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?