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?

where is the line drawn?

In response to Skyla's question.In your opinion, where is the line drawn between something that can be considered a work of art and something that doesn't quite meet the standards?

I think that it is very hard to distinguish a line between good art and art that doesn't quite meet standards.In my opinion, the line is drawn when a piece of work shows no effort. As i have said before, I prefer works that take time to complete. When it comes down to it, I would call Michelangelo's works art over many other pieces I have come into contact with. I think it is far easier to create a definition based on exclusion, as compared to inclusion though. For me at least, it is easier to see something and say no, that's not art, instead of looking at art that has been created and trying to decide whether time has been put in or not. although, I guess it could go both ways. sometimes it is very hard to decide whether art is art or not.
question: Are there many cases where someone spends a ton of time on a piece and it turns out awful looking?

My taste in art over the years...

In response to Jillian Covey's blog question "How has your taste in visual art, music, or poetry/prose changed or evolved throughout the years? Have there been any significant events in your life that have drastically altered or affected these preferences?"
As a child, I loved art. I loved the idea of art, I loved anything called art, and I loved to create art. My dads whole side of the family was into art and they were all quite good at it. I admired their ability to express their thoughts using images. After I got into visual art, I attained an appreciation for many other kinds too. I love music and poetry. The difference between what I thought when I was little and what I think now is that when I was little I appreciated art just because people called it art. Now my taste is a lot more selective.I can tell when people have put in the effort and paid attention to detail. I know when someone spends an hour on a painting in comparison to 10 minutes and I know when someone writes a song and puts their heart into it, in comparison to someone just trying to make some quick cash. Noticing these things over time has helped me come to appreciate certain art more.
Circumstances that have drastically altered or affected my taste in art definitely occurred. I feel like those circumstances are unavoidable for anyone. If someone died, then people would be drawn to art portraying feelings of loneliness. If someone had a baby, people would be drawn to art that portrayed happiness or cuteness. Specific circumstances have occurred in my life similar to the examples i have given and they definitely affected my tastes in the arts.
question: Does the kind of art people create affect the way they are judged/interpreted by society?

Repsonse to nicoles post

I am responding to Nicole's post question. "Question:Do you think a picture is worth it, when the viewer must know many obscure references and spend a lot of time and effort to even grasp what is shown?"
I think that it is absolutely worth it to create or observe a picture that references other things. Not only is that picture influencing you to expand your knowledge, but when you do you gain a better appreciation of the art. I personally appreciate things more when they have a purpose or a reason behind them, instead of when they just exist. For example, when you see a picture of a person, you just admire the aesthetically pleasing parts of the picture. Once you get to understand meaning the person has in the picture, or the influence that person has had on society, you tend to appreciate the work of art more because you know more about it.
Do you agree that you tend to appreciate people more when you know more about them? (excluding the instances where you grow to dislike people more as you get to know them)

respinse to Shawna's post

I am Responding to Shawna's post question. "Do you think that it is possible for someone to be consistent in their feelings towards a particular piece of art though? Meaning not change the interpretation at all in the slightest."
I don't think it is possible for someone's interpretation to stay one hundred percent the same as they go through life. I think that when you experience something, you think about it and all things concerning it that you know about, but as you go through life the category of things you know about expands, so your interpretation of the piece would as well. So if you are in college, you probably have a good understanding of the world around you. With that understanding you might interpret a piece of work. Even if you get a firm grip on your concept of what is, there is nothing to stop that interpretation from changing or expanding, so my answer is no, it will never be the same.
Does how old you are change how you perceive things? are there exceptions to this?