Cinemated Repetition: Aesthetics over the Decades

Though this post may not be one of my most well-thought out (or scientific), it is a quick little blurb that one may find interesting. It seems to me, in my rather apathetic pursuit of this particular issue, that aesthetics are certainly something that must be subjectively pursued. Scientists have suggested that symmetry and complexity can play a large part in this (e.g. Jacobsen et al. 2006) and have even narrowed down some of the neural correlates. Though, as always, I need to simplify this a bit, the cerebral underpinnings that this study highlights relate to temporal, parietal, and, in my opinion as a sociologist the most important, the frontal lobe. The specific regions pointed out aren't as important as knowing the frontal cortex generally contributes to conscious decision-making and elements of rational choice. Those naive to this subject must note that these specific areas are not the only contributor to these functions, as I will probably note in a later article on neuronal networks, and most certainly interact with parts of the limbic system as well in solidifying how and what you choose. What Jacobsen and colleagues do point out is that beauty and aesthetics are morally and socially influenced. In a study that I think is only inexplicitly, and maybe even tangentially, related. Salganik, Dodds, and Watts (2006) found that music and cultural trends are also largely influenced by those socially connected to us. I find this to be something that is ridiculously obvious, but often denied on the basis of our so-called "individualism" and (falsely conceptualized) agency. The reality is that most of what we think and do probably comes from those around us, the television, and the like. A brief example of this can be found in some of the hottest pop-culture trends, movies, and actor/actresses. Some have recently compared Inception to Italian director Federico Fellini's 1963 classic 8 1/2. Regardless of its apparent connection, which I believe may be only abstractly and/or conceptually linked, there is a performance by a striking French actress named Anouk Aimée. I immediately compared her to my favorite actress of contemporary times, no other than that of, Penelope Cruz. But this is not the first time in recent memory that I have compared big-time cinema stars to that of today's big-screen cuties. One afternoon while watching Doc (1971) with my parents I found that Megan Fox and Hilary Duff had not actually formed a genetic alliance and traveled back in time, but rather Faye Dunaway was just the replica that the two newly rising female phenoms had been forged from (at least pre-plastic surgery Dunaway). Let me provide some quality proof through a general comparison:

Faye Dunaway (circa 1970) and Megan Fox (not in some trashy photo)

I might add that is was rather hard to find an appropriate picture of either which further attests to their similar attributes. Furthermore, pictures do not do this comparability justice. I advise you to see Doc or Bonnie and Clyde to see Faye in action. Anyways, the next one is much better:

Well, what do you guys think? Maybe a little? Here's another one that I just found today, though it hardly counts because it was during the same time epoch. Regardless, one is Italian and the other Scottish so at least its cross-culture... So lastly.... dadadada.... Sean Connery and Fabio Testi:

If you agree with any of these, even a little bit, hear me out. Beauty, much like cultural trends, is something that is fabricated and, more importantly, reproduced. I don't really see that as something good or bad, but maybe just something we need to be conscious of. Look around, see the patterns, and, even more, watch how you influence beauty around your social networks. Is beauty something we can even see anymore with its constant flux between material and spirit, or more scientifically, energy patterns and unconscious processing? Is beauty really all that subjective as I implied at the onset of this post? Where do we say what is ours and what is society's influence and what difference does it really make on decision-making and morality? Just think about it... while you are sitting around watching classics with coffee.

Phytoplankton to Weather Patterns

NPR: Depletion of Phytoplankton (28-7-10)

Though I am admittedly not an expert on these topics, my inquiries have led me to post this interesting, but potentially misleading post. However, these ideas are noteworthy and I ask you to take them with a critical perspective. The attached article, originally swiped from the latest issue of Nature,  talks about how phytoplankton are depleting in the upper layers of 8 of 10 oceans as a direct result of global warming (regardless if it's human caused or not). Though scientists do not fully comprehend the longevity of this particular trend, the phenomenon has caused a drastic decrease of oxegen in our atmosphere (40 percent-- eek!). Don't be scared though, because this is where it gets cool, at least in regards to thinking about how everything is infinitely interconnected. One type of phytoplakton, known as coccolithophores, release a significant amount of dimethyl sulfide, which converts to sulfate. Consequently, the sulfate contributes to cloud condensation nuclei, and, you guessed it, overall cloud cover in our atmosphere. Does this contribute to cooling the whole planet off? Well, yes... and... no! Yes because during the day, cloud cover lowers solar radiation decreasing overall ground temperture. This, however, does not affect each geographical region the same. Some are hotter than others, which may depend on wind patterns, solar flares, various topological influences, etc. This is why, for example, the aggregate world temp is the hottest ever recorded, while spain's average temperture is the coldest in 13 years. Hmmm.... bet you didnt know that, eh? Anyways, the no part: during night the earth naturally cools. This is most prominent when there are no clouds, because long wave radiation, which the earth is giving off, is typically trapped by clouds while not being substituted by the short term waves from the sun. This ends up dramatizing the capping inversion phenomenon from happening in our upper atmosphere and making the ground as well as the air above it colder. That influences weather patterns through out the extent of the day, mainly by determining when and if we will get rain during humid months. This, of course, is a dramatic simplification of meteorological principles, but that is neither my forte nor my intention in posting this. So waht is the point? Phytoplankton, something you can see and certainly don't care at all about, may decide your fate to a large degree. They definetely influence your day, like whether it will rain or not, but also seem to play a huge part in every single breath you take. So take a deep one, but not too deep, because every little thing in this world might change something else, ad infinitum. Next time, I might tell you how ants would be my vote for most likely creature to take over the world.