Response to "Life-Changing Art."

Response #18

In Katherine Marchand's response to my blog port about life-changing art, she states how there are no specific works of art that have greatly affected her life but there are artists who have had an impact on her. She gives the example of the poet, Taylor Mali, who has inspired her as well as made her feel other varying mixes of emotions. She states that she finds Mali to be "incredibly talented and fascinating" and has changed her life in some ways. She asks, "What is it about artwork or a particular artist that is powerful enough to have a lasting effect on one's life?"

Art is influential. It has the potential to really move a person and make them feel something they may not usually. It is capable of communicating all different kinds of messages and getting the observer to understand something he or she previously did not know. Art is powerful. It's moving. Why is this? I think it is because art is personal and emotional. The combination of colors, techniques, messages behind the piece, and the subject all are combined to create a work of art that can possibly have a large impact on a person. With art, not only is a message communicated but it is done so aesthetically so this appeals to the observer. The works of art I see as powerful show a lot of passion and feeling.

A good artist gets the observer to feel what he or she felt when creating the piece. A successful piece of work gets the observer to understand why the artist created such an object. If there is true meaning behind it, the observer to appreciate it and relate to it through his or her own life experiences. Basically, artists use art in such a way to get an observer pondering and connecting to his or her surrounding world. Art is suppose to be moving, in my opinion. It can show an array of emotions; anger, stress, chaos, love, sadness, etc. As long as an artist shows his or her true talent and gets the observer to connect with what was created, then he or she can have a lasting affect on the observer. This can only be done is the observer is willing to embrace the emotions within a piece and connect to what has been created. It is like a partnership; as long as the observer is appreciative of the work and able to take as much as he or she can from the piece, then the artist can do whatever he or she pleases to express a certain message or thought about the world, in an artistically pleasing and appealing way.

My question to you is: Is there really such thing as a bad artist or is a bad artist not actually an artist at all?

Paul Cezanne, The Forest. (I love this painting)

The Artworld.

I have referred many times in my posts to this so-called artworld but what is it actually? Dickie sees the artworld as a social institution which is open to anyone who wants to be a part of it. It incorporates the practices of artists, gallery owners, critics, art historians, philosophers of art, and anyone who observes and appreciates the artistic works of others. Dickie's definition allows anyone to be part of the artworld which I think is a valid point because artists as well as the observers are both equally necessary and crucial for art to be an important aspect of our society.

Art reveals what is not always seen. Art, in my opinion, is an artist's interpretation of the world around them. In order for the artist's message to actually be worth delaying, the observers need to be willing and ready to receive it. I feel as though people are less appreciative of art because of how technology has made it so available. It doesn't seem as valuable and the attraction to actually viewing the original works in museums is falling fast. Art just doesn't seem as rare as it once was and the line between was is actual art is greatly being skewed. Take Mass Moca for example, many people question if the "art" the museum contains is actually worth seeing. People who are part of the artworld are becoming slimmer by the day. How can this be changed? What must be done to get more people interested in art? Because it is all around us and so easy to view, does this make art less important? I am starting to think so. Art is necessary to have a functioning society because people need to express themselves and get their message across. Art allows this to happen. Without art, we would be lost.

My question to you is: Do you consider yourself to be part of the artworld? Why or why not? What characteristics must a person posses in order to be considered part of the artworld?

M.C. Escher. A print of this painting has been in my house ever since I was a little girl and I have never actually looked at it. After coming across it and realizing how familiar it was, I actually took the time to see it as a work of art. It's really quite interesting so I thought I'd add it to this post.

Response to "Knowledge vs. Emotion."

Response #17

In Jenna Haley's blog, she talks about how everyone is capable of making valid judgments of art since there really are no qualifications needed to have an opinion. Danto believes, in order to fully understand and appreciate art, the observer must have knowledge of the history and the reasoning behind the piece of work. This way, the observer's place in the artworld is more distinguishable and valued. In interpreted the text as saying that Danto believes the observer's opinions and critiques are more valid when he or she has an abundance of knowledge about the piece at hand. Jenna confers that he may think those who do not have the knowledge and understanding of the artist's thoughts do not get to enjoy the piece fully. She states, "I think the meaning of art is to let the audience decide for themselves what the art work means or represents," and I couldn't agree more. Her question is, "Do you think it is better to possess knowledge about a work of art or to interpret it in a personal way?"

I certainly think personal interpretation of art is much more important. Knowledge is never negative to posses but, like Jenna says, it could alter a person's original interpretation and thoughts on a piece but this can be good. I really like Jenna's example of how a person could view a piece as moving and meaningful to him or her personally but when he or she finds out the meaning and purpose of the artist is something completely different, feelings for the piece will change. I think music is a perfect example in this case. We all listen to music, everyday, but sometimes we don't know all of the lyrics being said. Maybe we just like the rhythm or the chorus. Maybe the song has meaning to us... until we find out what the actual words are. This happens to me a lot. I will love and enjoy a song but way not know all of the words being said. When I go to look up the lyrics and the meaning of the song, I may realize they weren't what I thought and I can't relate to the song as much. I will lose interest in the song. So, maybe never knowing the true lyrics is a good thing, in some instances. I value education and learning but, to me, a person's personal take on art is more important. Knowledge really isn't always a requirement to understand the world, especially the artworld.

My question to you is: Do you find that knowing the background, purpose, and history behind a work of art increases or decreases your interest, attraction, and feelings for it?

Robert Duval

Response to Jenna's "What?"

Response #16

In Jenna Haley's blog, she responded to Mary Marcil's post about how an individual's set of ethics can be changed by aesthetics. She states that an emotion can change someone forever and the work of art does have the ability to change a life. She uses the example of a painting. It can make you see something in a different way than you have known it all of your life. It can make you realize something new about yourself. So, ethics can be changed in this way. Jenna asks, "Do you think a piece of art of any kind, a book, a painting, can change a person’s life?"

I think anything can really be life changing, depending on the person. When I look at certain paintings and other art forms, I may find inspiration and motivation from the message communicated but it has never changed my life, exactly. That doesn't mean it can't change someone's life. However, there is a book that I would say changed my life because it was the first book I ever read and enjoyed. It got me to love to read and is called Weeping Willow by Ruth White. I was always forced to read in school so I never liked it but I fell in love with the characters and the plot line that it got me curious about other books. Turns out, reading is pretty much my favorite thing to do. There are songs that I have listened to and have gotten so much out of. In a way, they really have made a difference in my life and are important to me. I think every person has different feelings about how art affects them but I know art can be life changing. The purpose of some forms of art --movies, books, paintings, songs, etc-- are to make a difference in a person's life and let them see the world in a new way. Some art does an outstanding job of affecting the way people see the world and some art really can have a large impact on a person.

My question to you is: Is there a piece of art (movie, book, song, painting) that has changed your life? How so?


I chose this painting because it symbolizes the strength of women, in my opinion, and is inspiring to me in many ways. :) I thought it fit nicely with this post.

Response to "Danto and Contemporary Art."

Response #15

In Lisa Diamond's blog, she talks about Arthur Danto's theory of art. Danto questions why contemporary art should actually be called art and what distinguishes an art object from the real thing that the artist used as a reference for the art object itself. Wartenberg writes, "How could a large painting consisting of nothing more than two large criss-crossing black brushstrokes on a white background be called art?" It is true; a lot of modern art is questionable, because it seems like anyone can create it. Like Lisa states, Wartenberg uses the example of Andy Warhol's Brillo Box. What makes the piece of artwork art, and the actual carton of soap pads not art? Why isn't the carton considered artwork if the painting is just a still life of that object? Lisa asks, "Danto claims that only someone who has studied art’s history has an “eye” for art. However, haven’t there been plenty of great artists in the past create great works of art without knowing the history?"

I do not agree with Danto. Anyone who is talented and has a passion for art can have an "eye" for it. He or she does not need to know the complete history of art to enjoy it or even to successfully create it. There are many artists that create art to express their emotions or communicate a message. They did not need to know any history to do so. The same goes for enjoying art. The topic came up in class whether someone must know the background of a work of art to actually like and understand it. Two examples were brought forth. One students said she listens to Japanese music and loves it even though she doesn't understand the words. Another student brought up U2's song "Sunday Bloody Sunday" which is about politics and war in Ireland. I love this song but I really had no idea what it was about. I just like how it sounds and the message behind it even though I didn't know exactly why such lyrics were written. Overall, I think knowing the history of art is helpful and great for expanding knowledge but it is not exactly necessary. Any artist can create a piece without knowing the history first. The same goes for enjoying art. Although knowing the in and out's of a piece of art may help understand it and increase its appreciation, anyone can still enjoy it even if he or she does not know everything about it.

My question to you is: Do you feel you need to know the history/background of a work of art before you can fully appreciate and enjoy it? Why or why not?

An Example of Contemporary Art:

Mirror Mirror on the Wall.

Hamlet and Socrates saw art as a mirror held up to nature. "Socrates saw mirrors as but reflecting what we can already see; so art, insofar as mirror-like, yields idle accurate duplications of the appearances of things, and is of no cognitive benefit whatever," Wartenberg, p207. Hamlet saw mirrors as something that exposes what we could not already see. Art, being mirror-like, reveals us to ourselves. I find this idea rather interesting because it makes me wonder if mirrors are basically revelers of truth and if they hold more truth than reality. Art is just imitation of nature, after all, and if art is a mirror of the world, than that may make art communication of what is true and unseen by the naked eye.

"The dominant aesthetic theory of the early eighteenth century was that man should hold a mirror to nature. Put like that, it seems rather crude and misleading; in fact, a falsehood. To hold up a mirror to nature is merely to copy what is already there. This is not what these theorists meant by this phrase. By nature they meant life, and by life they meant not what one saw, but that towards which they supposed life to strive, certain ideal forms towards which all life was tending... the highest artistic genius consisted in somehow visualizing that inner objective ideal towards which nature and man tended, and somehow embodying this in a noble painting. That is, there is some kind of universal pattern, and this the artist is able to incorporate in images, as a philosopher or the scientist is capable of incorporating it in propositions." Isaiah Berlin, The Roots of Romanticism, p26.

My question to you is: In what ways are mirrors revelers of the truth and is art just a mirror of nature, in your opinion?

Response to "Imagination."

Response #14

In Shawna Towers' blog, she talks about the imaginations of children compared to those of adults. Children are able to channel their creativity and think outside the box but this greatly diminishes as they grow older and become adults. When a child looks at a piece of art, what they see is very different from that of an adult. She asks, "Do you think that it is possible for adults to gain the imagination that children have and therefore also gain their creativity?" Imagination is very important because it helps children grow and learn. However, it gets lost overtime. Adults just don't think the way children do because children are so simple minded, curious, and in-the-moment. Adults have responsibilities, worries, and do not have as much time to enjoy the little things like children do.

This does not mean adults are not capable of thinking like children, but it would be hard once that initial creativity and imagination is lost once a child grows up. I think it is important to be a child every now and then. Having fun is crucial in everyone's lives and living in the moment shouldn't be a rare occurrence. It is like children are their own species, however. They think so differently. They are just so innocent and ready to learn. They are accepting and open-minded. If adults want to learn how to be creative like a child, they need to be as accepting and naive as a child. I think it is possible to sometimes find the creativity of a child but it does not last because a person can never gain their childhood back. Children have their own unique creativity that adults can't always mimic since they are grown up and affected by the issues of society. Adults can not get their innocence back. I wish, when I was a child, that I knew how valuable my time was. Maybe I wouldn't have taken it for granted.

My question to you is: What can adults do to reconnect with childhood and maybe begin to think like a kid again? How can adults learn to be imaginative like children, especially with their creativity in art?

Self-Expression.

The definition of self-expression is, "Expression of one's own personality, feelings, or ideas, as through speech or art." I think self-expression is extremely important because people should be able to state what they want how they want. Everyone needs to let their feelings out and have their voice be heard in a healthy manner. Keeping opinions and feelings to oneself only causes more problems and self-destruction. Everyone has the right to show who they are through how they present themselves and the art they create. So, are tattoos, body piercings, and dying hair a way to express yourself? Is it art?

I have two tattoos, my ears pierced, and a purple streak in my hair. I use to think my body was created the way it was and I should not alter it. I'm still quite against plastic surgery, tanning, fake nails, and other artificial ways to alter what a person looks like but I see nothing wrong with expressing who you are through tattoos and piercings. Your body is all yours to do what you want with it and expressing who you are through what you wear and such is important because everyone is unique and everyone has the right to show the world who they are however they want. I know many people that would never get something prominently inked on their bodies and sometimes I can't believe I have two tattoos that will never go away but not they are a part of who I am. They express me. I think they are art because they are intended to be seen by people and communicate a message of who I am. The withering dandelion that turns into birds flying on my shoulder blades expresses the message of how dreams and wishes can come true. The word "peace" on my ankle speaks for itself; I stand for peace. I do not regret my tattoos because I see them as works of art that have become part of who I am. What do you think?

My question to you is: Do you think the body is a blank canvass for self-expression or should people respect their natural selves and leave expression to painting, writing, sculpting and other forms of creating tangible art objects?

My first tattoo.

Women in the Arts.

As a feminist, women's rights activist, and employee of the Women's Center on campus, how women are portrayed in the arts is something that has always caught my attention. For the most part, women are portrayed as objects. They are often nude and presented as dainty, elegant, simple, beautiful, vulnerable, sensual and sexual beings. They are usually skinny and perfect (especially in advertising) but too bad this is not how women always are in reality. Because of what we see in the media and all around us, women are pressured to fit the ideal "perfect" model that is impossible to really attain. In the United States, it is reported that five to ten million girls/women between the ages of fourteen and twenty-five have eating disorders. There are actually websites that advocate anorexia and use images of skinny girls to show how "beautiful" it is to be thin. This all stems from the media and how women are portrayed in the arts.

Think of your favorite sitcom or television show. They usually present the audience with a "typical" family where the mom is skinny and beautiful and the husband is not so intelligent or attractive. (The Simpsons, Grounded for Life, The King of Queens, Fresh Prince, Everybody Loves Raymond, The George Lopez Show, etc.) What about "reality" television like Jersey Shore or Tough Love? Women are dramatic, fake, and only interested in how they look and finding a guy to be happy. In real life, women are intelligent and no different than their male counterparts. They seriously aren't as superficial as they seem. In my opinion, gender is a social construct. The only difference between a man and a women is their reproductive systems but, other than that, they are both capable of anything they set their mind to. Women have come along way to gain equal rights and respect from the other gender. However, they are still being oppressed and the media/arts are not helping the matter.

My question to you is: Women have such a negative image of themselves because of what they see in the media. Even though they have come along way to gain equality, they are still not completely there. What must be done to change how the media and the arts presents women in order for true equality between the sexes to take place and will this ever happen?

Does this not scream gang rape?

Response to "The Value of Shock Value."

Response #13

In Katherine Marchand's blog, she talks about shock value which is defined as "The potential of an image, text or other form of communication to provoke a reaction of disgust, shock, anger, fear, or advertisement." Katherine states that shock value is usually used in comedy and advertising. The purpose of shock value is to offend the audience to get them to react. Shock value art is suppose to make the audience feel uncomfortable and think beyond their limits. Shock value helps the observer come to terms with reality. Katherine asks, "Should there be limits on how far an artist can go with shock value? (In other words, is there a certain point at which shock art should be censored, and if so, where is that point?)"

I think shock value truly does have a place in the art world because it helps the observer see reality differently and gets them thinking about the world they live in. People should be offended every now and then so they can react to what is going on. Shock value is a very powerful tool and should be used wisely. I think it needs to be censored at a certain point because people do not need to be overly offended. However, artists should be able to express themselves however they want (since there is freedom of speech in this country) but children and teenagers should not be exposed to it since they are so impressionable. Shock value is supposed to cause ruckus but not to the point of an uprising. People could react very negatively if the work is too offensive or sets off a trigger in their mind. It can become dangerous but people do need to see the truth and should be allowed to see or listen to whatever they want. Shock value is greatly present in the lyrics of music and movies, that's why there are cd's with parental advisory and ratings for movies so the youth is not exposed to such offending lyrics and films. Marilyn Manson, Insane Clown Posse, and Gwar, are a few shock value bands I can think of.

My question to you is: Do you think our society tries too hard not to offend anyone and is too politically correct? If so, try to give examples of this through artworks or the media.

My favorite Marilyn Manson song, "The Beautiful People," is about surviving in a capitalist society and presents a link between American media and Nazi propaganda. The purpose is to show how society is brainwashing us and is also about all of the "beautiful" conceded people who are just not needed in today's society because they just show how our population is conforming to capitalist ways.

Go here to see the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ypkv0HeUvTc

Response to Misty's "Social Restraints."

Response #12

In Misty Elliott's blog, she responded to Marek's post about the stereotypical image of a man who spends his life contemplating and analyzing art. She talks about how everyone looks at art differently because it is always changing. She asks, "Are there social restraints put on us as to what clothes we can wear in public? Can we wear whatever we feel like and what kind of consequences would there be for wearing something ridiculous?"

I think there are definitely social restraints on what we can and can't wear. For example, if someone walked down the street in their underwear or even in the nude, this would obviously not be accepted by our society. I think people are always getting judged by how they look. Just browse through a magazine. Celebrities are always being judged by their outfits. There are pages stating fashion do's and don'ts. Of course there are people out there who don't care what others think. They will wear whatever they want but they will still get judged even if they ignore it. We can technically wear whatever we want, as long as we're covered in public, but if something is ridiculous, people will react negatively towards you. First impressions are also really important and if a person meets someone wearing something not so aesthetically appealing or something extremely crazy, people may get the wrong impressions. We spend so much time caring about what we look like and buying clothes that are "in" even though it should not matter. To me, fashion is about self expression and not conforming to what everyone else wears or what is "in" at the time. If you like it, wear it.

I want to talk a little bit about fashion designers and models pertaining to art. I'm not going to lie, I'm a closeted America's Next Top Model fan (don't tell anyone) and I think some of the designer's outfits are ridiculous. I would never wear some of the outfits the models wear because they are just so not appealing. I do think fashion design is another type of art form because it does take talent to create and design clothes that are attractive and would get people to buy them. But what about models, is modeling a form of art? What determines a great fashion designer from a not so good one? Many of the outfits I find in magazines or on these fashion shows are nothing I would ever wear nor would want to but they cost so much money. I don't get why people would want to wear them.

My question to you is: In your opinion, is modeling a form of art? The purpose of a model is to look beautiful on the runway and work their outfits so the crowd will buy them so there is some aesthetic aspects to modeling. Or do you think designers are the true artists since models just walk in what they create?

Response to "Taking Art Seriously."

Response #11

In Marek Krawczyk's blog, he talks about how some people take art way too seriously and over analyze it to the point where it loses its initial value. He describes the typical art critic and how he just wants to be a common person viewing art and then moving on with his life. He asks, "Should we be serious when viewing art or is it possible to appreciate it without having to obsess over it, just like a common person instead of a critic?"

There are people that enjoy analyzing art and learning every detail about the piece of work and the artist's purpose in creating it. Some people value art over others. Critics are paid to observe and express their professional opinions about a piece of work and if it is actually art. However, the common person can indeed view a work of art and then move on. Not everyone has to contemplate the piece and spend hours analyzing it. Art is very important in our world for so many reasons. It shows creativity, interpretations of ideas and feelings, delays emotions and communicates messages. Art is pleasing to the eye and teaches us new concepts. It is a type of self expression, a very valuable one. Although it is important to learn the artist's purpose of a piece and time should be spent analyzing it since the artist did put much of his or her time in the creation, people can simply appreciate it without having any knowledge about art.

There is a message in every piece that needs to be deciphered but it isn't your job to be the person who figures out the meaning, emotions, and purpose of the piece. We enjoy beauty everyday in everything. Aesthetics are all around us even if we do not pay much attention to it. It is certainly possible and encouraged to simply and briefly enjoy a piece of work without going into deep judgments. That's what museums are for: So the public can enjoy works and get whatever they want and can out of each piece. Art does need to be taken seriously but not necessary by everyone and maybe some pieces are just meant to be aesthetic pleasing to the eye. You can view it simply and still enjoy it.

My question to you is: It's no secret that appreciation for art is decreasing. People just seem less and less interested in visiting museums and using their creative abilities to make their own works of art. So, what must be done to increase the interest of artwork and museums in the individuals of today's world?

Leonid Afremov

Aesthetics of Everyday Life.

In Beauty, Roger Scruton talks about the aesthetics of everyday life. He states, "There is an aesthetic minimalism exemplified by laying the table, tidying your room, designing a web-site. Nevertheless, you want the table, the room, or the web-site to look right and looking right matters in the way that beauty generally matters--not by pleasing the eye only, but by conveying meanings and values which have weight for you and which you are consciously putting on display." (p9) He calls this minimal beauty.

A part of me feels like we, as human beings, overly obsess about how we look and how we come off to other people. We spend so much time trying to reach some sort of perfection which doesn't seem to exist. Appearance is more important to us than we realize. I'll admit I am a bit of a perfectionist. I really care about what I look like even though I don't want to. In my room, my bed has to be made every morning and all objects must be in their exact place. I'm constantly cleaning and fixing my surroundings. I do care about what other people think a little too much. Aesthetics are very important to me. Beauty is important. I do not like chaos or disunity. I like everything to be pleasing and inviting. When everything is in place, beautiful, clean, and so on, then I am satisfied. This got me thinking: How different would life be if I stopped caring about what I look like or what my room looks like? How different would the world be if everyone just stop caring about how everything looks? Hmmm.

My question to you is: If humans did not value aesthetics in their everyday lives, how different would the world look and be? Would life be more chaotic and possibly much more meaningless if no one cared about the visual aspects of life? Explain. :)

S.H. Lee's "The Garden Room."

The Useful Arts.

In Roger Scruton's book, Beauty, he begins by showing stunning pictures of famous architecture that is universally valued. Sometimes I forget the world is filled with beautiful architecture because I just don't see it in my everyday life. I haven't traveled nearly as much as I want to and pictures don't do justice to the amazing buildings around the world. Architects truly are artists because not only do they design and create buildings for a certain purpose but they incorporate aesthetic value to their work. Unfortunately, architecture does not last forever and the aesthetic value of the work decreases because of arrogant and urban settings.

During my senior year of high school, everyone in my French class had to do a project and presentation on some form of French architecture. I did my project on the Mont Saint Michel because the setting is still natural and not yet destroyed by mankind. There is no undesirable backdrop to the Mont Saint Michel like there is with a lot of architecture these days. Wonderful works of art are losing appreciation because of mankind's creations, most of which aren't beautiful. I think some buildings are not appreciated aesthetically because people look past the art behind it and care more about the purpose of the structure. This goes for many everyday objects. Scruton states, "Much that is said about beauty and its importance in our lives ignores the minimal beauty of an unpretentious street, a nice pair of shoes or a tasteful piece of wrapping paper, as though those things belonged to a different order of value from a church by Bramante or a Shakespeare sonnet. Yet these minimal beauties are far more important to our daily lives." (p12) Art and beauty are all around us but we fail to see it because we only recognize great/famous works as art.

I have an activity to get you thinking about the objects that surround you everyday. Beauty and art can be present in so many different objects, especially everyday objects. Choose something you wouldn't normally view as aesthetically pleasing or as art and reevaluate it.

My question to you is: What is your new viewpoint of the object and, now that you see it differently, how can it be described as beautiful or as an artistic object instead of just a functional one?

"Mont Saint Michel."

Too Beautiful?

For my book review, I am reading Beauty by Roger Scruton. In the first chapter, he brings up an interesting point about how some works of art can be too beautiful like Tennyson's In Memoriam or Faure's Requiem. He states, "Works that are too beautiful ravish when they should disturb or provide dreamy intoxication when what is needed is a gesture of harsh despair." (p16) Even though certain works are artistic achievements, they can also be just too beautiful or overly done. Beauty is a type of aesthetic success and everyone's idea of what is beautiful varies but there are universal works that people may see as just too beautiful. Sure, it's great when something takes our breath away but some artists can go over the top, like Scruton suggests.

Every piece of art has a message to communicate to the observer, in my opinion. Art displays all different kinds of emotions and feelings but sometimes this gets lost if a piece is too beautiful. The observer may be distracted by the aesthetics to understand why the artist made the piece, according to Scruton. After browsing all different works of art, I can not find any examples of art that is just over the top. I'm sure there are some out there, but all the pieces I found are just beautiful but not overly so, like Flaming June by Leighton and Claude Monet's Water Lilies. Although I think Scruton brings up a good point and I bet some art is too beautiful when it should be focusing on something else but I can't find any of my own examples...

My question to you is: Are there works of art that you see as breathtaking and does the beauty of the piece take away from the message/meaning in it? Basically, can beauty be too distracting?

"Flaming June"

Hume and Critics.

After reading about Hume's philosophy on art in Wartenberg, I was rather taken aback. He states that everyone has their own distinct tastes of what is art but there are universal pieces that can be seen as magnificent by everyone (Like the Mona Lisa). He states that all opinions on art matter. Then, he says only the critics can really judge art. "Hume judges that only certain people are so well qualified that their responses really count" (Wartenberg, 41). In the end, this contradiction never did solve itself.

According to Hume, "The taste of all individuals is not upon an equal footing, and that some men in general, however difficult to be particularly pitched upon, will be acknowledged by universal sentiment to have a preference above others" (Wartenberg, 47). He thinks there are distinguishable men in society that have higher opinions and better taste than everyone else since they are superior in knowledge and understanding. While I see that critics have the authority to state their opinions to the public since it is their job, I do not understand why they are superior over everyone else. Half of the time, I do not even agree with the critics. They seem to not like movies that I do. I never read reviews because my opinion will always be different from someone else’s. I trust my friend's viewpoints of art over the critics. Why should we trust the opinions of people we do not even know? Why can't we just see for ourselves? Hume does say tastes vary and opinions of what is good art and what is bad art often differ...

My question to you is: What characteristics do critics have that make their opinions superior to ours when pertaining to art? Why do we trust the opinions of people we don't even know when it comes to different forms of media like music, books, and movies and how often do you agree with the critics, anyways?

David Hume Statue.

Response to Jen's "Art as a Teaching Tool."

Response #10

In her blog, Jenna Haley talks about how art is a great teaching tool and should be taught to explain historical events but the teacher must stress the fact that the artwork may not be literal or exact, it is just a representation or an interpretation of real life events. She asks, "Do you think teachers should incorporate art in their lessons, whether they use paintings, music, or other forms of medium?"

I think using different works of art to teach a subject is very important. Not only does art supply a visual for the students, it helps the students realize the information in a text book is more important and relevant to the world than it may seem. Using art in a classroom also promotes creativity which is highly crucial in the lives of every individual. Using art would be very stimulating and would lead to many activities the teacher could have in the classroom. It provides variety and encourages students to respect and appreciate art at a young age. Art really is all around us and there is no reason not to apply it to the classroom.

Having students create their own art helps them be more motivated and puts the emphasis off of just learning about the information of the subject and puts it onto the students' abilities to express their thoughts and ideas to the teacher and their fellow classmates. This would also help the types of students that are fearful of failing or making mistakes. It would also help the teacher understand his or her students more deeply. I do not see any reason not to use art in schools and everyday. There are so many mediums to choose from as well; the sky is the limit when it comes to art. In books like Fahrenheit 451 and 1984, art is banned from society. Reading is banned from society. Learning is of unimportance and self expression is discouraged...

My question to you is: What would happen to our society if art and self expression were banned? How can a society exist without art?

Pablo Picasso's "Guernica." (War)