Showing posts with label science vs art. Show all posts
Showing posts with label science vs art. Show all posts

Friday, April 4, 2008

Why do people enjoy horror movies?

bored_product_guy
I'm just back from watching The Ruins. These days when I go to the theatre to watch a horror movie, I no longer concentrate on the scenes intended to cause the most trauma. I spend my time looking around, observing how people react.

In Doomsday, when a man is being burnt alive to feed a horde of post-apocalyptic cannibals, the audience is cheering. It's supposedly cool when the Jigsaw Killer in the Saw movies succeeds in making people fall into his gory traps, and people are also cheering when they watch a man being amputated with a hunting knife in The Ruins.

What's so funny about these scenes? I watched carefully to make sure there weren't any hidden directorial tricks involved -- some sort of comic undertone or the likes. Were the actors smirking when they were performing these horrifying scenes? Did the background music turn funny? Were the victims in these movies acting in a comic manner?

No. Nothing, nil, nada. All these extremely repulsive and horrifying scenes weren't meant to be funny. They were meant to be scary, but most people laugh at them. I look at the gleaming faces in the dark -- teenagers, middle aged people, single moms, kids, seniors. Why?

And, from a critical point of view, how successful are these scenes really as artistic devices/constructions? Is the audience really laughing at the scenes or the artists involved?

According to a Science Daily article, researchers at Berkeley have concluded that people love horror movies for the simple reason that they enjoy being scared. The audience perceives that there is no real threat, and even the acting which is meant to evoke feelings of trauma and shock is, bluntly put, an articulate hoax, and therefore enjoy them.

But it still doesn't explain anything beyond the surface layer. A hundred years back, Dracula in a silent movie would absolutely terrify the living shit out of anybody. When did we change? Have we gotten so used to movies, that we unconsciously refuse to immerse in it, but still appreciate it to satisfy a primal instinct deep inside our genes?

We're laughing at something scary because we know it's not real. But violent movies do breed violent acts. What is real, then? And -- how will violence be portrayed in future?

Suddenly, I'm very genuinely scared.

Thursday, January 17, 2008

Art preceding science (again)?

bored_product_guy
Among many other things, it points out that Niels Bohr was inspired by Cubism while devising his famous model of atomic structure, and that science actually needs artists to paint pictures inspired by String Theory. I'm still sitting dumbfounded; it's been quite a while since I last read a sensible discourse on the science vs art issue.I just read an article in Seed magazine by Jonah Lehrer titled "The future of science... is art?" Among many other things, it points out that Niels Bohr was inspired by Cubism while devising his famous model of atomic structure, and that science actually needs artists to paint pictures inspired by String Theory. I'm still sitting dumbfounded; it's been quite a while since I last read a sensible discourse on the science vs art issue. At nine pages, Lehrer's article is testing, but it's still definitely a must-read for anyone with a science-aware knack of mind. Reasons for the title to this post: check out this.

Friday, January 4, 2008

So sexuality is like... a switch?

bored_product_guy
The wonders of old newspapers... I came across a Dec 19 edition of the free Vancouver 24 Hours newspaper that has a small news item (titled "Nature or Nurture") on page 10. According to the news, a team of University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC) neurobiologists have discovered that the sexual orientation of bees can be altered by genetic manipulations or drugs. In other words, as the lead researcher Prof David Featherstone ecstatically points out, homosexuality/heterosexuality can be turned on and off.... I tried to do some online research on this, but the newspaper's website doesn't show the news. (Dropping print material in the online version isn't really uncommon for the media, especially if the company can't afford a proper website. By the way, the Dec 19 spells Wednesday wrong on the cover!) Dr Featherstone is on the UIC website, and his lab has an address as well, but I couldn't find what I was looking for. Do the same neurobiological principles apply for humans? Last term I was teaching students Tomson Highway's Kiss of the Fur Queen, which has a gay character who was sexually abused in residential school. I did a bit of research to prepare for class, and found out that, according to the NARTH website, there is no 'gay gene' in the human body (also checkout Wikipedia). I shared the resources with my students, and asked them what they thought. Surprisingly, most of them believed that the character was not a born homosexual (in Highway's novel); or in other words -- as they argued later in an essay -- homosexuality isn't hardwired or irreversible. Art preceding science, anyone?