Butting Heads For Banksy

The man at hand is famed British graffiti artist Banksy, known for his high profile murals and political stencil work across the Western world. Many consider him to be an archetype of modern guerilla art and many others call him a vandalizing menace to society. Today, these two authors will be the judge.

The first author basically states in the thesis that Banksy is a breath of fresh air in the modern art world and that although it's considered highly controversial, his work is something to be admired by the art community. This contrasts to the other article in that the other focuses primarily on the fact that his work is vandalism and it should be frowned upon whether or not it has intrinsic political messages. They both use his sculptures and more dangerous pieces as evidence of their claims. The main difference is that one finds it morally acceptable and the other finds it morally wrong.

The opposing article is more opinion-based while the supporting article is more formal and written more as a critical review in a paper instead of as an opinion article. The opposing one uses beliefs on the final say of the law as a tool to paint Banksy as a criminal and the supportive emphasizes beauty and meaning to justify the illegal nature of his work. They both make their claims meaningful by showing the mainstream support they have on each side of the issue. This just further goes to show how split the public is on Banksy and how interesting of an artist he is to our 21st century culture.

Both positions have good points, but I find that the opposing article lacks the background information necessary to prove their points compared to the supportive which has two references to statistics and a quote by famous graffiti artist, Futura. My opinion between the two articles is not only that the Banksy-supportive article is more validated, but that the overall ideas of the supportive article make more sense than the opposing article which, although scholarly, only is able to use legality as a tool and not other options available like saying Banksy is too offensive for the public, that the murals distract drivers on the road, or that it tells other advertisers that they don't need to pay to have their messages brandished outright in public.

I would say that they relate perfectly to my blog's audience because they both touch on the issue of perception. Some of us perceive the law to be the most sacred ruling of morals and some of us perceive the rest of the world to be the most important judge of ethics. I believe these assumptions are appropriate because they lean more towards inferences than assumptions.

Banksy May Be Skilled, But He's No Boxer

After reading a certain interesting blog post on Banksy and the graffiti culture as a whole, I have reflected on what the blogger said about the inclusion of graffiti as a form of art and the differences he finds between the two. He brings up an interesting point of discussion on art as a means of expression and uses an odd, but beneficial nonetheless, example of intention versus interpretation. Overall, I have to say I agree with pretty much most of what he says and believe that Banksy’s graffiti is in fact art. This is because I find myself feeling the same sentiments that he does towards the roundabout characteristics of art that graffiti undoubtedly encompasses.

Marksaid, a well-known “wordpress” site done by Mark Mapstone and the blog which I happen to be writing about, immediately starts by asking the reader this question: “Is graffiti art?” To which Mark replies back with the question, “What’s the difference between graffiti and art?” The only way to answer this, he finds, is by determining just what art is. He finds it to be based on three things: the intention of the creator, the interpretation of the views, and the expression involved with the process.

I, on the other hand, think art is also defined by having to be in some manner physical. I see art as having to be somewhat of a physical nature because I feel like art is something that needs to be seen, whereas poetry and prose are things that need to be read, and music is something that needs to be heard. Other than that, I do agree that art is defined once the intention and expression have been identified. The interpretation, however, I think is not necessary in defining something as art as much as it is to define something as a certain type of art. For instance, when Banksy put a blowup doll dressed in Guantanamo Bay clothing in Disneyland, it was art as soon as he started doing it and had the intention. It was not until a few minutes later, when everyone witnessed it and was shocked, that it became a piece of guerilla art.

When he states, “Graffiti is a form of expression with intention open to interpretation which equals: art.” I agree with him but I find that we have come to the same conclusion from different trails of explanation. I find that graffiti is a form of expression with intention that can be interpreted as art, but it does not have to be. For instance, say that I walk up to a random person on the street and push them to the ground as hard as I can because I happen to be mad. It is open to interpretation, because you cannot stop interpretation from happening, so does that make it art? I find that the answer to that is simply no. No it is not art. This is because I think Mark is missing a piece of the puzzle called action. I believe that action is what separates Banksy from Joe Frazier. One expresses himself through political graffiti on walls and government property and one expresses himself through action. Nice, bloody, cable-ready action.

The True Meaning Behind The Wise Guan Yu

I'm here to talk about the Guan Yu sculpture I saw the other day; a piece done in honor of the the real Chinese general serving under Liu Bei who played a pivotal part in the collapse of the Han Dynasty along with the establishment of the Shu Han Kingdom of China. Originally done in the 1490's, this ancient piece is currently on display in the Ackland Art Museum. This Ming Dynasty (1368-1644) treasure not only defines traditional Chinese military culture but also reflects the art culture of China as a whole. The piece has three distinct features that give the viewer insight into its cultural meaning: the different colors used on the body, the stance and texture of the general, and the clothing type chosen to represent who Guan Yu was.

Guan Yu was known for being a brilliant military man, and after his execution in 219 by his enemies he was immortalized in the first great Chinese historical novel, The Romance of the Three Kingdoms. He was immortalized in the same way a well-known statue immortalizes someone (whether it be Venus de Milo or Abraham Lincoln). That is why this statue means so much in its artistry: it paints a live picture of who he was and what he represented.

When colors are incorporated into a sculpture I feel it can either serve to add emotion lacking before or it can add emphasis onto parts more difficult to accentuate as meaningful parts, such as the hat being a slighter shade of green that the army wardrobe and the skin putting off a strong, golden hue. All the different colors used together in the sculpture give it the vintage feel of traditionalism and legend, while the tones of just gold give it a feeling of royalty while the pieces of green represent Ancient China's beliefs that green was the color of spring, balance wood (the material used for the piece), and the cardinal direction east, giving pride to the Eastern world for the works of this man.

The stance and texture of the sculpture have a lot to say in terms of power and position as well. Guan Yu stands from the chest down in a very traditional way, neither foot is pointing towards the thing he stares at and both legs run straight to the floor without bending, symbolizing his positivity in his balance. The upper body is modest yet unique, with the general's belly pointing outwards in disregard for manors, the hand placed back in typical East Asian fashion as if to say that this position is who he is, and the head glaring steadily and wisely at whatever the thing he stares at happens to be. In addition, the texture of the piece is balanced between smooth gold skin, the class of the garb he wears over his durable and tough military armor, and lastly the professionalism seen in the detailed pieces of leather on his shoes and belt and the real hair used on his face.

The clothing type is split between elite royalty and military prowess with a little hint of intellectualism. As the article describes, the robe is symbolic of the typical clothing of an official while the clothing we see underneath is clearly military combat armor and military boots. This alludes to the suggestion that he was both a highly valuable man in the elite class as well as a highly regarded man in the Chinese army. The other piece of clothing which gives us insight into his historical value is the hat on his head. The hat represents the cap of a scholar, which Guan Yu would have to be in order to have such mastery in the military: although, to include such a thing on a representation of whom Guan Yu was can lead us to believe he was very much smarter than the average man of military conquest.

As a whole, this sculpture might not be the most mind-blowing piece of art in terms of skill in my eyes, but just as our blog talks about, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and the professionalism and meaning put into the piece definitely has more to be spoken of than if I had just passed this piece of fine Chinese art on a museum tour. In the end, Guan Yu is not someone who we can trust to be all the features listed, because after all, it is the victors who write the history books. We can, however, trust that this sculpture of him does to some degree give us Westerners perspective on just what the Eastern world admires: balance, intelligence, craft, valor, and grace.


Guan Yu. 1490s. Wood, lacquer and lacquer paste, polychrome and gold, leather and hair. The William A. Whitaker Foundation Art Fund, 95.2 Ackland Art Museum, Chapel Hill, NC.

George Bellows: Hidden Visionary of the Early Twentieth Century

Rain is literally the method that life today uses to maintain itself; rain supplies life with water and cleanses the earth. This is scientific fact, an observable phenomenon that is proven through objectivity and logic. However, George Bellows’ painting “After the Rain” conveys a much different meaning about the effects of precipitation. His image depicts a mildly forested coastline, distorted by fog, and darkened by the clouds looming over the mysterious and ominous landscape, which as implied by the title, has received rain. The purpose of the scene goes deeper than the physical reality of nature. Bellows use of realism creates a scene contrasting typical ideas about Earth’s natural processes. Through that, he compares the idea of fabricated human perception to reality, while using that perception to instigate introspective thought regarding certain aspects of society and life, which he represents through the various entities in the medium of nature.

One might assume that the inherent qualities of rain include clarity, cleanliness, and reinvigoration. These are, in some manner, true observations. On the contrary, one can observe that a rainstorm can be characterized by violence or disruption. The churned dirt, the turbulent ocean, and the sky is ominous, contrasting to the notion of cleansing and tranquility through rain that people generalize. This is the beginning of Bellows demonstration that compares what we observe to what is real.
The audience can see that Bellows wants the viewer to observe and focus on the morbid and gloomy aspects of his painting. This can be observed through Bellow’s use of dark, murky oil paints to illustrate and emphasize the grim environment that was created by the recent precipitation. The emphasis is to contrast the idea of a friendly and positive environment to a realistic and bleak one. In a broader sense, he wishes to pull the audience away from what is defined by humans and drive them to analyze a situation instantaneously. That is why the painting can be defined by impressionism, it asks the viewer to consider what the painting influences in the mind of the onlooker. The work aims to coagulate a relationship that disregards predispositions between the environment and the observer.

The ocean illustrated by Bellows reinforces the contrast he uses to characterize the rain. The sea appears dark, barren, and turbulent from the recent shower. Visibility across the waterfront is low because the air is clouded with fog. Perhaps the fog across the ocean is shrouding danger or even a purposeful opportunity from the audience. This lack of clarity provides insight to Bellows contrast. As people are not fully aware, or cannot see, how their presumptuous ideas are inhibiting them from seeing the world in its clearest and realistic form.

The trees in the scenery cement the dark imagery instilled by Bellows. They also preserve the theme of inhibited vision in that the wooded areas are thick and dingy, preventing the viewer from seeing what lies inside the forest. This earthwork of foliage makes it near impossible to distinguish where the ocean meets the land. It is through this technique that the piece utilizes a transfiguration from a three-dimensional world to a two-dimensional one in order to hide the waterfront. The shadowing and concealment of the shore advances Bellows connection between the fundamentally observable and reality.

The cliff that overlooks the ocean in the upper-right hand corner of Bellows’ painting is another method that he masquerades and transforms reality into a two-dimensional paradox. It is another area that, because of its three-dimensional characteristics, hides certain geographical areas. This, combined with the dense fog (densest in the picture) that the cliff overlooks, structures the observation complex even more. All of which implies that the cliff may be the highest point (implying it is the best vantage point), but it hardly gives the best view of the scenery.

Another observation of the cliff is the apparent lack of life. It is covered in dirt, churned by the rain, and bears no vegetation. The negative depiction of the cliff is perhaps Bellows’ critique of society. Those who are viewed as the highest on a social, economic, or moral scale do not necessarily reflect that in a realistic sense. Apply the observation complex discussed earlier; one may judge someone based on a fundamentally observable scale (social, economic, moral, etc.). In reality, this may or may not be true, as the person’s (in the instance of the picture, the environment’s) status could be much different than we perceive it. We now see that Bellows’ contrast was an allegory to human perception from a broad, and specific, point of view.
Bellows reasserts this idea through a horizontally symmetrical landscape (appears on the right 1/3), using the cliff, the trees, and the mud as his method of display. The symmetry is coordinated as followed: mud, trees, foliage, trees, mud. This may appear ludicrous at first, but when we take into account Bellows use of the cliff (as stated previously), it brings to light that the symmetry is used to compare the cliff (the “top” of society) as a reflection of the ground (the “bottom”). Both the cliff and the ground are similar in color and texture. So in a broader scheme, Bellows is depicting everyone, regardless of their artificial status, as equals.

The use of dirt is to remind to viewer that something that is viewed as crude or impure can actually be a beneficiary to life. Dirt is the means of provisions for plants; it holds water and nutrients that the plants need to survive. This argument coincides with the previous comparison in that someone, regardless of their “status”, has something to offer to the greater good of life. It establishes that there is a symbiotic relationship between everyone, regardless of position physically or aesthetically.

On the contrary the dirt has been churned into mud by the rain, creating yet another contrast. To understand this, we must compare inherent characteristics of society to the aspects of this painting again. The environment represents a generic population of people, and the rain is an unstoppable action with certain aftereffects. In the picture, the rain has disturbed a particular part of the population temporarily. Eventually, the population will settle, and the rain will have helped part of the population succeed (i.e. the trees growing). Even though the dirt receives no benefits (it actually suffers), it is an inherent characteristic of society, and nature, that a particular group will benefit or succeed at the cost of another party. This realistic perspective seems contrary to how many view the world today. Many think that the world can provide opportunity and grandeur to all. However, they fail to realize that this idea defies the natural and realistic principals that govern everything, despite humanities efforts.

The realistic approach Bellows uses in “After the Rain” is gloomy, bleak, and morbid. The themes he incorporates are disheartening, and uncover the flaws of man, as well as reveal the characteristics of nature. Despite all that, Bellows intentions are meant to be well. He wants to open peoples’ eyes and show them reality, to stop fabricating illusions in an attempt to optimize people’s hopes. In order to do this, he contrasted nature with humanity. With that method, he revealed the vast differences between human perception and reality, and used the contrast to provoke interrogative thought with respect to aspects of society and life.


Bellows, George. After the Rain. 1913. Oil on wood. Ackland Art Museum, Chapel HIll, NC.

*Could not find the painting online anywhere. Visit Ackland Art Museum where Bellows has a whole room next to the John Lawson exhibition

Don't Hate, Evaluate

Alex Grey’s collection “Sacred Mirrors” is a well-admired piece among contemporary artists and art critics. His work has illustrated and created a diagram that combines the physical anatomy of a human with spirituality. However, Leah Ollman does not empathize with Grey, or his colleagues, in her article “The Anatomy of an Artist: A Mind-Body-Spirit Cliché”. She argues that Grey’s work is too showy and shallow to be profound, and that his work is more of a parody than anything. Ollman uses faulty comparisons, closes her mind to the ideas Grey appeals to, and faisl to entangle the progression that Grey’s artwork is built upon, where one sees themself transcend from physical to spiritual form.

Her initial criticisms of Grey’s work come off as insulting as opposed to introspective, as she complains that the work is showy, artificial, and “an embarrassment of a show”. These “critiques” are shallow, and do not observe the paintings well. Grey’s work is hardly artificial and showy; many depict the anatomy of the human body to mirror the composition of the viewer. As the work progresses, we see he dissects the human anatomy in the paintings, and eventually turning the person into a representation of the aura of the spirit. The nature of his purpose (depicting the human spirit) is abstract, but not necessarily artificial, as the human spirit can be defined through science as well as metaphysics.

Ollman continues by creating a flawed contrast between Grey and William Blake. She states that Blake was a visionary, unlike Grey. The problem with this comparison is that Grey does not claim to be a visionary himself, only that his art is his envisioning of the soul. On a broader spectrum, it is impossible to compare any artist or “visionary”, as each has his or her own themes, motifs, and ideals. Even though Grey’s work may be similar to other “visionaries” from a general standpoint, he specifies his work through his unique style that encompasses the anatomy of a human. I have never witnessed anything like his work, which differentiates him from many other great visual artists.

Further into the paragraph, Ollman comments “[Greys’] paintings look more like the stunted offspring of fantasist Frank Frazetta and New Age guru Deepak Chopra (who helped sponsor the show)”. This slander misrepresents Grey’s work, as Frank Frazetta incorporates fantasy in his work while Grey uses realism and spirituality. The assertion also shows that Ollman may have a bias against spiritually motivated persons, as the insult mocks Deepak Chopra who is a world-renowned spiritual figure. With all that said, she has failed to analyze the purpose of Grey’s work and allowed her predispositions to inhibit her from a full comprehension of “Sacred Mirrors”.

In Ollman’s closing paragraphs, we see where her false justifications come from. She remarks that Grey’s work uses “Illustrative overkill” because the depicted rays, beams, and auras are exaggerated special effects. This exaggeration makes the work appear as a parody to Ollman, but the exaggeration is used by Grey to intensify the actions portrayed in the paintings. Ollman notes that the work integrates science fiction like characteristics, digressing Grey’s intended meaning into something else. Nevertheless, I do not see science fiction because the basis of the work is fundamentally realistic. The anatomization of the human body emphasizes and fully reinforces this motif in Grey’s work and discredits any fictitious themes.

Despite Ollman’s opposing argument, Grey’s work may appear to be overdeveloped, but it only is intended to add depth to the meaning. I find it intriguing that someone would write such a harassing and harsh criticism of Grey’s work, as if one cannot enjoy the theme, then one may enjoy the talent his hand. Through Ollman’s rhetoric and argument, one can observe that she is insulting to Grey, creates a faulty comparison to mock Grey’s abilities, and may have a bias against those seeking spiritual depth.


Ollman, Leah. "The Anatomy of an Artist: A Mind-Body-Spirit Cliche." LA Times [Los Angeles] 27 Apr. 1999, Art News and Reviews sec. Alex Grey. Web. 19 Apr. 2010.

*unfortunately I can't post "Sacred Mirrors" on the blog. If you like to view the peice, go to and go to 'paintings'

Going Great with Grey

Alex Grey's artwork diverges greatly from the normal contemporary art realm. Grey combines factual anatomy and his own portrayal of the human body using the spirituality instilled by his images. Both the articles "Grey's Anatomy" and "Stux gallery" agree on this statement, but their beliefs differ about the purpose and meaning of Grey's "Sacred Mirrors." Kenneth Baker, author of "Grey's Anatomy," believes that this collection focuses on realism and mortality while Carlo McCormick, author of "Stux Gallery," argues that the piece focuses on the depth of human nature and metaphysics. Each author uses physical indications from the artwork to elaborate on their interpretations of the pieces. Baker, however, uses shallow observations and generalizations to create his argument, making it structurally weaker. McCormick provides a clear, contextual argument through his unambiguous diction and lack of generalizations.

Baker’s argument is that Grey’s intentions in “Sacred Mirrors” are to examine the mortality of humans, which he justifies through the lack of flesh on many of the human portraits. He argues, “[the paintings] fool us for a moment into thinking we are looking at images of living persons” (Baker). He continues, claiming that the mirror technique and human anatomy created by the artwork inhibits the viewer from understanding Grey’s purpose. This may be true at first, but “Sacred Mirrors” is a sequential building from the human body to the spirit. Through the metamorphosis, we see human flesh transform into spirit, which is yet to be tangible in the real world.

Even though some of the images appear gruesome and morbid, the artwork is portraying the building of the human body and aura. McCormick’s argument is that the layering of the human flesh in Grey’s work is to show the depth of the human construction: the soul, and the sensuous flesh that sustains us. He states Grey’s paintings are based on his personal investigations of human nature where reality becomes far removed. It is described as, “a rigorously detailed account of the typically unseen.”(McCormick) This idea coincides with the progression of “Sacred Mirrors”, when the viewer is mirrored as a physical being, then transcends into a spiritual being (either as a spirit or a spiritual figure). This argument differs greatly from Baker’s, as it emphasizes the abstract ideas that appear in the paintings as opposed to the realistic ones.
Baker continues to assert the morbidity and realism shown in Grey’s drawings when he determines that one’s personal experience with morbidity enhances the credibility of their thoughts. Contrary to his belief, the experience one has with death only feed ideas contrary to the paintings’ meaning. “Sacred Mirrors” is the visualization of the development of humankind, not the demise or degradation of it. Baker’s argument is partially concluded through an interrogation, which questions the capabilities of Grey’s artwork. “Can a painting actually affect someone's attitudes toward anything besides painting?” (Baker) Quite simply the answer is yes; Grey’s paintings have caused me (and possibly others) to question the nature of the human spirit.

Baker’s conclusion lacks a well-composed thesis, as his final statement suggests that the reader see the artwork regardless of the meaning because Grey’s work is so different from contemporary art. McCormick on the other hand, concludes by discussing the scientific aspects of Grey’s work. He describes “Sacred Mirrors” as a “systemic web of existence that is structurally dependent upon the existential as well as the biological”(McCormick). This concept is a great explanation of the motifs prevalent in “Sacred Mirrors” and provides a clear, adequate conclusion to McCormick’s thoughts on the artwork.
Alex Grey’s “Sacred Mirrors” is piece that incorporates ideas of the human spirit as well as ideas of the natural world. Each author has a distinct and different (but not necessarily contrary) viewpoint of Grey’s work. Baker focuses on the distinctive style of Grey, which causes him to over analyze the small details and overlook the general conceptions of the work. McCormick is able to provide an adequate analysis of the painting through strict observation and context, as well as a clear and developed argument advocating Grey’s ability to intertwine the natural and metaphysical worlds to describe the objective and spiritual aspects of human nature.

Alex Grey’s “Sacred Mirrors” is piece that incorporates ideas of the human spirit as well as ideas of the natural world. Each author has a distinct and different (but not necessarily contrary) viewpoint of Grey’s work. Baker focuses on the distinctive style of Grey, which causes him to over analyze the small details and overlook the general conceptions of the work. McCormick is able to provide an adequate analysis of the painting through strict observation and context, as well as a clear and developed argument advocating Grey’s ability to intertwine the natural and metaphysical worlds to describe the objective and spiritual aspects of human nature.


Baker, Kenneth. "Grey's Anatomy." The Boston Phoenix [Boston] 13 Apr. 1982, sec. 3. Alex Grey. Alex Grey. Web. 18 Apr. 2010.
Grey, Alex. Sacred Mirrors. Alex Grey. Web. 18 Apr. 2010. .
McCormick, Carlo. ""Stux Gallery"" Artforum Sept. 1986. Alex Grey. Alex Grey. Web. 18 Apr. 2010.

Decapitated Deer

Artist Coke Whitworth has an exhibit at the Ackland Art Museum in which different aspects of his home back in Zionville, NC are shown through an array of pictures taken by him in the Appalachian Mountains community. There is a particular picture that is quite hard to miss; the deer head. Through this photograph Witworth is documenting his family's culture and traditions by showing a typical sport played, local clothing worn and the common type of vehicle used by his family all with the use of different lighting and texture. The achievement of portraying this social goal is well achieved through his techniques of illustrating many aspects at once of his background.


The obvious focus of the photograph is the deer. Out of all the objects in the photograph this decapitated head is the clearest and brightest, drawing the most attention to it from the audience. The fresh, red blood dripping from its neck and smeared on its nose is attention grabbing and it draws the audience to focus on it by creating a distinction with the subtle camouflaging colors surrounding it. All the browns, grays and blues displayed in the men’s clothing and the ground add on to the contrast between these colors and the vivid red. The light stains of blood shown on the guy's light blue, long-sleeve button down jean shirt, although subtle, catch the audience’s attention and provide them with context clues that this man was probably responsible for the deer’s death and decapitation.


This man is also the only one that can be seen clearly, without any distortion of the image. The image of his clothes is so clear that even the wrinkles on his shirt are visible, disregarding the fact that he is the furthest away from where the photo was taken. The other two men on the other hand, are closer to the picture but the quality of their appearance and details on their clothing are not visible whatsoever. The most probable reason for this distortion is that the photographer wanted to emphasize the focus of the deer, but he did not want to completely exclude them from the picture so the audience could get a small glimpse at Witworth’s traditional Appalachian style of clothing and culture. The image’s composition is well played out, placing what is important in the middle with greater clearness, and setting the less important things blurred on the sides of the picture.


The photograph’s maintained clarity located in the center is portrayed not only in the deer’s head and the man holding it, but it is also seen in the ground where you can easily differentiate between dirt and pebbles. The grays and browns in the ground make up for a great background that emphasizes even more the importance of the deer’s head. Even though you can easily see the ground’s texture due to the photo’s clarity, it does not take away attention from the deer simply because it is in the foreground and there is less detail to focus on.


The photographer intentionally took the picture at angle where both the camouflage jacket and the pickup truck could be shown, either in the foreground or the background, so the audience could have a better idea about what it means to be from the Appalachian area. If, for instance, the photograph had been taken from the other side of the circle of guys the truck would have not been included in the picture and one less cultural attribute of Witworth’s home would have been excluded. Angles and positions of photos matter, and this rule is perfectly shown in Witworth’s picture.


If one were to guess what the focus of the photograph is, it would be pretty simple and obvious what the answer would be; the deer. Not only because its shape is clearly visible and not blurred like other objects in the photo have, but also because it is placed right on the center. The first thing one sees when looking at anything, like a painting or picture, is the center because this is usually the most important part of the picture. Every photograph has to have a point of interest, and for this picture that is the deer. The light, clearness and placement reinforce the idea and Witworth’s goal of documenting his family’s traditions and culture are portrayed with the photograph perfectly.

The Security in the Scenery

Salomon van Ruysdael's piece “River Landscape with Fishermen” simply shows what the title implies—a scene of men fishing on a river. A shoreline consisting mostly of trees and less developed land near the bottom right of the painting that becomes cityscape closer to the horizon at the left-hand edge. On the river itself there are several small fishing boats inhabiting the water and the scene, mostly through variations of lighting, portrays how the land and water provides a varying senses of security for the fishermen.

At first glance, the river’s water seems very inviting. The water is fairly still and extremely bright, especially when compared to the dark and shadowy trees in the right hand corner. These fishermen are rowing their boats from these shadows into the lighter area of the water. The fishermen are therefore surrounded by light whenever they row farther away from the shore. Ruysdael is using the classic symbolism of light vs. dark for good vs. evil in this painting. The river is drastically brighter than the shore which the fishermen are coming from; this shows that the river is so-called good. This brightness implies that the fishermen should feel safe, secure, and even happy when on the water compared to the doubt and fear that the shadows on the land invoke.

If a fisherman was on the land during the time of this painting, he would merely see the enticing light of the water. By looking out onto the water, he would mostly likely not pay attention to the clouds. Ruysdael further uses the symbolism of light vs. dark in the sky. Directly above the bright, inviting water which the fishermen are rowing towards, are several dark rainclouds. These clouds show that although the water might be appealing, the sky could decide at any moment to rain without considering the fishermen’s safety. The sky therefore proves that the sense of security that these fishermen feel about the water is false since they could easily be caught in a rainstorm on the water.

Of course the water is not the only aspect of the painting that could be considered inviting. Back near the horizon is a cityscape that is equally as bright and exciting as the river. It can be argued that this is a part of the shoreline making the shadows near the right less significant, but realistically, the trees and the city are seperate entities. Odds are that the men who are fishing in this painting don't go to the city much, causing that land to become very intriguing. The light shows that the fishermen truly desire to travel there, but this cityscape is covered by the same clouds as the river. This shows that the fishermen also have false hopes about the city. They believe that the urbanization is exciting and good, but they are unaware that something dark is looming above it.

This painting basically has four quadrants of light. The sky in the top right is fairly light and unthreatening while the sky in the top left is dark and ominous. Meanwhile, the water in the bottom left is bright and exciting and the land in the bottom right is shadowy and lurking. If you happen to cut the painting in half, however, there would be an equal balance of light and dark on each side. Ruysdael is showing that even though at first glance a person could easily decide which of the land or the river is safer, they both have a balance of evil as well as good. The fishermen might believe that they are safer or happier on the river or in the city, but Ruysdael is portraying that no matter the fishermen's predetermined feelings about a location, there is still the potential for an equal amount of happiness and harm as compared to anywhere else.

The Grainstacks

Among Claude Monet's many well-renowned works, such as Water Lilies, exists a series of paintings known as the Grainstacks. The works are exactly what they sound like--images of stacks of grain. Gary Storm, author of Paradoxes: The Theme and Variations in the Visual Arts -- False-color Cartography and the Grainstacks of Claude Monet, believes that "the images created by Monet have great depth and yet they are composed of streaks and smears of different colors of paint." The subjects of these paintings are incredibly simple and ordinary, but Monet's style creates something complex and beautiful out of the plain image.

Each of the Grainstacks focuses on one or two stacks of grain and there is rarely anything in the background of the image besides color. The color, however, is the main source of complexity to the pieces. Monet uses colors for certain aspects of the painting that are not conforming. For example, many of the grainstacks are on a ground that is, for the most part, blue. Of course, the ground is not entirely blue. The blue is merely a component mixed in with several reds, oranges and greens. The blue does however draw the most attention and adds the most depth since it is the most unusual color in the bunch. The same can be said for the mostly-yellow skyline. This is not as out of the ordinary, but the yellow sky does deeply contrast the mostly blue earth causing the grainstack to simply pop out of the image. For such a simple subject, Monet uses a wide spectrum of colors and their combinations create something far from simple.

The color in this image is also the only feature creating borders between the different aspects of the image. There are no definitive lines saying where the grainstack begins or where the sky stops. As storm states, "When viewed from a few inches away, the brush strokes are physically obvious and the individual colors in the strokes are distinct. But, like pixels, when viewed from a distance, the strokes and colors mingle and create a recognizable picture of grainstacks, fields, sky, and countryside." The colors simply change and only contrast between them divides the image into shapes. With this being said, the more contrast the easier it is to see the different shapes. The grainstack has an obvious shape when against the sky, but it is more difficult to see where the grain on the ground. This also adds the the complexity of the piece since it forces the viewer to activate their imagination. The viewer can fill in the spaces on their own by deciding for themselves where the shapes begin.

Through the use of color, Monet was able to drastically increase the complexity of these pieces. With definitive lines and expected coloration, the image would be comparable to a child's coloring book. Instead, Monet forces the viewer to engage their mind by creating a piece rich in a variety of color and lacking in definition and in general a fascinating collection.

Monet's Muse

When browsing through Claude Monet’s collection of art, one would begin to see recurring images of a single woman. This woman, Camille Doncieux, eventually became Monet’s wife and the majority of women in his paintings were based off of her. In Married to the Muse, Kate Christensen quotes Ruth Butler saying that Doncieux “brought a whole spectrum of feelings with [her], giving [her] husbands' art emotional texture and substance, contributing elements for art as important as the light in which a scene is bathed, the space where an object sits, or movements that provide real character in a scene or to a figure." John Updike, however, believes that the majority of Monet’s inspirations came from the impressionist movement.

Christensen believes that Monet’s relationship with Doncieux increased the emotion in Monet’s work. Even though it was rumored that Monet only married Doncieux for her dowry, there is evidence that the two were in love and happy together. This home lifestyle and Monet’s emotions would definitely affect Monet’s painting style and Christensen states that “Doncieux brought a sense of style and instinctive taste for feminine elegance to the painting of Claude Monet.” Doncieux played a very large role in Monet’s life and therefore his art was highly affected and influenced by his wife.

It is hard to avoid the idea that Monet was inspired by his wife and the fact that she modeled for him on several occasions, but was she truly his muse? Updike describes how in 1918 Monet declared that one of his paintings was created solely for the reactions at the second Impressionist Exhibition. This paired with the fact that several of his paintings, such as Loloponoise, had begun to resemble the work of other impressionist artists, shows that Monet believed in impressionism and to a large extent, was inspired by it.

It is hard to make a definitive decision on which of these two influences inspired Monet the most. Odds are that a combination of both played a huge role in his painting styles. It is hard to try to guess Monet’s intentions, especially considering the fact that each piece most likely had its own inspiration. Short of asking Monet what exactly he was thinking, the best way to guess is just to guess how certain aspects of his paintings could have been affected by these different influences.

Border between Mexico and the USA

Frida Kahlo's "Self-portrait on the Border between Mexico and the United States" sets an interpretation of the stark contrast between the two nations with the use of many colors that represent different feelings towards the two. All the objects scattered around the painting characterize traditional and modern symbols that Kahlo uses to differentiate between Mexican and American culture. With the help of other sources and findings in her personal diary the meanings behind the use of color and texture help with the understanding of each side of the painting and the use of certain objects.

An analysis in Chicana and Chicano Space A Thematic, Inquiry-Based Art Education Resource of Frida Kahlo's border painting demonstrates the different sensory elements used to show a contrast between Mexican and American traditions. According to the article "Frida used fine brushstrokes to illustrate gradual changes in value (light and dark)", which is shown in the slight change of color and texture of the ground on the Mexican side, which seems to contain soil with rocks and pebbles, to the American side that is barren, smooth and inorganic. This contrast between the two sides shows the differences the two nations have; one is more in touch with the earth, while the other is enveloped in its modern, industrialized bubble.

Besides the change in the ground's color, Kahlo also uses symbolic objects, such as plants and megaphones, to illustrate the relationship between one nation's connection to the Earth and the other's union to machines. According to the analysis of the painting by Diana Vazquez the bright colors used on the objects on the left side like flowers, wild plants and corn "represent the natural, colorful, and beautiful spirit of the Mexican country", which indeed is very representative of typical Mexican art that is usually very brightly colored. Such example would be another of Kahlo's paintings, "The Frame", that displays an array of yellows, reds, purples and magentas usually associated with traditional Mexican culture, which is why people see so many brightly colored houses and clothes in Mexico. The wide range of "happy" colors on the left side shows how much Kahlo admires her native country, while the stark and bland grays and browns on the American side portray a somewhat sad and depressing mood. Vazquez' interpretation seems to correctly clarify Frida's change in color usage, from bright colors on the Mexican side to darker ones on the American side.

Aside from the change in color from left to right, there also seems to be a variation in texture. The symbol of earth illustrated by plants and vegetation on the Mexican side of the painting appears to have more variation and texture than the other side. Besides the few straight lines the stone pyramid in the background contains, the rest of the figures have really complex shapes that the very symmetrical American side does not have. For instance, the lighter fertility figure is shaped like a human and contains more depth than the symmetrical, smooth, buildings that are on the right side of the painting. The megaphone and the other two shapes in the front seem to carry a continual pattern of roundness that none of the objects on the left side contain.

Kahlo’s traditional Mexican oil painting, called a retablo because it is painted on metal, is a great example of how two nations who are literally side by side can be so culturally and economically different than one another. These differences are not just highlighted by the obvious objects, like the contrast between industrial buildings and the earthy elements, but also by her changes in color pallets and texture throughout the painting. The analysis is a perfect description of Kahlo’s art work.

http://mati.eas.asu.edu/ChicanArte/html_pages/KahloIssOutl.html#artwork

VRCBTs for PSAs?!? Let me explain... (Feeder 2.1)

The behavioral modification article I read about was focused on the problem of Public Speaking Anxiety (PSA) and how there is a “virtual reality” cognitive behavior therapy for it. It explains not only PSA, but social phobias as a whole as well as all types of medical treatment for these phobias.

Public Speaking Anxiety, according to this bmo.sagepub.com article, is a fairly common phobia. Cognitive behavior therapy (CBT), though usually helpful in its maneuvers, sometimes finds difficulties in the exposing component of the process. This is due to the therapist’s lack of control in the situation in addition to the inability of the patient to imagine the scenario; rather, they are plunged into it. The article states that virtual reality CBT techniques (VRCBTs) are more beneficial than CBTs because they allow the therapist complete control over the perceived world of the patient. Tests showed that although differences in results were not adequately large enough to account for VRCBTs being better, the tests did in fact show that twice as many of the people that dropped out of the VRCBT dropped out of the CBT, showing its distress to some level with patients.

13% of the population is afflicted with social phobias, mostly in the form of public speaking, which can lead to strong problems in one’s social, work, and study life. In order to self-medicate the problem, a large number of people go towards drugs and alcohol on the path towards substance addiction rather than to get counseling and mental help. The article continues to go on about how CBTs and Cognitive Behavior Group Therapy (CBGTs) might have proven to be the best treatment regimens to date, but that VRCBTs still show great effectiveness for several phobias. In the end of the introduction, it states that the purpose was of the study was to test whether VRCBTs were viable, effective alternatives to CBTs. This inclusion enhances the reader’s preformed thoughts early on about the growing potential of the VRCBT technique.

The article continues to talk about the different areas affected by social phobias and underline main routes to which problems can be seen, in the forms of people catastrophizing events, personalizing impersonal events, magnifying danger, and minimizing their own adequate function. These tendencies result in perception of situations as dangerous, to an increase in anxiety-related physical sensations when encountering feared situations, to hypervigilance to the environment as well as to bodily sensations and thus avoidance of feared social situations. Avoidance, of course, prevents the phobic individual from encountering and disproving faulty cognitions. Therefore, faulty cognitions serve to maintain social phobia. (Freeman et al., 2004; Heimberg & Becker, 2002).


Continuing on the idea of the CBT, it discusses how the behavioral part of CBT is exposure to feared stimuli and how patients feel both a reduction in anxiety during exposure (habituation) and the absence of the “catastrophic” event he or she is anticipating. VR is defined as a situation in which sensory information is generated by a computer rather than by the natural environment. The more senses involved and the higher the degree of accuracy in the presentation, the higher the sense of immersion in VR (Stever, 1992). The most important line I find in the body of the article is that, “With technological advancement of computer programs, a greater sense of immersion is attainable, and the discrimination between real and virtual reality is blurred” (Shapiro & McDonald, 1992). I think this basically highlights the rest of the semi-medical, semi-philosophical description of the virtual reality CBT. It ends with a recollection of the similarities and differences between VRCBTs and CBTs and graphs to strengthen the argument for the new technique.

In the conclusion, the author overviews the entire experiment and recount that their true goal was to see wider employment of both VRCBTs and CBTs for PSA across the nation. It includes figures showing the cheap cost of treatment maintenance and ends well with an overall statement about the positive position the psychology world is going in.

Can You Hear Me Now? No? Awesome! (Unit 2)

Cow results

Cow experiment

Oh, the distractions!

Most people would agree that loud sudden noises can be disrupting. For example, no one looks forward to hearing a baby cry if they are on a plane ride, or wants to hear a car alarm go off outside their window. These types of noises are distracting and generally displeasing. If a person experiences one of these sounds while performing a task, there are a few ways that the situation can be handled. The person can either continue working, or stop until he can no longer hear the noise. So how does avoiding or accepting the noise affect the magnitude that the person is disrupted?

Luciano et al. tested this idea on a group of 38 undergraduate students from the University of Almeria. Each participant was asked to play various computer games consisting of logical series, puzzles and memory cards. These games came in 4-minute blocks consisting solely of one of the three categories. During each 4-minute block, the participant was able to earn points by completing each game.

While playing these games, sounds consisting of some combination of a baby crying, a car horning, a phone and fax ringing, and a drill punching. Luciano et al. even switched up the order of these noises so that the participant would not become adjusted to them. Throughout each 4-minute interval, the sounds played for varying lengths of time which add up to two and a half minutes.

These sounds were, however, administered in two different ways. In one task, the participant must simply work through the sounds. In this case, the participant is accepting the noise. In the second task, the mouse would actually become locked whenever the sounds were played. The participant could only unlock the mouse by waiting for the sounds to stop playing and then pressing the spacebar. This task forces the participant to avoid working while the noises are playing.

The results showed that the students had a lower level of discomfort when they did not have to stop and wait for the sounds to end. This shows that if something is being a disturbance, the person will be most productive if they choose to accept the disturbance as part of the task rather than periodically stopping to avoid the discomfort.

Can You Hear Me Now? No? Good!

Frida Kahlo

The name Frida Kahlo was not recognized up until the 1980s when fortunately Neomexicanismo, an artistic movement glorifying contemporary Mexican culture, gave way to the recognition and popularity of Kahlo’s art. An agreement that her paintings are used as a window into the struggling life she went through is set, but the interpretations behind her art are countless, and sometimes clashing, among those who interpret her paintings. Author Sharyn R. Udall tries to explain the relation between the struggling life of Mexican painter Frida Kahlo and her self-portraits by analyzing the significance of Kahlo’s frail body used as reference to many of her paintings to themes, such as time and the Aztec concept of dualism, in the article titled “Frida Kahlo’s Mexican Body”. However, Udall’s interpretation of Kahlo’s paintings differs from Evelyn Beck’s explanation about the reasoning behind the self-portraits, referring to her paintings as a result of Kahlo’s gender in a highly patriarchal society. I personally think that Frida’s reasoning for her paintings are a combination of both author’s opinions. Udall’s explanations seem like good reasoning for certain paintings and Beck’s theory of Frida’s sexual abuse as a child, although quite extreme, also seem like a possible reason for the grotesque and explicit paintings.

Frida Kahlo was a famous Mexican painter, who lived from 1907-1954, known for her frail body and chaotic marriage with Diego Rivera, who was a Mexican artist as well. The contraction of Polio at an early age and the tragic accident that left her with a broken column and constant relapses of extreme pain, caused Frida to find in art a gateway out of her miserable life. Through her paintings she expressed not only what was occurring in her life, but also what was going on in the outside world. In one of her 55 self-portraits, titled Time Flies, a plane is shown symbolizing the new modern era of technology, while a clock placed directly next to Frida’s head is used as a symbol of time. Udall sees this clock as a representation of Frida herself, not only because the hands of the clock’s face are shaped like Kahlo’s pronounced eyebrows, but also because the spiral column behind her is set at the same height as Kahlo’s broken spinal column. A comparison between Frida and the clock is set as symbol of her being “an instrument that measures time—that mediates between the past and the present”. The adult Frida displayed on Time Flies shows that during this stage of her life technology was already advancing at great lengths since there is an airplane shown in the background, which by the way was a method of transportation for both her and her husband, River, as they had flown in planes a couple of times. Apart from using time in her paintings Frida also used winged objects countless times, and according to Udall these were used as symbols of dualism where planes, butterflies and birds are her spirits. The author states that the reasoning behind all these winged creatures was Frida’s inability to walk properly due to the Polio that attacked her and left her with her right leg weaker than the other. Through these flying creatures Frida could escape the immobile physical life she lived by imagining herself as one of them and being able to travel anywhere without difficulty. In her diary she expressed how much she longed for wings, that she would go as far as getting completely rid of her feet in order to be able to defy “gravity, disease and time itself”.

Contrary to Udall’s beliefs, author Evelyn Beck sees Frida’s reasons for painting certain drawings as a result of some kind of childhood sexual abuse by her father, Guillermo Kahlo. Even though Beck’s theory might seem way out of line and ridiculous, she gives many examples and JDSFAS that do indeed support her argument. Growing up female during Frida’s time was an entryway to the abuse of the macho man in Mexico’s patriarchal society that did not respect women and their bodies. Beck explains that even though many interpret Frida’s images of wounding to the female body as a representation of her physical pain, she sees it as a sign that Frida was abused at a young age and could not express herself or reach out for help in any other way but by her paintings. Through context clues and psychological research Beck came to the conclusion that Kahlo is trying to tell her audience about her father’s sexual harassment through her bizarre paintings, such as What I Saw in the Water and My Birth. In the first painting, a naked woman, who looks very similar to Frida, is shown submerged in water while being strangled with a rope that leads to an undressed elder man. According to Beck this man is her father and the image is a clear symbol of the abuse she received by him while young. All the images shown in the painting are obviously accounts of Frida’s life as the foot that is shown at the head of the bath is crippled, resembling Kahlo’s foot. Next to it is blood dripping from the drain, which could either symbolize the deflowering by her own father or some other kind of abuse. In My Birth, Beck explains that this image is the symbol of Frida’s loss of virginity and her mother’s neglect of the sexual abuse going on in their household. The image shows a woman, with her head covered by sheets, giving birth to an adult that resembles Frida’s head with the bed sheets stained with blood. The woman whose head is covered is supposedly a representation of Frida’s mom’s silence towards what was occurring in the household and her neglect to do something about the situation.

Frida Kahlo portrays her struggling life and a timeline of Mexican society through her countless self-portraits and explicit paintings. The underlying meaning of her art has different opinions coming from many people, but Udall’s and Beck’s explanations seem to interpret it very well. Their concrete examples and information give readers an assurance of their beliefs and reasoning. I agree with both authors on their interpretations, but even so it is more likely that we will never know the true meaning of Kahlo’s disturbing, yet interesting, art.

Unit 2

Drug Analysis

How to Modify Your Work Ethic

In the article “Increasing the On-Task Homework Behavior of Youth With Behavior Disorders Using Functional Behavioral Assessment”, researchers are furthering an attempt to perfect a method of assessing what motivates people to work and increase work ethic. However, the procedure was initially designed to test motivators for people with emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD) or learning disabilities (LD). Hawkins and Axelrod are testing Functional Behavioral Assessment (FBA), which is stated in the article as, “a multimethod, multisource approach to identify relationships between specific individual characteristics and contextual variables that trigger and maintain behavior” (841). This research hypothesizes that there is a definitive efficacy of FBA to improve on-task behavior for those with EBD or LD.

The introduction includes information conceived by studies in the past that promote the hypothesis of this particular experiment. Some appears to be common sense, but is necessary to maintain a valid argument. Such findings include: an increase in the amount of time spent on homework results in better grades in school, completion of homework leads to more positive feelings about school, and that completion of homework is a problem for students with EBD or LD. Past research also shows that FBA can find a correlation between behavior and certain variables, allowing one to create conditions that promote a desired behavior (840-841). The variables include, but are not limited to environment and feedback.

The experiment performed by Hawkins and Axelrod involved four male adolescents: James, Rob, Tom, and Sean. James was diagnosed with ADHD (attention deficit/hyperactive disorder), ODD (oppositional defiant disorder), and a behavioral disorder. He was prescribed 20mg of Adderall XR (extended release). Rob was diagnosed with ADHD and a behavioral disorder, and prescribed 30mg of Adderall XR. Tom had ADHD, along with a learning disability in reading, and was prescribed 54mg of Concerta. The last subject was Sean, who was diagnosed with ODD and was not on medication (844). The students were housed together under the supervision of 2 family teachers (FT) who were married, and one assistant family teacher (AFT). The FTs and AFT supervised and analyzed the students during study time.

The main dependent variable being tested was on-task behavior, which was observed and analyzed by the FTs and AFT. The students were placed at the same table at a certain allocated time to work on homework individually. Baseline data was observed as the control, as there were no modifications made to the environment or structure of the students work time. Three modifications were made to determine what best suited the students in terms of staying on-task. The modifications were: break alone, break with preferred activities, and break with food. Each modification was granted to the student so long as they remained on task for 10 minutes, which was immediately followed by 5 minutes of the modification (i.e. break alone).

Each student responded to at least one modification in a positive way. James, Rob, and Tom responded best to being rewarded with a break alone, while Sean responded best to a break with food. One can already see that the modifications made were an effective means to promote on-task behavior in students. What I found interesting was that the data shows that James responded negatively to the break with food, and Rob was hardly motivated by it. This is most likely attributed to their medication, Adderall XR, which is very well known to cause a loss in appetite and weight loss. Tom also didn’t respond as well to the edibles, and he is prescribed Concerta, which is also known to cause a loss of appetite. Sean was under no medication, and under the break with edibles his percentage of on-task time doubled from baseline. The medication gap may be a flaw in the experimental design, as it is a variable that was not controlled and it was not discussed as a defect in this experiment.

Despite the lack of analysis of the students’ medications, the data concludes that FBA is an effective in determining environmental triggers in the behavior of someone diagnosed with LD or EBD. With that said, researchers are only steps closer to determining whether FBA could be effective for those who do not suffer from a mental condition. Imagine, a world were anyone could know what environment creates near-perfect working conditions. This research could be a move towards a brighter, more efficient world, and it’s only because someone changed the lights.

*Hawkins, Renee O., and Michael I. Axelrod. "Increasing the On-Task Homework Behavior of Youth With Behavior Disorders Using Functional Behavioral Assessment." Behavior Modification 32 (2008): 840-59. SAGE Journals Online. Web. 27 Mar. 2010.

Feeder 2.2 Podcast: Playing with Drugs

Jen's Podcast

The ideals Western society has on being physically attractive and thin has set great pressure on people these days that have caused the sky-rocketing amount of people with eating disorders. A study at a public university in Georgia was done in order to determine whether psychologically flexible response styles contribute to the link between disordered-eating cognitions and poor psychological outcomes. To replicate the city's diversity the study was done on both male and female college students coming from different racial backgrounds and ranging from 17-49 years of age.

According to the article psychological flexibility is “the ability to contact the present moment fully as a conscious human being, and to change or persist in behavior when doing so serves valued ends.” Psychological flexibility allows a person to see "negative" thoughts and feelings as mental events, that they know will not affect them whatsoever. So if a person has low psychological flexibility she will not be able to grasp this concept and instead of perceiving "negative" thoughts as mental events she will take these thoughts as her reality and will end up accepting them causing either depression or anxiety. For example, a person with low psychological flexibility who thinks they are overweight will most likely isolate themselves from social events, such as football games and prom, because their thoughts and feelings have taken over themselves. They cannot overcome them and see them as just a problem they have in their heads. These kinds of actions usually lead to social isolation which eventually follows depression. A strong body of evidence also shows that low psychological flexibility is associated with many psychological problems, which include depression, anxiety, self-harm, and substance use problems.

On the other hand, those with high psychological flexibility have better ways of coping with their feelings. Instead of fixating themselves with petty thoughts, like "I'm overweight" or “people don't like me because I'm not physically attractive", they set these thoughts into a mental event category where these thoughts won’t bother them. They live a more optimistic life where they can move on past "negative" mental thoughts and worry about more important things.

The study used four different measures to assess disordered eating-related cognitions, poor general psychological health, personal distress in an interpersonal setting, and psychological flexibility. The first method was Mizes Anorectic Cognitions Questionnaire-Revised, or MAC-R for short, that was used to evaluate distorted cognitions related to eating disorders. The three cognitions included the fear of weight gain, importance of being thin and attractive to be accepted by society, and self-esteem resulting from managed eating habits and weight gains. The next method was the AAQ, Acceptance and Action Questionnaire, that measured psychological flexibility and how willing you were to accept undesirable thoughts and feelings. The scores ranged from 16 to 112, with the higher scores indicating higher psychological flexibility. The General Health Questionnaire, GHQ, measured general psychological health, while the Interpersonal Reactivity Index-personal distress, IRI-pd, measured anxiety and uneasiness during tense situations. The higher the score, the more a person was identified with anxiety and uneasiness.

The results of the study showed the gender did not show any correlation between disordered eating-related cognitions, psychological flexibility and negative psychological ill-health. What was found was that the way someone responds to negative psychological events is important to understanding and treating psychological problems, and that their post-thoughts about these events are by far more important than the actual events.

All studies come with flaws. This study showed that other variables, such as neuroticism and social perfectionism might have skewed the results for the experiment. Even so, the study brought lots of knowledge, such as the results of psychological flexibility, to the world of eating disorders. People now know that in order to live a better life it’s best to be optimistic and cope with negative feelings and emotions for flexibly.

Obama Said Chill, So Chill!

Obama's economic team is working to use dynamic stochastic general equilibrium... wait wait wait, an economic "team"? I would, along with most everyone else in the country, probably stop right about there. It’s not that we don’t under the word “team,” it’s just that there’s only so much Americans can handle hearing intellectually in one sentence. President Obama might have problems in finding the finality of a solid economic structure, but wouldn't you find it understandable considering the alternative is us not being able to pay attention?

Obama’s "economic team" at this point in time has found refuge in leaving the classic economic finer points of past eras in an attempt to boost the spirit of the depressed beast that is the economy of the United States. The multiple different strategies he is attempting are definitely new and ingenious to the government, but may also prove to be an archetype for administrations to come.

Dynamic Stochastic General Equilibrium, or DSGE for short, is an economic structure that is a branch of the general equilibrium theory which today’s politics consider to beincreasing influential in contemporary macroeconomics. Obama’s critics believe this a flawed system that assumes the economic world will stay perfect, when in reality it’s still depressing. The other main structure is econometric, which critics also have questions with because econometric maintenance is said not to hold in the face of great change. This claim, however, has not been well-tested and the result of a DSGE is still up for debate as to whether it is disastrous or favorable.

Although these two are in fact included somewhat in economic decisions, they are not at all his only two plans to use for the financial beast of the United States. That might be the reality, but due to slanted news articles and online opinion entries, the case is still and always will be ignorance and advice. This is where I find problems. Some new ideas on the brighter side seeing light include the introduction of agent-based modeling. Agent-based modeling is a computerized simulation of a number of decision-makers (agents), which interact through prescribed rules. The agents can be as diverse as needed — from consumers to policy-makers and Wall Street professionals — and the institutional structure can include everything from banks to the government.

When Obama ran for office I clearly remember one of the things he reinforced over and over again in his speeches was the idea that you can’t change an entire country by yourself with just one year, but in four years of presidency you would definitely see change. I’m not saying people should hold back critizing things about Obama if they want, but this time I want an honest consideration. We, as a great country, as the United States of America, need to make sure that we sympathize. Yes there are crises all over and yes we are in a depression, but we did elect him and we should try to stand behind him and see if he and his economic team can make something positive out of this negative.

It's all in the research

According to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health in 2004, approximately 17 million people experienced depression. Comparatively in 2004, doctors diagnosed 1.37 million patients with cancer. Even with this being said, mental disorders rightfully take the back seat to medical disorders in research. Anyone who would disagree with this statement probably has had a direct experience with someone who suffered from a mental disorder. First-hand experience with any disorder can result in someone having a personal vendetta against that disorder. This results in people providing money for specific research, or even conducting research themselves. For those who have been personally affected, try to see an unbiased perception of the two types of disorders. When looking at these two areas of disorders and simultaneously leaving your emotions behind, medical research takes the lead.

Much to the dismay of an editorial in the journal Nature*, most medical disorders already receive more funding than mental disorders. Cancer and heart disease can receive approximately one hundred times more money than diseases such as Alzheimer’s in some fundraiser settings.

But this author still doesn't think that this is enough. The majority of any money raised does go to diseases like Alzheimer's which appear later on in life unlike depression or Schizophrenia which can occur throughout a person's entire life. Schizophrenia, however, only occurs in 1.1% of the United States population and is already treatable through medication.

Another thing to consider while dealing with these disorders is their fatality rates. The main cause of death from mental disorders is suicide, ranking up about 30,000 deaths a year. Meanwhile, heart disease kills about 630,000 and cancer kills about 560,000 annually. Heart disease alone kills about twenty-one times more people than suicide.

Medical disorders are also much easier to do research on since they are usually dealing with more quantitative details rather than qualitative. For example, if a patient has cancer, the doctors can directly, or indirectly through machines, examine the tumor. For a medical disorder, though, a patient would be asked a series of questions where they could answer whatever they decided was fitting. Mental research, in this regard, is less accurate since it is solely based on the thoughts and feelings of the individual. Results from medical disorder research is more clear since there is physical proof of the disorders and how they are being affected by attempted treatments.

This same issue with mental research occurs when dealing with the severity of a disorder. As for cancer, it is fairly common knowledge that the bigger a tumor, the worse you have cancer. This same principle cannot be applied to mental disorders. It is hard to classify one instance of the disorder as 'severe' while another as 'mild' since any symptoms can be exaggerated by the patient and therefore the results would be skewed. Even if a specific doctor discovered a way of qualifying the severity of a disorder, there would be no real way of transferring this exact system to other doctors since so much would be based on how affected the patient thought himself to be and how affected the doctor perceives the patient to be.

Yes, mental disorders can be very destructive and devestating, but when there is limited funding, more aspects must be considered. Money can be more effectively used when going towards medical research since medical disorders are easier to quantify and are much more prevelant. In any case, the point of trying to cure disorders is to try to maintain the human race and keep people alive, right? More people die from heart disease and cancer, so developing treatments for these instead of mental disorders could potentially save more lives. In the grand scheme of things, mental disorders really can take the back seat.

*A Decade for Psychiatric Disorders Nature 463, 9 (7 January 2010) | doi:10.1038/463009a; Published online 6 January 2010