Pirates of the Smithsonian

Before taking a position on the issue of whether the Smithsonian was right to put the shipwrecked materials on display, I figured that it would be good to put the best argument for both sides. The best argument for not putting the material in the museum is that they were obtained in an unofficial, non-standardized manner. Instead, the materials were mistreated and handled in an amateur fashion, making it possible for ancient artifacts to be damaged - or even destroyed - in the process. The best argument for posting these materials is that they had no control over whether they were destroyed or not on account that the looting happened before the Smithsonian could do anything to help prevent this from happening. Without proper intervention from the Indonesian government, the Smithsonian couldn't make sure that the proper procedures could occur in order for them to feel morally okay with putting these objects on display. Even further, these objects are extremely important in the eyes of history. After all, they are from the Tang Dynasty! So, no matter what happened to the objects, it should still be an obligation of the Smithsonian to put them on display in the museum.

So far, it might seem like I am leaning towards the latter position, but I do have a ton of sympathy for the former position. However, I will explain why I sympathize with the former position after making a similar example from our textbook and our class discussion. An English museum decided that it was going to "borrow" a piece of the Parthenon for display, but they apparently didn't get permission to take the piece. As a result, the Greeks are still waiting for that piece of the Parthenon to come back into their possession since they have no right to have it. Also (and not from the textbook), many Native American skeletons are put on display in American museums without permission from the specific tribes that they belong to. They also are waiting for the skeletons to come back into possession so as to be able to put them through the proper burial ceremonies. Clearly, the people who are against putting the shipwreck on display would probably be against putting one or both of these items on display because they were taken unlawfully and without proper and standardized wait of obtaining them (just like the shipwreck). I would side with this group on both the Parthenon and Native American skeletons as well because the museums are clearly at fault for taking these items without permission and not giving them back (some might debate on the Native American issue, but they ignore the fact that mourning cannot be fully achieved without proper burial ceremonies...and you need the skeletons for that). However, there is quite a difference between these two situations and the shipwrecked scenario.

The shipwreck near Indonesia was looted by sailors prior to the Smithsonian's being able to do anything about it, and the Indonesian government didn't know how to handle the situation. Therefore, the Smithsonian cannot be blamed in a moral sense for putting them on display, especially if they were not mishandling the items in the first place (...the sailors were...). However, even though I side with putting them on display for historical reasons as well as common sailors being at fault for mishandling the materials, I do think that the Smithsonian is morally obligated to take a step back and try to handle the objects in as much of an official manner as they can. In other words, they need to document what happened to them before they handled them so as to make sure that they don't damage them further, and they need to handle whatever is still in the shipwrecked location with the usual protocol of professionalism (as if they had never been looted in the first place). Putting all the proper steps in place, they would then be allowed to put these items on display. The people have a right to see these items, and it is the Smithsonian's moral obligation to put them on display...but only after they have gone through the proper protocol of doing so (whatever that protocol may be).

The issue here is clearly a global issue, and it gives us a new perspective about our identity as a global and national culture (at least for the people of Indonesia). One event changes everything because - as the Buddha adequately said (along with the scientific world) - everything is interconnected. The whole course of history will change because of this event. Not doing something about it would be a disservice for the world as a whole, and it gives us a new perspective as well.

Milton Glaser Documentary

What is Milton's definition of art?

Milton definitely seems to have trouble defining art because of how inclusive it is for him. At the beginning of the documentary, he defined art as "the act of making things, taking an idea and putting it on paper." Later in the film, he used Horace's definition of art and its purpose as to inform and delight. However, it seemed that the definition that most satisfied art is that it is "defined generationally." In other words, the concept of art evolves over time.

There are certain things to him that he believes are part of the definition of art, whether people agree with him or not. To him, art is not about making money; rather, it should be completely independent of monetary goals. Without money as a goal, the focus will be focused on the way that art is supposed to be. The other major implication for art is that it provides common ground. This seems to be a rather open term since providing common ground doesn't necessarily mean during the time that it is made. Sometimes, providing ground occurs in another time period.

"We should always operate by interruption." - what does this mean?


This statement was introduced in the film when a worker from the New York magazine was talking to Glaser about a ad in which he created a design while he was talking to him and after he read three sentences of an article. Glaser was operating by interruption because he was thinking while discussing and listening to what the man had to say to him about the article. He was sort of just creating the draft as it came to him, and it worked.

The idea for the "I love New York" ad came while he was in a cab. His thoughts were interrupted while he was moving from place to place, and it was this draft - or "organic thought" as I would like to call it - that made the best work for him. He was sort of letting the idea appear without doing anything special.

The idea that nothing ever goes according to plan was something that Glaser discussed in the documentary. The reason for that is because "operating by interruption" means that one's most organic thoughts come while one is making plans for something else. As a result, the best drafts come in a split second of thought. It just appears almost without thinking.

This idea of "thinking without thinking" immediately made me think of my World Religions Class. I kept noticing how he just kept "going with the flow" and how it would result in creating his best work. I thought about how he worked in a way similar to Taoism by the way that he just lets the work flow from him without really putting work into creating the idea. The term that I thought of was wuwei, which means "going with the flow" or "less is more." By this Taoist way of thinking, his best ideas come through interruption, and his being open to these organic thoughts are what give him his best work. In other words, by "doing nothing," the work flows from him in these most inopportune moments, like when he created the "I love New York" ad. I think that he would feel at home with the Taoist philosophy/religion.

Ambient Advertising

Ambient Advertising refers to advertisements that appear in the most unexpected places. For instance, when I am walking in the park, it would be quite unexpected to see an advertisement for a shoe store ingrained into the sidewalk that I am walking in. The point of ambient advertising is that it reaches a great number of people in a cost effective and non-threatening way. This form of advertisement leaves room for creativity and innovation.

Using ambient advertisement for the Otterbein community makes sense because Otterbein students don't generally want to take time out of their day to look at advertisements. Frankly, we are too busy to do that. The best way to get Otterbein students to look at anything beyond the scope of a normal day is by tricking them into looking at it. By having advertisements appear in the most unexpected places, one can easily get a student sidetracked into looking at an advertisement just as easily as one gets sidetracked into facebooking for hours on end.

This ad is one of my persona favorites on account of its ingenious location, the side of a train track. The ad is clearly targeting movie lovers as well as people who frequent train transportation. I automatically chose this ad because it has Jack Black in it, and I practically worship the ground that he walks on (...I love Tenacious D). However, the effectiveness and placement of this advertisement is one of the major reasons that I chose it. Simply put, it appears that Jack Black is being tied down to a railroad track! How clever is that. As a consumer, I am automatically drawn to the advertisement based on the similarity of the locations (aka, we both are on a track track, or at least appear to be). 

This advertisement is extremely clever because it advertises Griffith University all over the world through the suitcases used by foreign exchange students all over the world. The target audience is potentially everybody in the world, especially people who travel a lot. What makes this strategy so effective is the fact that it is essentially free advertisement that potentially travels all over the world. Although we all advertise based off of what we wear, seeing it on a suitcase makes it much more obvious, which is my main reason for choosing this advertisement.