Response to Duncan Baxter's Question

It would not be possible to have an unbiased news program in todays society. I believe this for many reasons. One reason is that every person brings his/ her own personal experiences  where ever they go and it  comes through in their work. For example, if a person was raped before, they would most likely  have some strong feelings if they were involved in a news story about rape. Their own personal experience and feelings would most likely come in to play. Also, a news station would never be completely be truthful because they want to excite the audience to increase their ratings. Broadcasting is a business and the only way they are going to make money is to  entice viewers to tune in. Sadly, ethics are not usually the focus of most companies, their goal is to sell the story not make sure its completely without bias.

The Value of Art in Society and Plato

A few days ago in class we began to discuss the value of art. I think that the value of art in society fluctuates depending on the era. For some civilizations it is impossible to know how they truly valued art because there is no written works telling us. However, I think it is safe to say that art does always have some value in a society. Take the caveman for example, they didn't have a written language but we find remains of their drawings in caves. Perhaps Plato forgot to consider earlier civilizations when he was discussing art with Socrates because he says art is bad for society  because it effects your emotions not your rational side. In fact, art in the caveman's era could possibly be considered as essential for the survival of their society because it was a form of communication.

1. Is art in our society more valued or less valued then other eras?
2. How important is speaking compared to body language as a source of communicating?

Response to Kimberlee Humes's Art Apreciation

 I personally don't know why people would spend millions of dollars on a painting that looks like a kid could paint it either. However, I often find myself asking the question  how could something seeming so simple that a little kid could "imitate it" be worth so much? As well as, what made this piece of art worth the million dollar price tag? It turns out the price of a painting is usually so high because of the cost of materials, time spent working on the painting, and because an art gallery takes a good cut of the money the painting is sold for. Also, I believe that some paintings are priced so high because of that artists reputation.  For example, if there were doodles drawn on a napkin from Monet, the price would automatically be millions of dollars because he has a reputation in the art world. I think these pieces of art can be compared to things people get signed by celebrities. A poster of a flower is still the same as another copy of the exact same poster but once it has a famous person's signature, the value skyrockets. Lastly, I think if the artist is living or not contributes to the price of their artwork as well. The price of a living artists work might be lower because they can still create other works.

Intentionality of Art

 When I read the introduction to The Nature of Art, I thought to myself that intentionality did not make something a work of art. To my pleasant surprise, many of my classmates felt the same way. One person's story was of particular interest to me. She talked about how her mother framed and displayed one of her finger paintings that she didn't even remember creating. Then years later she made her mom a picture of a sunset that was considered and intended by her to be art but her mom didn't frame it or hang it up.  It raised  a new question in my mind about a different kind of intention. Perhaps instead of focusing on if the artist  intended a piece to be art or not, us as viewers should ask:

1. What are we intended to be getting out of viewing a piece of art?
2. Is the intention of the artist  to  evoke a specific reaction to their art more important then their intention to create a piece of art itself?