Response to Dr. Johnson's blog entry (11/24)

Why is President Barack Obama sending more and more troops to the middle east on a yearly basis? Honestly when he was running for president, didnt he state that the troops from Iraq and Afghanistan were going to be withdrawn slowly? We are basically fighting former president George Bush's war, which is pointless and as you stated in class, a war to conquer the middle east. However will sending all of these troops, about 23,000 soldiers to the middle east still leave us in this current recession, a recession that has kept our country in debt since the early 2000's. As stated in the end of the article the estimated cost of the war (that is if we are still involved) can possible range from 700 million to 1 billion dollars which would lead to a supplemental funding bill next year, wow!!!!!!! But what would happen if we pulled the troops from the middle east. Truly we would save millions of dollars, preserve soldiers, and possibly the economy could re-stimulate. However would this move leave us (United States of America) vulnerable or would we lose key allies? Honestly this war is pointless and as I believe, this war is all about controlling the supply of oil. Personally President Obama should pull the troops,slowly out of the middle east because we are fighting a battle that cannot be won. There is far too much turmoil,pain, grief and suffering for many families that have husbands,wives, and children that may never be seen again. What is the worst that could happen if the troops were pulled out? Probably the oil prices would still stay the same or they could change, but who honestly knows the answer to this question? There is only so much anyone can do when the main political party within a country (in this case the "Taliban") seizes control and demands ridiculous expectations from others. While on the other hand, if the soldiers were left in Iraq continuing to fight, would we assume victory in the next decade, and if we were to be successful, would the price of oil decrease dramatically? Again this is another question that we do not know the answer to but hopefully this dilemma will be resolved in the next five years.

What Distinguishes an Artwork?

Through the previous week, we have started to discuss the philosophical works of Arthur Danto. More or less as Wartenberg stated "Abstract expressionism........minimalism - these and other schools produced works that seemed to violate the boundary between art and non art....And if anything could be art, was art still itself a meaningful concept?" the point that I am trying to make out of this statement is that central to Danto's argument, what distinguishes an artwork such as Warhol's Brillo Box from the real thing? So the question that I am asking is that what distinguishes an artwork? Since anything could be art, ranging from a toilet bowl to an elementary school chair, why is the Brillo Box (that contains soap pads) not an artwork? Danto states that the problem is that if we cant see any perceptible differences between an artwork and the real thing, why isn't the box on the supermarket shelf also artwork? A response to this question is that whoever or what proved that the box is not an artwork? As I stated before anything is art and art does not have to be tangible or physical. There is the art of basketball, the art of sleeping, the art of drawing , and so on. Anything is art until someone/something proves that it is not. So I'm guessing that is it safe to say that the Brillo Box is an artwork because it does contain characteristics that many pieces of art possess during our era, the 21st century. For example that Brillo Box is colorful, creative, contains shapes, and a catchy logo. While Danto would probably disagree with me in this situation he would further state that Warhol's Brillo Box is a work of art but only the picture, not the actual box. In this instance he states his case very precisely and many people would not recognize that the physical "box" is not a work of art. It makes complete sense in most situations but in some situations it does not. Does Danto mean that on a specific painting such as the Mona Lisa is a work of art, but the canvas and frame are not part of the artwork. Or even better with a building, is the actual architecture considered art but not the steel,concrete,and brick which is holding the building together in place? His theory is confusing but makes most sense in certain situations. However Danto states in his second theory that the artworld is comprised of an atmosphere of artistic theory, a knowledge of the history of art. In response, Wartenberg states that the statement is imprecise but it can be unpacked as followed: to understand a work of art, one has to have knowledge of both the history and theory of art. This is probably some of the best words that have came out of Wartenberg's mouth because he is close to one hundred correct about this statement. The reason why is that how can you appreciate a Van Gogh, Picasso, Monet, or a Renoir without knowing the background of the specific artist or the background (history) of the painting. In most situations you cannot appreciate artwork you don't know anything about. You can say the same about how can anyone appreciate music if you do not have a history of knowing the origins of music, the famous classical composers,and even a brief history of some of the major instruments? You just cannot in these situations that can be so complex and full of vital information. However in some simpler situations such as food and television shows you can appreciate them with no or very minimal knowledge. They are most likely events that an individual could instantly find an appreciation though taste and pleasure. To conclude that without a prior understanding of art history and theory of the artworld, a viewer cannot see an object a work of art.

Q: If an individual does not have knowledge of art, can he/she appreciate art? Why or why not?

Response to Stephanie Carone (11/18/09)

Q:Why does being "elite" have negative connotations? Is believing you are elite snobby and rude? Or is it deserving?

Elite, now that is a word that is heard on a daily basis in regards to the best at whatever he/she does better than another individual in a certain subject or domain. I agree with you that the word "elite" does have a negative connotation however the word also has a positive connotation. Now why would describing someone as "elite" come with a negative connotation? In general when describing someone as "elite" is more of a complement towards that individual in which he/she demonstrates mastery in a certain domain (field). For an example Tom Brady is an elite quarterback in the National Football League and likewise Bill Gates is an elite businessman. More or less describing someone as elite can also just be stating the obvious fact. But I think that your question involved personally describing yourself as elite can carry a negative connotation. Well it most likely can in which anyone could boast that they are elite and if they were, the statement better be 100% true. However in today's society everyone is always competing to be the best at everything, to become number one at whatever their mind is set to. Personally I have experienced this type of situation in which many of my classmates in a specific class shoot not only for an A, but the best numerical grade in the class. Even though I could get an A grade with a 94 numerical grade and one of my competitive classmates receives and A with a 98 numerical grade, that person assumes that he/she is better because the higher grade was obtained, even though we both walked away with an A in the course. But the point I am leading to in this example is that many individuals want to have the word "elite" attached to their description when they are mentioned. I also agree that many assume that one is snobby and rude just because they describe themselves as an elite whatever. Truly people of an elite status lose their ability to become humble, thus having to boast about their successes to self-pleasure. If you ask yourself, why do snobby people become snobby, an answer can be due to wealth (monetary net worth)and successes whether financially, athletically, or academically. While on the other spectrum, "elite" can have a positive connotation but there are few instances that I can think of. One would be to confirm that you are elite but that belief is kept to yourself, in which nobody knows about any successes that would make an individual elite. In this situation you stay extremely humble and grateful about yourself without showing any of the physical or verbal signs that you possess elitism. But again being elite is a trait that an individual earns thus NOT GIVEN. In your instance that you gave in which your non-honors friends concluded that honors students are already elite and that honors students also get to wear special tassels and ribbons sounds like a form of jealously. But the fact remains is that your friends, like everyone else at the college all has the opportunity to become an honors student via earning a 3.4 Cum. GPA, completing a minimal single class a year or completing six honors classes to receive the special tassels and ribbons, and just plain out working extremely hard on a daily basis. Many people lack the dedication that honors students possess and honestly people that I have met at MCLA and my last school are in college because their parents made them attend or they just want to party 24/7. In general the title of being "elite" is deserving and anyone who obtains this title should be proud about themselves.

Response to Dr.Johnson (In regards to Modern Pork Production and H1N1 Virus)

Throughout the history of food production common animals such as cows and chickens have been injected with steroids, while being confined in 1" by 1" cages. The question that comes to mind is that first and foremost, where are the ethics and morals of these producers? Do they have a conscience and if they do, does money only motivate the CEO's and Presidents of these food production companies? The answer is yes. Corporations do not care about the likelihood of these animals and neither do they care about the average American citizen who can only afford these types of steroid infested animals. However the alternative for this problem, is permitting these animals to live a long and satisfied life. But on one hand the cost for purchasing organic meats in extremely expensive in comparison to the average steroid injected animals. Honestly when I was shopping for my parents one day at Stop and Shop, they were advertising organic boneless chicken breasts, and the price was ridiculous at $7.99/lb, which is completely ridiculous. This makes healthy food unaffordable for the average person which implies that society wants Americans to consume unnatural food. Why? I thought that the U.S.A is the best country in the whole world. Well I guess that my hypothesis was wrong and only the upper echelon of society thrives while the rest suffer. Truly who can afford to consume organic food, especially while supporting a family? The upper class and maybe the upper middle class in some situations, but anyone who falls into the lower classes (middle,lower-middle,working,and lower) cannot afford to provide themselves and their family with these organic products. On the other hand what actually is injected into these animals? We know that steroids are being injected but is that all? How do we not know that poison or another unnatural substance is being used? Again we do not know and willingly, we still consume these poor animals. On the other hand in regards to the viruses (H1N1,H3N2), do these animals obtain these infectious diseases through the unsanitary conditions that are prevalent throughout slaughterhouses? In combination with the chemicals (via injection) and these terrible conditions, animals are more likely to become sickly than an animal who is left to live a complete healthy life.

Analysis of "When Is Art" (Not "What is Art")

The question that is presented at the beginning of this week's reading is "When is Art" from the perspective of Nelson Goodman. Now not to confuse anyone with "What is Art" (What defines art etc.) but in general "When is Art" mainly argues that the philosophy of art is not what makes an object a work of art but when it becomes a work of art. In addition an object of art as Wartenberg states is a work of virtue, not of some special property it possesses, but rather how it is employed. However leading to the question when does art actually become art. Does an object become a work of art when the artist makes his/he final touch on the specific piece or is the object a work of art from the beginning such as the example of "White Fog" which is a blank "white" canvas that has been untouched on display at Mass Museum of Contemporary Art? As Goodman states, an object of art must function as a symbol, something that it can do in some context in others. He also gives a perfect example that a "Rembrandt" (painting) may not be a work of art when it replaces a broken window but can be a work of art when displayed in a museum, meaning that an art object has the potential to become "art" instead of being an object of necessity. Honestly his logic of this subject matter is unique in which I have never though when art actually becomes absolutely "art". But Goodman is correct when art should have to symbolize something it can do in some contexts but not in others. This statement is also confusing because is he contradicting himself in the previous example? So when would art symbolize something it can do in some contexts but not in others? Does that mean that the meaning of an art object is not fixed, assuming to be constant? First and foremost my personal definition of art is the collection of human emotions, most specifically the emotions the artist is experiencing at the given moment,and with those emotions project most importantly, the artists' state of mind projected on canvas etc. Now how this statement of mine can be related to Goodman is that an artist can have these emotions function only at certain times and other times it cannot? This does not make any sense whatsoever. therefore it must be nonsense or a contradiction which is more common and respectful than assuming an influential philosophers' logic is "nonsense". However from Wartenberg's perspective in addition to Goodman's ideas, he believes that works of art do not constitute a special class of object, although they do have certain types of properties that single them out, rather they are objects we approach in a specific way. This is a helpful statement because many critics of art (including myself) try to place art into a specific class like fitting a puzzle piece into a complex jigsaw puzzle. I do not know if this is natural for humans to classify to judge it but maybe it could be a lack of experience on my part in regards to art. However not to wander off into a completely different direction, what does Goodman truly mean (In laments terms) when art must function as a symbol, something that it can do in some contexts but not in others?

Response to Xhirley Gonzalez (11/8/2009)

Art is generally an extremely inclusive and subjective field, which can contain numerous perspectives, opinions, and thoughts. As you previously stated that three different people can look at an art object and all have different perspectives or ideas about the specific piece. Well that is just how humans are because we are not designed to agree completely with anyone over a particular subject. What I learned in my English Literature classes is that even though certain individuals interpret stories completely different than the general population of the class, they are not wrong unless the interpretation has completely noting to do with the certain story. More or less in many cultures,particularly Mediterranean (Italian,Greek etc.) arguing during a meal equals a successful and complete event. Mainly for humans not to agree on all topics just because one perspective is assumed to be accurate in relation to other perspectives is great because it gives us the ability to analyze the subject from every degree possible. For example when debating a controversial issue such as the death penalty, my perspective is strictly against it because the methods are inhumane, and the criminal receives the easy way out of the crime, through death. However, the certain individual of whom I am having a conversation with may disagree with me completely and state that the death penalty is just because the penalty fits the crime, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. Does that mean the individual is wrong because he/she holds a completely different perspective than myself? Or is it the other way around, I am wrong and he/she is correct? Well to these questions is the same in relation to art, both are correct because there is not a specific rubric or answer sheet that will reveal correct answer. That would be completely ridiculous in which that probably would be the first step that human beings would take in order to become robots with a pre-programmed sense of mind. However in some situations people give an answer that will please the general population in accordance to the most popular answer (which you stated but in relation to an art object and they really do not mean it). To generalize this type of reasoning and thinking,people who agree with other people just to please them (general population) again are taking the most effortless direction thus inhibiting their ability to think on a critical basis. In my honest opinion these types of people are lazy and fictional towards society. How can anyone state that an object is beautiful it is not? However we truly all think about the same thing whenever we view an art object, the only difference is since that initial thought is premature, many will revert off of that idea/though, maturing the idea/though by either leading to a generalization that is either a revertion of the initial thought by defending it with conclusive evidence to support the perspective of the argument. How this happens to conclude the argument is that we are all different in which we will all have different thoughts,opinions, and ideas. It is in our DNA and genes to disagree and also in human nature. If we truly did agree with everyone about everything in society would we still be human or maybe robotic?

Analysis of Hume and Wartenberg's Antimony

When it comes to the judgment of an art object, who has the correct answer or the incorrect answer? Does the normal average person have a better understanding of art, even though this person has not experienced art? Or on the other hand does an accomplished artist who possesses the skill such of Renoir or Monet have a better understanding of what art truly is? The answers through these questions may never have an absolute (true) answer (definition) but through “Art As Object of Taste”, David Hume’s antimony states that two central beliefs claim to be the rubric for assessing the goodness of art. For example Hume believes that most people think that it is possible to make critical judgments about the quality of art objects. An instance that would portray this situation, would to compare Norman Rockwell and Leonardo DaVinci’s art objects, and conclude that DaVinci’s artworks are better due to he is more of a renowned artist than Norman Rockwell is. This argument could go both ways because how do we truly know that DaVinci is more of a superior artist than Norman Rockwell, or vice versa? This is more of personal opinion because again who can admit that DaVinci is truly superior. It is true that the Mona Lisa by DaVinci is one of the most recognized and appreciated paintings of all time but can we truly judge one artist by one masterpiece? On the other hand Norman Rockwell has been extremely popular with the American culture since the early 20th century in which many of his art objects have been posted in numerous art museums, calendars, and strangely in restaurant bathrooms, which I have experienced. Again this argument is double sided because this is an answer of taste in which depends solely on the personality of an individual. Now the second side to Hume’s antimony results from a consideration of what grounds these judgments, asserting that taste determines whether an art object affects the manifestation of multiple emotions or “sentiments” which Hume relates to. Truly an individuals’ taste can affect the outcome of judging an “art object”, adding a significant amount of bias to the outcome. Previously when relating Rockwell and DaVinci, the reason why an individual would conclude that any painting of DaVinci is superior in relation to Rockwell is due to taste. For an example I can say that out of the science, Physics is completely boring but the knowledge that anyone acquires from this subject is practical, and can be used in daily applications. However another person can proclaim that Physics is entertaining but the information is completely useless in daily applications. Who possesses the correct answer, myself or the other individual? Is there any type of rubric to distinguish whether an individual is correct or are they lying? Truly we may never know the answer to “exclusive” based questions because does any answer even exist?