BBT 24

Friday, February 28th, 2014

"All art is quite useless."

                -Oscar Wilde

What do you think he meant by this? Do you agree with him?

I think that Oscar Wilde is going against the whole idea/issue of categorizing and judging art. Wilde is stating that art is not made for the purpose of being judged upon as one way or another, as in good or bad. Art is simply made for the purpose of entertainment of the intended audience, and for the artists themselves. Wilde is not saying that art itself is useless. Rather, he is saying that all attempts to judge art and enforce a certain interpretation or criteria of judgement is a useless and vain effort. Art is more of a personal experience, not a shared knowledge that should be decided upon by convention or majority vote.
Or at least that's the way that I decide to interpret his meaning.

Homework from Week 23

Friday, February 28th, 2014

Questions for Discussion from "What is art?" readings

A) Are the arts important? If so, is this despite or because of the problem of finding the standards by which to judge them?

I believe that the arts are an important component in our lives, and the value of arts expand further than the issue on standards of judgement. Art is a form of expression, whether for personal knowledge or shared knowledge. The arts have been a way to share the knowledge (emotions, thoughts and all) for centuries, probably almost since the beginning of times. It doesn't really matter to find universal or "proper" criteria to judge arts. And this is because the purpose of art is not to gain attention, but rather to express and reflect the artist's purpose. This purpose may be to raise awareness, or to unleash secrets or hidden messages, or for his own personal enjoyment, or to give as a gift to a given audience, or who knows what. Point is, I believe that art is important, even though there are no agreed conventions to judge art pieces, because the essence of art is not to be judged by the same standards by all the individuals in an audience. Art is a form of expression, for the artist and for the audience's interpretation. Art is "open-ended" because it is this quality that allows its versatility and accessibility to a variety of people.

B) What place does rationality have in the arts?

Rationality defines the realm of acceptability, or maybe the realm of credibility and pleasantness for artworks as seen by the audience. I don't think rationality has much importance in the arts, because what might seem rational to one may not seem rational to another or the rest. Rationality is another area of knowledge that is much open to personal interpretations. But rationality helps in defining the audience's response to the art piece. If the art piece made sense in the individual's rational, then that individual is more inclined to appreciate that piece. If the artwork did not fit an individual's rational, then that individual is more likely to dislike the piece and discard it as "bad art". Rationality is a contributing factor to people's response to the arts because people tend to appreciate what they can understand and dislike what they cannot decipher.

C) What are the standards for artistic judgement?

I don't believe that there actually are universally set and accepted conventional standards for artistic judgement. I do believe that there are underlying ideas that are shared by the majority of humans, meaning that there are qualities that seem more attractive or pleasant to the human eye. However, I do not believe that they are legitimate, meaning that they are neither strict nor enforced upon anybody. Art often forms part of the shared knowledge, as many artists share their pieces to an audience. Nonetheless, artistic judgement itself is personal knowledge, because the interpretation of the arts is a personal experience. Each individual will judge the piece he or she is viewing according to his or her own values. Although there might be a sphere of acceptable interpretation, I don't believe that anyone can say one's judgement is off or wrong, unless maybe by the artists themselves. But even then, by spreading the pieces for the world and leaving them open for individual views, artists are giving a license to viewers to decide their views on the artworks for themselves. A melody could sound happy and light-hearted to the majority, yet there might be a minority who hears a sorrowful tune. Is either of the interpretation wrong? Not really. We cannot condemn people for individual differences, or emotional state, or memories, or any other factor that contributes to diversity and the uniqueness of all of us.

D) Which people are best qualified to judge the arts? What qualities should they possess?

Any person is qualified to judge the arts. When artists to spread and share their work to an audience, they are granting those individuals with the right to judge and interpret them accordingly, in their own ways. The different values beheld by the people are the qualities that enable them to have different interpretations. Lacking imagination, or emotional responses, or memories, or any area of knowledge might limit or prevent an individual to interpret and judge the artworks. However, this doesn't mean that the individual is less qualified as a viewer of art. Any viewer of art, any person who has the curiosity or desire to view an artwork, is qualified to judge art. Because art is made for the purpose of the intended audience, from children to adults to anyone else and including the artist him/herself.

Weekly Blogpost #24

Monday, February 24th, 2014

Poetry, an often shunned form of art

Marianne Moore strings upon a truth in her poem "Poetry". She addresses the negative response people tend to have towards poetry. Her main point? People tend to dislike things they do not understand in general, and poetry may fall into that category. Moore also draws a line between "curiosity" and "appreciation". People may be desire to know more about poetry, and this interest hints at their attraction to poetry. This, however, does not necessarily mean that they like poetry. Appreciation comes with comprehension, therefore people cannot decide whether they like something or not until they understand it completely. 

When I think about it, this is very true. I have often seen people change their mind about their liking for something once they understand it. As an example, students might hate the novel "To Kill a Mockingbird" when they read it as a sixth grader, yet they might love it when reading it again as an undergraduate. It is not "accurate" to decide one's opinion on something when one does not understand the meaning completely, because this misunderstanding builds a frustration that breeds prejudice against the subject in question. As Moore puts it, one must first inspect the "imaginary gardens with real toads in them", grasp the meaning and find the realities, the truth, they reflect and seek to transmit, before having the qualities and the right to decide whether they like it or not.

Weekly Blogpost #23

Wednesday, February 19th, 2014

To what extent can an individual have impartial judgement?

Dear Mr Koss,

I tried formulating a KQ this time for my weekly blogpost. I do not know if it fits the characteristics of one, that it is open-ended and general enough, but anyway. I will not stray away from my main point.

The reason that I came up with this question was following the questionings of people I know and reading several articles on the Sochi female individual figure skating competition for the Winter Olympic Games of 2014. Many people asked me my thoughts on the participation of Korean skater Kim Yuna, twice gold medal winner and aiming to win the gold medal three times back-to-back. On one hand, "Do I think that she will win? What are my expectations? Do I believe she has a chance?" On the other hand, "Do you think that that fact the Olympics are in Sochi, Russia, this year will influence the judges' scores? Do you think that Kim Yuna will be affected in some way or another?". And all those kinds of questions.

Looking at the results for the short program, Kim Yuna placed first with waves of supportive and positive comments, praises, from judges and audience all around the globe. Yet what I see is Adela Sotnikova as the runner-up, the second position, right behind the Korean "Ice Princess." 

I would like to believe that the judges will be impartial tomorrow, that Kim Yuna will perform and be judged under impartial eyes that are not prejudiced. But, deep inside, I feel that this won't be happening. I do not like to accuse, especially without any evidence, but I do not trust the Russians and the judges fair judgements. It is possible that I am wrong, but I cannot help but have a weird premonition. 

I say all this, but even then, I admit that my opinions are biased. After all, I am Korean. But more than anything, more than because of the desire to see another gold medal join my country of nationality's flag, I wish that Kim Yuna will win first place for her own sake. I wish that she performs her best, that she reaches the zenith of her career, as this will become her last performance at the Olympic games. She has talent, determination, perseverence, and I hope that this will overcome anything that may happen and grant her an impartial judgement that does not lead to doubts on integrity.

As a side note, my KQ was formulated by my wonders of whether it is ever possible to be completely and entirely free of bias. As humans, we have our thoughts and opinions on everything. Our reason allows us to use the information that we have, and this influences all else that we do. I wonder whether it is possible to be completely fair, amid all our backgrounds, overcoming the webs of information and consequent biases.

Weekly Blogpost #22

Friday, February 14th 2014

Reflections on Today's Class "Controversial Debates"

Today, we talked about different controversial topics, those that are bound to raise an array of opinions in any class or among any group of people. Furthermore, the two questions that we addressed during the second half of the class were, in my opinion, very closely related: "Is there one life that is more valuable than another?" and "Can one deny rights to other based on their actions/behaviours?" (or at least something along those lines).

Most of us, if not all, were of the same basic opinion. "No, there is not one life more valuable than another as all lives are of equal value" and "No, it is not right to bar people from their fundamental rights". Georgy was the only person who had guts to challenge the majority's opinion by defending his country's position on the issue of "gay propaganda" in Russia. Many people, especially our dear Francisco, loved to shoot him down. And many good arguments were made, from all the various positions that arose. However, one question did come up to my mind: Is it possible to have equality despite differences?

As I had said earlier in class, I believe that all lives are valuable. Not because it is embodied in a human or plant or animal, nor because it is that of the president or celebrity or friend or family, nor any other reason except because of its essence. Life is life, and there is nothing that can be substituted for it. Throughout history, people have been placing prices on different life forms, whether on prostitutes or slaves, or food, or flowers for the backyard. People have been saved, others have been killed, based on what would it best for a country or humanity in general or another point of reference. This is a truth in the world, and I don't think there is a way for us to change the way that we have shaped it. Yet, theoretically, all lives are of equal value. And the reason is because all lives are life. The greatest present, a miracle that all living organisms have been gifted. On a similar note, I believe that all people should be granted the same rights. It is unfair for people to suffer the denial of their rights based on the precedents of others (i.e. the children of past dictators), or based on differences they cannot help from having (i.e. people with disabilities or with different inclinations). Rights are to be granted to every living being and should not be taken away UNLESS there is a good reason, based on the individual's actions or a given circumstance in which the denial of certain rights would be for the better.

The problem lies in the capitalized word, "unless". Who is allowed to determine the use of this word, who is allowed and can rightfully use this derivative? Who can be granted that "power" without making it unfair to others? People are individuals, all different in their own ways, all unique. It is therefore difficult to come up with a norm without infringing upon different beliefs. What might be right for one person may not seem so apparent to another. It is almost, if not completely, impossible to bring "happy justice" to everybody. There is always a difference that will arise, a little minority who will disagree. For example, going back to the Russia example, Georgy said that anybody who is practicing the spread of propaganda is violating a law. He also claimed that there is no freedom of speech in Russia. People lashed back, saying that the limit on speech is a violation of a basic human right. I do not agree with limits on speech either. But who are we, individuals who are not even Russian citizens, to say that the Russian government is doing wrong? If the UN, or some other big and influential organization, to try to enforce upon Russia the repeal of such laws, wouldn't it limit the power of the Russian government as well? Wouldn't it be some kind of violation as well?

I guess that my question is, who has the ultimate power? Our class discussion ended up open-ended, as expected for any debate of this sort, but I also wonder. The infringement of rights, the valuing of one life more than another, don't these happen in an attempt to strive for security and peace? If no limits were placed, couldn't there maybe be more wrong happening? It is not possible to find a "happy justice" for all, because there are always differences. Were all these differences considered, would there actually be any laws left? (This is relying on the assumption that we should be governed by documents outlining our rights and laws, but who says we should rely upon those, then?) If no decisions were made, would we maybe not be living in some sort of anarchy and chaos? At the end of the day, we are not living in a utopia, a world of harmony where everyone agrees with one another without doing "bad".

But then, again, I guess there is no wrong with imagining and dreaming. Dreams are made to help us strive towards a better future. Dreams are there to help us hope, and, well, to dream. And who knows? Maybe, one day, we will reach complete harmony. Someday, somehow.

BBT 22

Friday, February 14th, 2014

 What is a knowledge question?

Can you use ToK terminology in your definition?

A knowledge question is a question that uses ToK terminology to attempt to answer a question about knowledge. When I saw knowledge, I am referring to knowledge itself, I believe you had worded it as the "nature of knowledge". KQs are not about real-life situations, although they may be based off a real-life event, and they do not address specific cases, focusing on broader topics instead.
KQs are open-ended and general, and are about the nature of knowledge itself.

Homework from Week #20: KQ for Semester 1

Wednesday, February 12th, 2014

Adherence to Traditions and Adapting to Change

Real-life situation:

When they were first conquered, the Native Americans tried to maintain their traditional lifestyles, to adhere to their native cultures and not succumb to foreign influences. However, the constant pressure from European colonists and settlers eventually weakened these peoples' defenses: they lost their territories as people took over their land and transformed them into farmfields; they were prohibited to practice their native religions, usually centered around reverence for nature; they were "europeanized". Whereas people may argue that these changes were practically enforced upon the Native populations, it is difficult to deny that the adoption of firearms and horses, among other influences that greatly affected their lives, was greatly of the Natives' own wills. The Natives saw the benefits of owning a horse, as this animal eased transportation and quickened communication, helped them conquer the fields. The Natives realized the power of guns and other firearms, as these not only were more powerful than traditional weapons such as the hurling of rocks and stones, but also inspired fear in their enemies and rivals. The Natives eventually turned against each other as well, fighting over territories and accesses to trade that had been taken away from them by the colonists. The Natives often weakened themselves, their kin, or the people they were related with (at least by being native of the Americas) by using the tools the Europeans had used to defeat them. Not only that, the use of firearms may have increased the pride and confidence of some Natives, inspiring them to abandon their traditional ways of living in order to adopt a more modern attitude that gave them more power.

1st-order claim:

Some Natives abandoned their traditions from ambition, sometimes to secure their authorities, other times to regain belongings they had lost yet believed were rightfully theirs (and so on). 

Knowledge question:

How does the pressure to change, conform or adapt, affect faith?

(As in: When does one decide to abandon one's faith, culture, traditions, in order to adapt to changing conditions? If this happens, does it mean that one's faith was actually not that strongly held and treasured? Or do different conditions and situations engender different opinions, as some people may say "ambition" while others say "adaption"? Is there a difference, and does this difference make one worse or better than another?)

Note: I did use the Native populations in the Americas in this case, but this was because I just studied them in AP World, and this is fresh in my mind. This case can be applied to many other people. Actually, maybe all of us. Because, realistically, there are people in our world who act out of ambition, hurting their family, friends, sometimes themselves, by not being true to themselves and adopting styles they "were not born with". For example, "The Great Gatsby" by Fitzgerald was concerned with the new rich and the old rich, the rise of the prior while the latter slowly faded and crumbled down.