IWA 5

Every society has its set of rules, not only actual written laws, but also set of rules of how people should behave culturally. Part of these rules is fashion. Somehow there is a set of norms Just like how someone might not agree with your beliefs, they could also disagree with how you and your clothes match. People cannot just wear what they want; there can be many differnet contexts for “crimes” of fashion, such as race, gender, class and nation or a combination of these, for example the Zoot Suit Riots, where the Chicanos commited “crimes” against the majority of not only fashion but also all of those categories.

I had a vivid experience of myself commiting a crime of fashion and – I suppose – class. It happened years ago, when I was still in junior high. Social hierarchy amongst students is largely based on “popularity” or “coolness.” What happened to me one day was that my t-shirt with the brand name Esprit printed on it was made fun of by one of the cool kids (he and I are on good terms now). “Esprit boy,” he called me in an almost condenscending tone. I was definitely not in his caliber of cool, so in turn I felt embarassed for wearing something that he thought wasn't suited for me and for not “knowing my place.” Although I wasn't completely sure what my classmate honestly meant when he said that to me, but I was quite sure that he did not think highly of me in the first place, as he bullied me sometimes. He probably thought that I wasn't cool enough as a person to even “understand” fashion. Needless to say, it felt like he was “putting me in my place.”

People generally dislike or fear being looked down upon, and thus a lot of people who aren't confident enough or not friendly with the popular students will not experiment daringly with clothes. After my incident, in fear of being called out again, I tried to tone down what I wore to not stand out as much. Especially in secondary school, being truly fashionable seems to be reserved for and synonymous with the cool, at least according to them. On the other hand, people with power and authority often like to act high and mighty. Like during the Zoo Suit Riots, where the Chicanos were stripped of their clothes, the sailors who were the people in power could not stand the Chicanos acting like they were not inferior to them (or even superior to them), and tried to “put them in their place.”

In society, people are constantly reminded of how to be normal. But, normal does not equal natural. “Normal” fashion is the images conveyed by culture, media and the people in power that most people think is the right way to dress or strive for. However, clothes and fashion is essentially all fabricated by humans. I am not saying that being natural is not wearing any clothes, but instead it is people wearing what they truly want to. Of course, that can pose problems, such as indecent exposure, inappropriate statements, etc. At least nowadays most people in most developed cultures are quite content with what manufacturers and designers had to offer despite being part of a system that has to be maintained. It looks a little bit like “ignorance is bliss.”

Personally, what I care most about is what people think of me, so I don't mind wearing something to suit others' standards as long as I look pleasing/acceptable to them. Although that Esprit incident during junior high did not seem like such a big deal at first, it probably subconsciously greatly influenced my decisions in dressing up. For some of the people who want to make strong statements with their dress and challenge the norms, such as cross-dressers and zoot suiters, there will still be people who are irrationally opinionated about what a certain race, gender, class, nation, age, etc. should or should not wear, and will hate on them. Dress is part of what somebody looks like and unfortunately, many people judge others based on their looks.

IWA #4: Kenneth Tin Kin Hung’s tinkin.com

From the “about” page of his website, Kenneth Tin-King Hung is originally from Hong Kong, and he now resides in New York. He is a renowned contemporary artist who “through various media I aim to explore the nature of digital comunication while touching on issues such as identity, politics, sexuality and power. My media includes Hi-Definition video animation, video game, digital graphics and mixed-media installations.” I think Kenneth is mainly exploring and communicating a new artistic medium. It is something that I have never seen anyone done before to his extent, as he pieces together political cartoons, posters and various pictures, etc. into thorough statements. It might kind of be analogous to say, doing a research essay, except Kenneth uses pictures and animation and aesthetics.

http://www.gaszappers.com/play/anwr/

One of the pieces of work by Hung was the “Arctic National Wildlife Refuge” game. In this game you take on the role of a polar bear, who can utilize a number of attacks (such as clawing) to destroy oil barrels that fly at you (and damage you if you don't hit them first). Finally, as the final boss, you fight a oil refinery with George Bush's head attached to it. Not only did I enjoy myself, I also felt like a sense of interaction. Kenneth effectively uses this game to sort of guide his audience and promote his views on protecting wildlife. There is a “Facts” section at the bottom of the page, which states that Big Oil, backed by the Bush administration continulously try to open the Arctic Refuge (in northeast Alaska), and that this will without a doubt harm its wildlife, especially the polar bears. I suppose the only flaw that it has is that the page doesn't state what date these events were occuring. But someone could definitely easily look that up. Nonetheless A.N.W.R was a creative project that I think is much more effective for trying to convey a message than say, a plain news article. A.N.W.R is also not the only game in the “Gas Zappers” series; there is also a game where you try to block greenhouse emissions, and another game where you must save Venice from a tsunami. You also control polar bears.

http://www.tinkin.com/arts/obama/

Another one of Kenneth's projects that I am examining is “In G.O.D. We Trust,” one of the videos that we saw in class. This animation really struck me with its very unique yet still accessible style. He seperates the video in to sevem acts, where in each act president Obama is portrayed as a differnet religious diety or prophet, and also in a different chronological phase of his presidential career. According to Kenneth's statement also on the page, he says that the various dieties and prophets that president Obama transform into represent his attempts to heal the world. He remixes several religious diagrams by incorporating elements (by using pictures) of the “current political and economical climate.” What I liked about this project was that even though the video itself was pretty difficult to understand, Kenneth thorougly explains each of the seven acts on the page and all of the key players, events of the scene. By combining brilliant images that are sure to leave an inpact on any audience, he sparks curiosity without being too ambiguous, and even leaves room for further contemplation. Also, by portraying seven different dieties/prophets, I think Kenneth hopes to reach out to a bigger audience. Next, his style allows people to look out for and recognize the pictures of people or things or places that they are familiar (instead of describing them directly with words) with which allows for people to more easily relate to the video.

Kenneth Tin-Kin Hung's videos and games not only provide insight and entertainment for people, they also open up a door to new forms of expression.

IWA 3: About Valley Fair

On the surface, Valley Fair shopping mall is a very pleasant mall to shop at and a fun place to spend weekend time. Is is definitely one of San Jose's favorite malls. Valley Fair has many attributes that make it what it is. For example, the architecture, especially the “street lamp-like” wall lamps, pillars, modern chandeliers and use of warm colors conveys a feeling that you are walking through/shopping in a classy and almost European district. The food court is quite diverse and offers food of many different cultures. Most of the shops are well-decorated and advertised, and there is a lot of room for window shopping. With some exceptions, most of the shops are welcoming.

After some observation, however, after I looked closely at distribution of stores, I found that a lot of them were primed for the “upper class.” Looking at the big picture, with the plethora of super high-end stores like Louis Vuitton, Valley Fair may not be suitable for everyone. With a per capita income of only around $34,000 versus the $47,000 US average, San Jose is definitely not one of the “richest” cities around. Valley Fair is one of the most popular shopping centers in San Jose, yet it is somewhat limited to the upper class. Although one can argue that people who can't afford to shop at Valley Fair go elsewhere, the fact that a large fraction of the mega mall almost seems to be tuned to keep people out except for the elite should be challenged.

If the primary goal of shopping malls is profit, then why is there kind of division in people that Valley Fair seems to be promoting? Aside from having mostly high-end stores, the type of stores that exist also seem to represent “white” culture (this can maybe be attributed to the stores themselves) by having advertisements and models featuring physically “fit” white men and skinny white women. I don't know if this statistically attracts bigger profits, but with only 31.8% of the San Jose population being white, it is problematic that Valley Fair tries to set a standard for what's beautiful and maybe even “superior.” Unfortunately, the food court is the only “diverse,” place within the mall.

It would probably improve both Valley Fair's popularity if more the ratio between relatively inexpensive brands and expensive brands was made higher. Diversity of visitors to better represent San Jose's population spread can be increased there were more stores that originate/feature people of various cultural backgrounds (especially hispanic and asian) and body image. The main benefit of these changes would be to change the image of/do away with “social hierarchy” and to help promote a society without rankings based on how wealthy someone is or what race or culture people belong to.

The Matrix

“You take the blue pill – the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill – you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes,” Morpheus explains to Neo, who has no clue what will be coming to him if he takes the red pill. But, being someone who thinks that he has nothing to lose, Neo has to satiate his curiosity. How would he know that he’d wake up in such a hellish future? I’d say he was tricked by Morpheus, who almost had too much faith in Neo (who thankfully IS “The One”). Now, would I take the blue pill or the red pill if I were put into the same situation as Neo? Obviously, taking the blue pill wouldn’t change my lifestyle one bit. On the other hand, let me predict what will happen to me if I take the red pill.

Although taking the red pill is just what Neo did in The Matrix, first off I must be realistic and say that I may not be as fortunate as Neo if I do the same. After all, he is the hero of an epic story, which might not necessarily be me. As seen from the film, taking the red pill will kick me awake from ignorant bliss and into a world where I am nothing but a battery. What will come then is bewilderment, shock, and despair. It is not until Morpheus and the others allow me to understand me their “fight” and my part in that fight that there will be any hope left in my heart. Their lifestyle is one of hiding, eating disgusting vitamin goop every day, living in a claustrophobic ship and nonstop life-threatening missions. The red pill doesn’t sound like a good deal to me at all. Even if I knew that I were to become “The One,” I’d still hesitate putting such responsibility upon myself. Plus, Neo loses Trinity and supposedly dies at the end of the trilogy... he is a hero, yes, but in truth, who really wants to be a martyr?

On the contrary, assuming that I didn’t know what would happen if I take the red pill, I would probably take it, based on my personality. Although “ignorance is bliss” and I may feel better off living in a situation like Plato’s “Cave” or North Korea (I just had to add this in), since I can be happy as long as the world is what I believe it is, I would rather know the truth than be a slave. Thinking back to what Morpheus said, and how I wrote that he tricked Neo into eating the red pill, I now actually kind of know where he is coming from.

Life can be tough though, and people often try to escape it with actions like watching movies, taking drugs, or even denial. Not all these temporary escapes are bad, but if one tries to escape too much they typically end up ignoring too many things and arrive at where they don’t want to be. Then again, the Matrix is something that probably many would rather be than face a world run by robots. The film explores controversial subjects not only such as human beings dabbing in and creating AI; it also explores the definition of “reality.” People are unknowingly part of a simulation system and can “thrive” within (based on what they feel, not what they physically are – a battery), and even for those who know the truth about the Matrix, some such as Cypher would rather return to living in the dream.

Slavoj Zizek in Examined Life- "Ecology:" the conservative way of thinking

As difficult as it was to keep up with this man's speaking accent and abstract thoughts, Slavoj Zizek’s casual speech about his so called “ecology” is still a huge eye-opener.

I believe that he defines “ecology” as a common ideology of the masses, that like religion used to be, “ecology” now is the abstract voice that rings in our heads and puts meaning in the unexplainable and unseen as the highest authority. Zizek explains that this type of thinking is very conservative. To quote Zizek’s words, “one of the elementary ideological mechanisms I claim is what I call the “temptation of meaning.” People unconsciously attach meaning to the not obvious, such as calling AIDS “God’s punishment.” In a way it may give us a sense of reassurance, but people should really be thinking more critically.

Zizek says that people believe that nature is perfect and balanced and is only disturbed by human influence. On the contrary – he claims – it is rather filled with unimaginable catastrophes. One example he used was “oil,” one of our main energy sources, which is derived from ancient remains of animals and plants. In order for oil to form, some genocidal “catastrophe” must have occurred. I think that nature is too often idealized as something beautiful, and that rather a lot of its primitive cruelty is ignored. It is hard to define good and bad, and it should be even harder to blur morality with the random events that is nature.

“I know very well, but I act as if I don’t know,” is Zizek’s take on what people think of global warming. He says that human beings are not “wired” to imagine the urgency and consequences of such disasters. It does seem that way; when I go outdoors on a beautiful day and look at all the trees and singing birds, I strangely feel that everything is okay. Because of this, Zizek says that we should cut off our “roots from nature” and “become more artificial.” I believe this is true, now that I think about it, as alienation instead of having an idealized view of the world should give people a more objective and practical view of things.

What is love? I agree that with Zizek that love is accepting and cherishing something for all its perfections and imperfections. Zizek expands his definition of love by adding that true love of the world means recreating poetry and spirituality in the dimension of abstract materialism (where there is nothing but mathematical formulas, technical forms, etc.) instead of idealizing something. He points out that instead of “becoming one with nature,” one should find beauty in things like trash itself. I believe that he doesn’t actually mean that we should necessarily all love our waste and trash and shit, but that people should be more liberal in their thinking and accept change, think rationally, and have a critical eye for everything, even nature itself.

I think Zizek’s whole speech can easily be misinterpreted as that “we should not love or care about nature.” It is more related to how people are enslaved by their own lazy thinking in the form of idealizing nature and ecology almost religiously. Overall the video was very enjoyable and I agree with Zizek’s thinking (assuming that I really understood his point). On the other hand, although “ecology” is largely idealized, perhaps not enough credit was given to the “balance” of nature.

I mentioned earlier that I think of nature more like a series of random events, but the world that we live in is more “in balance” than it was millions of years ago. For example, Darwin’s theory of evolution suggests that all the organisms have survived until now have adapted and now supposedly “fit” within their respective place. Ecosystems such as rainforests for example have come a long way in stabilizing itself and thus a huge number and species of animals and plants thrive within them. Humans, on the other hand, have disturbed their “balance” by acts such as deforesting. Now the big question is that whether or not human disturbance is “bad”. I think although Zizek suggests us to think outside of the box, problems such as large-scale deforesting and global warming shouldn’t just be ignored or accepted. I wonder what Zizek would say…

Implicit Association Tests

Gay/Straight results: "

"Your data suggest a strong automatic preference for Straight People compared to Gay People."

First of all, I know that this statement does not mean that I prefer straight people over gay people. It is simply saying that I more easily link "gay" to "bad" and "straight" with "good." Based on this, I think the IAT did a pretty good job. However the test has its flaws, since (I presume) it ranks your preferences based on how quickly you answer a question, and since the test uses a similar structure throughout, the pattern becomes more and more obvious and speeds up response time.

The website states: "Most respondents find it easier to associate Gay people with Bad and Straight people with Good compared to the reverse."

I believe the main reason for this is that peoples' cultural and social backgrounds give the word "gay" and its synonyms a bad connotation. That's right, the word. So, when dealing with actual people, I think most people don't really prefer a person of a certain sexual orientation over another of a different orientation (unless they are also unconsciously romantically or sexually attracted to one of them, in which case it puts he/she at an advantage over the group you don't feel attracted to based on your sexual orientation). When dealing with the word "gay" though, your mind more easily associates it with negativity, because of certain stereotypes that you have learned.

Asian American / European American Results:

"Your data suggest a strong association of European American with American and Asian American with Foreign compared to Asian American with American and European American with Foreign."

This time around, I can definitely feel that it is easier (and faster) to press the same key in where Asian American and Foreign are grouped together or where European American and American. Both consciously and unconsciously I feel that there is a stronger association with the USA and people of European & Caucasian descent. It was an eye-opening experience.

Scavenger Hunt Thoughts

I think Elsa Maxwell's scavenger hunt is a great way to start people off into knowing and then befriending each other. Truth is, most people are easy to get along with, it's just difficult for two individuals to begin a friendship. People fear the unknown. For example it is not always easy to just start a conversation with someone you have no clue about. The scavenger hunt - however - gives groups of people a purpose, and not just any purpose, but one that is fun and causes people to cooperate and talk to each other.

If I were to do the scavenger hunt differently, I would head straight to the library (which we did, but we had to come back to the library towards the end due to poor organization) and utilize google images to complete the "harder" objectives, such as the duck/goose, De Anza President and someone named April/Apryl for points. Other than the ones that are improbable to find though, I had a lot of fun searching and improvising for the other hunts, so I wouldn't do that part differently. All in all I would just try to allocate our time for more efficiency (and not assume that it would be easy to find two Civics parked next to each other).

We did a good job though, completing most of the objectives. The aspect of the hunt that really sparked our creativity was that "Professor Berney won't be able to tell." For example we didn't really happen to find someone sleeping in the library, or someone that knew a legitimate dance move, but that wasn't important, because our pictures "proved" otherwise. At the end I enjoyed how this assignment made us think outside of the box.