Emotional Connection

We discussed in class today the connection between a persons emotions how this can effect what they decide or how they perform. Everyone has different emotions due to the life experiences that they have faced, this can play a role in how they may view something or perform as we discussed in class today. However to a certain degree I think that a choreographed routine is just that completely choreographed, the people in it may have somewhat different facial expressions but not much; they went through training and work to perform a piece that is matched and in unison. So therefore although everyone can experience different emotions I think that it is still possible for them to perform the same after working together. Do you agree with this idea, do you think that there is a possibility for people to perform synchronized although people have different emotions?

Fetish

Since we have begun to read about Piper we have discussed how certain works of art can suddenly become viewed as fetishes to us. Or perhaps they were a fetish to that particular person all along. Needless to say, that isn't the intention of art. It is meant to be enjoyed and respect the intent that the artist had. However for something to become a fetish is not quite a good idea because that is when it just because an obsession. Do you think that a fetish with art is ever a good thing?

Unique

Today in class we talked about a certain unique object being less rare or less unique as time goes on. I don't think that this is something that I agree with, while the initial appeal of its uniqueness may be gone but for instance if it were a "one of a kind" item then it would be unique for entirety, it would be unique to the owner and to all who see. The only difference is how comfortable we become with an object during a particular time which can change how we view the uniqueness of an object. Do you think that a work of art that is once viewed as not "unique" can suddenly become it?

"Status"

Today in class we addressed the subject of status when it comes to who determines what is art and where it should be placed. But who determines how these people acquire the status that they have received? Dickie calls the art world one of formality and uses words such as social institution, this only makes sense though considering that people of status are the only ones who choose the art that view, listen to or read. But once again I ask the question who chooses those people and do you think that this "status" description that Dickie talks of plays a negative role on the art world?

Imagination

Children have vivid imaginations and often can visualize something different than what an adult would see. However over time this imagination that many had can be interpreted differently or not even recognized. Leading to different interpretations of the same thing. The interpretation of something brings one back to the phrase that really it is all in the "eye of the beholder". Do you think that it is possible for adults to gain the imagination that children have? And therefore also gain their creativity?

Art?....

The beginning of the chapter on Danto starts off with the phrase "was there anything that could not be art?". Now not only are we trying to define what is art, but we are also trying to determine the certain parameters there are. This chapter used Andy Warhol as an example a lot and I think that was an excellent example because his art work does look like something that one could see in everyday life. So how do you determine the difference between art and real objects then?

Change

When we are confronted with change or things that are different people often become uncomfortable. Change is inevitable, people so often speak of evolving and that it is necessary but when we finally reach that final outcome that is what makes people uncomfortable. Change is needed though and we can't all be the same, it is necessary for there to be differences among people and and for some things to change. Do you think that there is no need for change?