Friday, October 20, 2006

Blog Prompt #2

So, in order for me not to forget about this week's prompt, I'll do it the day assigned. :)


When a critic sets himself up as an arbiter of morality, a judge of the matter and not the manner of a work, he is no longer a critic; he is a censor.

EDWARD ALBEE, preface, The American Dream


I like Albee's words first off. Anyone can be a critic of something. Take art for example. Related to my assignment three paper, the Israeli ambassador to Sweden sabotaged the installation called "Snow White and the Madness of Truth." He became a critic and believed that his ideas were the only ones that mattered and not that of the artists. He called it anti-Semetic art, when the installation's reference to the Palestinian suicide bomber did not even attempt to laud the actions of the bomber. In fact, it was calling attention to the fact that people are capable of being monsters and that needs to change. However, the ambassador was so focused on the presence of the content of the installation (the picture of the suicide bomber), that he did not even look at the installation as a whole and what its broader context was. In that sense, he attempted to censor the artists' right to present the installation because he interpreted a certain way and expected that others would react the same way. When a critic loses sight of the art as an expression and develops contradictory ideas to what is the message of the piece, he becomes susceptible to censorship, that since the message is not moral to him, it should not be allowed.



I don't believe in censorship, but I do believe that an artist has to take some moral responsibility for what he or she is putting out there.

TOM PETTY, interview, Oct. 23, 2002


On the other hand, Tom Petty makes a comment that I fully support. While censorship should not be allowed, an artist has to take into consideration who his audience will be. If for example, they are making an outright statement about something - be it homosexuality, politics, civil rights and so forth, the artist has to realize that not everyone will accept that idea. Certainly someone depicting graphic violence or sexuality in their art has to take into consideration the possibility that children and young adults who aren't exposed to these images might be affected in some way. To that extent, the artist has to consider the morality of his art. If it is slandering a politician, the artist even more so has to be responsible enough to know that some people will support that politician. The artist may be completely fine with putting out artwork that people will contest, but he has to be conscious of the morality of his choice to put out his thoughts and accept that there will always be the chance that he will be censored.

posted by Deborah @ 3:31 PM 0 comments

Blog Prompt #1

Forgetfulness is terrible. With all the catch-up work I had this week, I completely forgot to post a reply to this blog prompt. I take full responsibility for it. Anyways, since I did have a response to the quotation, I will still post it albeit past the deadline.

"Any experiment incurs a debt with the reader and it needs to be paid back." --Judith Grossman

-------------------------------------------------------------

An experiment from a writing perspective is the argument within an essay or other piece of writing. Essentially, the writer is exploring different ideas and narrowing it down to a group of related ideas that the writer is making a statement about. The thesis is the purpose within the experiment, like a science lab report. The writer is going to attempt to set up a procedure (the rest of the paper and its paragraphs of support) that will prove to the reader that his thesis is valid. Ultimately, the counterargument is like the analysis at the end of the experiment. Sometimes there are ideas that conflict with the argument (like error in a lab experiment), but the writer is supposed to build a stronger defense of why his thesis is still valid despite irregularities. Finally, the writer has to finalize his thoughts and his points in the conclusion, much like a conclusion in a lab report.

The idea of the debt is quite simply the fact that when a writer presents an argument to a reader, the writer has to be able to support it. If he throw an idea into the blue without evidence or support that it could be valid, the reader will not be able to believe the argument. In that sense, the writer is letting down the reader by not supporting the thesis. If the writer is successful, he has paid that debt back and ultimately has gained validity to the reader because he followed up on his thesis. The reader starts off with a thesis and hopefully, by the end of the essay, the reader will get enough evidence to realize that the thesis has its merits and that the writer knows what he is talking about through the research presented.

posted by Deborah @ 3:27 PM 0 comments