Ethics for Creative Arts Students (Hawkins, Winter 2014)
About this class
487 | 0 | 0
602 | 0 | 0
1,105 | 1 | 0
547 | 0 | 0
7,044 | 2 | 0
604 | 0 | 0
1,123 | 1 | 0
5,141 | 3 | 0
5,344 | 1 | 0
774 | 0 | 0
477 | 0 | 0
1,320 | 0 | 0
6,849 | 7 | 2
2,144 | 5 | 0
805 | 1 | 0
838 | 1 | 0
485 | 0 | 0
853 | 0 | 0
532 | 0 | 0
517 | 0 | 0
- 1 of 2
- next ›
Just like you Valery, I have always been fascinated by graffiti. As creative arts students, we have some opportunities to talk about it and to study it more than other students. Since I am very young, I keep asking myself questions about graffiti; who are the unknown artists, what does these graffiti mean, how did they came up with the ideas, how much time did they spent working on these graffiti, what did they used, etc. To answer the first question "Should we see graffiti as art or vandalism?" I think it depends on the graffiti, its location, and its meaning. A totally agree with what you said about having an agreement with the owner of the building before doing graffiti on it, wether it is appropriate or not, and if it does not offend anybody. Some of the graffiti are amazing and artistic but a major part of the graffiti, here in Quebec, are simple words or drawing that many people can do. For graffiti to be considered as art, I believe it has to be artistically beautiful and meaningful. I believe others are considered vandalism. The people doing vandalism are people that often need attention, want to be rebel, or has nothing to do except trying to be good in arts. Graffiti on important buildings, such as the Empire State Building, the Montreal Olympic Stadium, and churches for example, are unacceptable. Artists who plan on doing graffiti on these types of buildings should definitely ask the permission of the owner of the building before doing their graffiti on it. I believe real and talented artists will do so. I think to say wether a certain graffiti is art or vandalism, people have to see it before judging; they are all different. Again, it depends on the location and the artistic talent and meaning it has on the graffiti. To answer your second ethical second "Should graffiti be legal?" I believe I would bring up the same points as the other questions. It should be legal if the artists have the permission of the building owner, if it is appropriate, and if it does not offend anybody. Many people see graffiti as vandalism either because they do not understand the work or sometimes these people are simply not interested in art. As a Creative Arts student who is fascinated by graffiti since a young age, I believe that graffiti should not be judged, should be legal, appropriate, and artistically beautiful. I also think that it depends on the graffiti if it is art or vandalism.
I suggest this worth reading article because it is mainly about graffiti. It contains interesting and historical informations about graffiti art. It also talks about graffiti art exhibitions. Amazing graffiti examples from New Yorkers artists are also presented.
As a student who has a lot of interest in fashion and animals, this article's title really caught my attention. Interesting points are mentioned in this blog, some which I did not know about such as the way the animals are being treated and the methods used to kill. Because animals shouldn't suffer, I also believe that it is our job to protect the ones who are weaker than us. People that wear or use real fur do not think about how the animals are being treated and killed because of the popularity and their interest on the several brands using real fur, for example Canada Goose and Parajumpers jackets. Everytime I see a person wearing a jacket with real fur, or boots etc, I always see or imagine a dead animal replacing the fur. It is cruel and I don't understand the carelessness of some people about animal rights. As Emilie said, faux-fur industry is a good solution to this problem. It also keeps us warm, it is animal friendly, and it is less expansive. I also believe that the number one solution would be that the government should make real fur illegal. With this law, maybe the fashion industry would realize how bad it is to use real fur and that faux-fur can also be warm and pretty on fashion runways or on jackets and boots. I also liked the point David brought up about loosing jobs if people or fashion industries would stop using real fur. I believe it is an invalid argument because faux-fur would bring up other job opportunities and more.
I suggest this article because it talks about Grouse Montain not reordering jackets using real fur, which I think is fantastic and it also brings up the Canada Goose and Parajumpers jackets I mentioned.
Like you, I also enjoy watching my favourite artists perform live. It is so much more of a different experience than to just listen to them on your phone with headphones on. That is why when I saw your article, it piqued my interest. It saddens me to hear that the government has raised the international touring fees.
Of course they are allow to do so, they're the government after all. Even though I disagree with their decision, I don't believe they are discouraging our society's arts and culture scene. If anything, they are trying to promote local artists by limiting foreign ones by raising the fees.
However, as I mentioned before, I'm against the implementation of these fees. I believe that international bands will be less likely to tour in Canada. Even if they do, tickets will be more expensive than they already are. Furthermore, there is a possibility that people will have to travel out of the country just to see their favourites artists perform live.
I think the only people that benefit from these fees are Canadian artists. As you stated, small venues that want to do business with international artists and lesser known artists trying to attain a bigger fan base are discouraged by these higher costs. Furthermore, employers of venues and ticket holders have to pay extra in order to have international artists perform. Clearly, this is just one of Canada's many attempts to preserve its local artists and music culture.
Here's a suggestion for further reading on another one of their attempts: http://www.tourisme-montreal.org/Press/Press/Press-Releases/tourisme-mon...
Disney movies have always been a big part of my childhood. Heck, I still love those movies even today! I used to and still do sing along to those songs (on my MP3 now), and I must admit that I had never realized that the ratings had changed in such a drastic way. And I who've been wanting to see the new 'Frozen' movie, I hadn't even heard of the controversial rating! But enough of that. Personally, I don't think we should change the MPAA ratings for older children movies just because some people have become rather anal about them. Many children grew up with those old movies and if they were rated G at the time and the kids weren't negatively affected by them, then the rating shouldn't be changed just because of some parent's (nonsensical) fears towards their children's delicate sensibilities. I'm afraid that people are only going to realize that these ratings have gone too far off base when Winnie the Pooh movies end up rated PG! As for whether we should restrict children from watching movies based on the changing MPAA rating? I don't think we should. These movies teach children wonderful values and life lessons, and they shouldn't be kept away from these movies and the opportunity to learn from them just because a few people decided that G ratings could only be for baby movies. Parents should be the ones looking over the movie and deciding whether their children are old enough to watch them, no one else. Concerning the argument that violence and rude humour in children's movies could negatively affect kids, I find it ridiculous. These movies are “children movies”, they're specifically tailored for children and the amount of violence/death/gore or whatever that can be found in it is generally minimal and usually artfully shown, with shadows and sounds instead of graphic images (I'm thinking Scar getting mauled by the Hyenas at the end of The Lion King). They have more chances of witnessing worse things in daily life than what they do in these movies. Furthermore, the children should (normally) focus more on the story's meaning and the values vehiculated than they would on the potential violence or questionable humour. All in all, these movies shouldn't be kept away from children because of misplaced ratings.
And for anyone who wants to read more about rating problems (not related to animated children's movies this time), here is another article to view: http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2013/11/11/244521897/movies-rated-pg-13-...
I chose to comment on this article because I am also a godmother of a beautiful two year old child and I related to the author's story. Being protective as always been something normal and instinctive for a parent, especially for a mother. In response to the question that has been raised in the article, I would say that parents do not know the limits because they could do everything for their children. In favor to the argument raised by the student, I think that the author is totally right when she says that a parent's love is unconditional. I do agree that the majority of the parents would do anything for their children. This article makes me think of the movie ''Prisoners'' because the story is basically about a father who tortures a pretending guilt from abusing and kidnapping her daughter. All this to say, it is clear that some parents could do things that are wrong in honour to their child. In addition,we could question ourselves by asking:'' do parents should be forgiven by the court if they would do something bad but their argument is because it was for the protection of their child?'' I think that when you love someone, you could do anything extreme for this person, but it is unforgivable if you end up breaking the laws (killing for example). To answer the other question of the article, I think that people do not overexagerate when it comes to their children. It is normal for a human to feel the need to protect their own kids and as a empathic person, I can understand what the parent feels and I know that if they do something bad, it was not for bad reasons, but for the love of their child. Another article linked to the first one that is interesting is the following one that talks about the rules of society applying unequally to everyone.
I totally agree with you! It is true that the world is constantly evolving and that film producer should always be looking for new ways to make profit. I find it's also a great subject since Netflix is really popular. Should the film industry find new innovative ways to compete with Neflix or even try to shut it down? Do you think Netflix is a good thing or not? Even if there are a lot of movies on Netflix, not all the movies are on it. I don't think personally that the film industry is suffering from Netflix because you can always buy the movie you want or you can rent it too if it's not on Netflix. But if the film industry really think that Netflix is a 'enemy' for them, then yes they should try to find a way to compete with Netflix. Should Netflix and similar services exist? Yes since, as you said earlier, it only costs 8$/month, which is really not expensive when you can watch a big variety of movies the amount of times you want, and a lot of people can take advantage of it. I even use Netflix myself and I find it's really great! I think that people feel less bad watching movies on Netflix since they pay for it, it's not as if they would download it illegally, as you said earlier. I did research and found an article that says that Netflix has a program, for 5$, called "Browse Endlessly". "[It's] an option that gives you access Netflix's wide array of programming, but without the stress of having to chose what to watch." Netflix is always impressing us! http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/watch-netflix-introduces-5-browse...
Thank you Emilie for your pertinent answer and participation!
I'm glad that you agree with me and that you defend animal rights! There should be more people thinking like you!
As you said, the faux-fur is a great alternative and should replace the real fur industry!
Thank you for the other article I'll read it :)
As a creative arts student who has a great interest in fashion but is also very concerned about animal rights, I find this situation very unfortunate. I strongly believe that it is our role to protect those who are weaker than us which is why I defend animal rights every time I have an opportunity to do so. In fact, as you mentioned, humans are the most powerful organisms on earth and this is why I believe that we should not take advantage of animals that are powerless against us. Also, I believe that the fur industry should be banned and considered illegal because with new technologies, there are other alternatives than cutting up animals for their fur. For example, the faux-fur industry is a very good alternative which is animal friendly. In fact, I am a proud owner of a faux-fur coat and it still keeps me warm and is a lot less expensive than a real fur coat. Furthermore, I really like the argument you brought up about animals feeling pain and fear. I believe it is a very pertinent point and the quote you used really emphasized the point you were trying to make.
For further reading, I suggest this article that talks about the market of faux-fur and how even though it is a great alternative, sometimes it is best to avoid fur because it can sometimes be mislabelled.
Living in a society where everyone feels the need to be 'perfect', it is hard for the youth to accept themselves for who they are. Girls starve themselves to be skinny and cover their faces up with make-up, while guys take steroids in order to appear buff. They do not realize that the perfect body they are trying to achieve is nothing but a Photoshop scam fed to them by the media. I know what it is like to look at magazine covers and say, "I wish I looked like that." But the truth is, most celebrities don't even look like themselves in ads or cover pictures.
Therefore, should young adults spend so much attention on their appearance in order to please society's idea of beauty? As you may have concluded, the answer is no. Everyone should be able to embrace themselves for who they truly are. The definition of beauty is different for everyone and we should not let the media tell us we are not beautiful because we don't look a certain way.
To answer your previous question, no, it is not possible for anyone to achieve the perfect body (according to the media) because it doesn't exist. As mentioned above, the media uses Photoshop to edit pictures so that models are skinnier and posters boys are more chiselled. So why are people trying to achieve something that is not real?
Although it is true that the use of steroids have gone up, I don't believe that all young adults are willing to sacrifice their health for their physical appearance. I am not saying that they don't care about how they look, but that they seem to care about both nowadays. A lot of young individuals are starting to the gym in order to stay in good shape, appearance and health wise. Even though some people may take the easy way out with steroids, some are willingly to work hard in order to attain the 'perfect' body they so desperately desire.
Here is an old but still relevant article about the use of Photoshop in the media that may be of interest to you: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/vivian-diller-phd/photoshop-body-image_b_8...
I use the Netflix service as well and I am not always satisfied with its choice of movies. I was particularly interested by your article because I love to listen to movies and I like to follow what is going on in the movie industry. I think that films are so important in people’s cultural identity, because they are so relatable to everyone as watching them often doesn’t require as much effort as reading a book for example. To answer to your last questions, I think that Netflix is part of the film industry and that, in this way, they could not compete with one another. The producers that choose to let their movies into Netflix do it because they think it is what is best for their profits.
An alternative question that could be raised relating to the subject is whether we should use only Netflix, and therefore encourage the Hollywood movie industry rather than encouraging local and international film makers. Netflix has a very limited range of international movies and when I say that, I think of all the French or Canadian movies that cannot be found in Netflix. I believe that Netflix is too limited to be any threat to the movies that you cannot find on there. Personally, I have access to Netflix, but I often prefer to go to rent a movie at the Superclub Vidéotron, or go to the cinema. I think that this system has still a long way to go before we start worrying about film makers’ loss of profit on its behalf.
I think that we should more worry about piracy and the threat it poses to the movie industry today. It is too easy nowadays to download a movie illegally. I think that this is a deliberate violation of private property and people need to understand that. Here is an article about Senator Dodd’s (CEO and Chairman of the Motion Picture Association of America, Inc.) speech about piracy.
- 1 of 3
- next ›
There no collaborative classes