there's also horror, revulsion, sadness, and disgust.

So it's a safe bet that a picture of a bunch of puppies will evoke a reaction.

d'awwwwww

And a picture of dead babies will definitely evoke an  emotional reaction.

picture not available

Neither Puppies or dead babies alone will make Art with a capital A... but taken alone, neither will well-crafted, but meaningless technical excersise, or a meaningfully clear, but perhaps sterile political observation.

 For Art to take hold, enlighten minds and do all that cool stuff that Art needs to do, stuff's gotta have a combination of all three.


So back to the earlier argument.

   Now, Paul and Joe may still argue about their favorite movies,  but it will be about terms like whether "The Avengers" is a well-crafted action movie according to screen tradition, or if "the Dark Knight Rises" has relevance to the Occupy generation. Is Robert Downey Jr. sillier than Tom Hardy? Does Tom Hardy's silliness run contrary to "Dark Knight Rises"  otherwise serious presentation? Does Chris Evans' seriousness run contrary to "the Avengers" otherwise silly presentation? 

 I doubt this would actually change anybody's mind about their favorite movie,  but Paul may find out stuff about "The Avengers" he hasn't thought about before,  and Joe might agree that although he doesn't like "Dark Knight Rises" personally, that the film does have merit.

 Which is the difference between a whining competition and Academic Discourse.

Something in progress

Something I've been fiddling with...

The Angry Birds Teach you French

What is the Secret to Success?

Excellence? Okay, then what is the path to excellence? Most might answer Hard Work. And many stop there.

What's the fuel for hard work? Motivation! Okay, so where can I get some?

How about a mentor? Or a rival? Or even divine conviction?

Actually, I think a readily available source of inspiration, can be found in "Angry Birds".

 Or more precisely, a focus on increasing intrinsic motivation for a task, rather than the task itself or the goal to be achieved.

In his book (and thinly veiled tract for self-determination theory)"Drive", Daniel Pink postulates that the keys to increasing motivation in self and employees is to set up environmental factors that encourage Autonomy, Mastery and Purpose, like some kind of triforce of business-self-help book formulae.

What intrigues me here is "Mastery".

How much money do people get paid for playing "Angry Birds"?  Does your iPhone just spit out redeemable prize tickets once the last big green piggiy is blown up? 
 One of life's lessons learned from "The Mighty Ducks", Is that peak performance comes from enjoying the game instead of  not pursuit of the prize, and some economic theories put forth a big paycheck or trophy doesn't vitiate subjects, and can in fact, discourage.

The raising level of difficulty is such an essential part of gamer culture, it's part of what defines the difference between a lowercase "game" like MS solitaire, and waiting in line for "blown weekend: the expansion pack".Games like these are a mess of increasing speeds, "leveling up", and  increasingly tough "Boss Battles". In short, Angry Birds, like many popular video games, get harder the longer you play it.

By comparison, what's the first level of your favorite video game like?

 

example only, Super Mario Bros 2 is NOBODY'S favorite video game

Damned Easy!

 As the maxim goes, "The Journey of 10,000 miles begins with the first step", so goes the crack dealer's corollary "The first one's free."


So here's the example. Let's say you're going to Quebec and  want to learn to speak French, but you don't like learning languages. You figure you could do it, if you had the Rocky Balboa-esque drive to get up at 5am, eat raw eggs and train hard at work memorizing grammar, syntax and vocabulary, but you just don't. Not to worry, the principles of Angry Birds can help you out!

1. Get rid of the prizes.

and ignore the external factors that might act as prizes. Remember, nobody gives you prizes for playing Angry birds. So fight the urge to give yourself congratulatory Oreos every half hour of study.

Besides, if you eat that many Oreos, you'll turn into Jabba the Hut and the Quebecois will just laugh at you.

2. Plot your plans on a curve. AND  Make the first one easy.

This is the source of positive addiction to  task mastery (and Angry Birds). For instance, in your quest to learn french, you might have a weekly quota of 42 vocabulary words per week to memorize. Which is six per day. Sure, that's not hard (or maybe it is to retain that information). But that will get boring.

 I know it sounds contrary to the ways of Hard Work, but why not just start with one vocabulary word on the first day, then two on the next, and so forth. There is an endorphin buzz that comes with meeting goals, and the more hits you have early will drive you for the bigger targets that you set for yourself later.

3. The little question.

"Did I do it better than yesterday? Did I do this better than last time? "

 Because, failures along the road are inevitable. It's possible that you might not master speaking French by the time you go to Canada. Sooner or later your own goals from tip #2 will escalate too high to meet when you're attempting to memorize 56 irregular verbs in one day.

So yeah, shit gets tough, and every so often you've gotta step back and remind yourself that the name of the game is to always be  improving at what you do, and to make that your target, is what it means to work hard.