In response to Marek's post on Plastic surgery.
I think it is funny that in society, you will hear a majority of people respond negatively to plastic surgery. I think it's funny because it is a form of body alteration and other forms of body alteration are more accepted. Tattoo's for example, are not looked down upon as much as plastic surgery is. Especially if they have meaning and aren't stupid looking. I think that our society is slowly adjusting to the idea of plastic surgery because it has helped so many people that need it but I think there are still many who disapprove. I agree with Marek and i think that if it is going to help you excel in life and has the possibility of making you happy, then it is okay. Piercings (like ear piercings) are super popular In today's culture, but they weren't at one point in time, so i think it is only a matter of time before things like plastic surgery are completely fine.
question: Do you think society will reach a point when it becomes completely passive? (passive in general, like is there a point where we will have done so much that it just doesn't surprise people anymore?)

Imagination ......

In response to Shawna's question: Do you think that it is possible for adults to gain the imagination that children have? And therefore also gain their creativity?
I think that there are some adults that have better imagination then children ever will. I don't really think kids have the best imagination. I think they have the best potential but it truly depends on what environment you are raised in. Kids now have no need for imagination because of everyone else's imagination they have at their exposure. They can sit for hours on end watching television or playing video games. I believe that many people who have amazing imaginations are people who were at a disadvantage at some point in their lives. I think that many adult have creativity but we don't think about it as much because it surfaces differently.
When you are a child you are still new to the world and its wonders and you don't necessarily know how to express yourself. Once you grow up, you know how to express your self better and more subtly in some cases. The creativity of children is seen through attempts at learning native language, or scribbles on paper. The creativity of adults is seen through paintings and movies, and theartre. I think that imagination is having trouble developing in today's society because People don't read as much as they used to. Instead we watch television, or go on facebook. I feel like these things don't offer the same intellectual profit that reading does. I feel like reading and drawing influence people to use their imagination more.
question: When you were a child, What was your favorite book, and why? - I know this may not be the most philosophical question in the world, but I would really like to know.

In response to Snow White.

In response to Nicole's blog on Snow White. I think that a big problem is that most people want to associate good with beauty. Specifically in the movie, the witch takes on the form of an old hag and she does evil deeds. Snow White is beautiful and has many qualities we associate with beauty. I don't know why people do this but it happens quite often. When I see a pretty flower, most of the time I assume it will smell nice to. In reality these beautiful things we are so used to might not actually be nice. There is a probability that if you find a really beautiful girl, that she could be awful and horrid.
I personally like to believe that if Snow white was less attractive that she still would have had a good life. If she had to flee her step mothers I think that the hunter still would have let her go because he knows killing is unethical. I also think that had she encountered the dwarfs after cleaning their house, they still would have let her stay there. I do think that aesthetics and ethics are closely related though. especially through reactions people have to movies, and art, and things. I think the fact that Snow White was beautiful made it easier for people to want to trust her and believe she was a moral person.
Question: I know this is an awful question, but I'm going to ask anyways; Do you judge people based on aesthetics? or is it just their ethics? or a combination of the two? so basically when you see someone, do you think "wow that person is really morally sound!" or do you think "wow that person is pretty" which one is more important?

In response to Marek's post

This is in response to Marek's post. I find it funny that you picture art viewers that way, because I have always thought of them the same way without even meaning to. I feel like the stereotypical image of a fat bald man looking at art has been ingrained into my mind over time. I do not think that you have to react to art like that man though, and you don't have to look like him either. The way I think about art is that it is different and always changing, so you can have any opinion you want as long as you can back it up. I believe that you can waltz into a museum looking absolutely ridiculous and admire art for as long as you like(whether it be a second or an hour) and then leave feeling completely comfortable.
question: are there social restraints put on what kind of clothes we can wear in public? can we wear whatever we feel like? what kind of consequences would there be for wearing something ridiculous?

Books are well written, or badly writtem....

I like this quote from the reading we had to do on link (A). The quote is: There is no such thing as a moral or an immoral book. Books are well written, or badly written. That is all. – Oscar Wilde
I am really excited to read this because I like this quote a lot. Mainly because I agree with it. My Interpretation of it is as follows: I think Wilde is saying that as long you make a convincing argument in your favor, it doesn't matter if what you're saying is awful. Someone could write about war or death, but as long as they are taking the time to create a good story, the book should be good.
This quote specifically makes me think of people who always try to ban things because they are too "outrageous". Art for example is questioned sometimes as going to far. If you have an opinion about something and you share it with people, some may get offended and try to censor your opinion, or tell you to be quiet. I feel like Wilde is kind of saying it doesn't matter if people are getting offended or not, as long as you make a good point.
I also like the end of the quote where Wilde states that books are either well written or badly written because he doesn't leave room for the gray area. He just states that there are good books, and then there are bad books. I feel that with books that is the case. Most people either like a book or they don't. I personally separate books into two different categories. Books worth reading v.s. books that aren't worth reading.
question: are there books that are just okay that you would read if you had a choice to? Like if they weren't great but weren't awful do you think you would read them? especially when you have books out there that are great?

childs play

I am responding to Katherine's blog question "Children entertain themselves (in the broadest sense of the term) by playing games like tag and hide & seek. Child's play is certainly appreciated by most people, but is it a form of art?"
I agree with your opinion in your blog. I think that to truly appreciate art you have to understand it to a certain point. Like when you see a beautiful masterpiece, you feel appreciation towards how it makes you feel. Then later, when you discover that the masterpiece was created with rare home-made paints and took a lifetime to create, you build on that appreciation.
I think that your question belongs in the gray area because there are certain things that i personally do not know if I would classify as art or not. Example; When people create things out of nature and then let them deteriorate because of the weather. I feel like saying that creation is art would be generalizing the word too much. People make houses that get worn away after years of bad weather. there are many things made out of nature by people and if we include them all in the definition we can just about relate art to everything. I feel like there has to be a separation between nature and art. Not that they don't have similarities, it's just that a line has to be drawn somewhere. Children playing is appreciated. By calling it art based only on the fact that people appreciate it, aren't we saying that anything that can be appreciated is art? Is that true?

The more art the better ^_^

I am responding to Jen's blog question "Do you think teachers should incorporate art in their lessons, whether they use paintings, music, or other forms of medium?"
I think that teachers should definitely incorporate art into their teaching. Different people learn through different methods and using a larger variety of methods helps the people more. Some people need things explained to them, while others need things shown to them to understand. Some people learn best by practice. I think a good point to make is that there are no negative effects to incorporating art into various lessons. In a way it is like using an analogy, which teachers do quite often. It would be more convenient because more people can relate to a work of art than they can to an analogy. The reasoning I have behind this opinion is that art is more open to interpretation and therefore has a larger audience possibility. But i definitely think that it would be a good idea to incorporate art into lessons.
question: Is there a reason why this would be a bad idea?