Art

Entertainment Buildings- aesthetically pleasing Politics- Propaganda Evoke emotions Clothes- Expression of one's self Science- representation/ diagrams Understanding/relation Signs- instructs Machines- benefit (operating and such) Leave a legacy- glorification Depicts history Reflects culture Calligraphy
 * Role of Art in Society:**

Aesthetics > The perfection of David Artist > Pollock's fame before *5 Era/Time -> Renaissance Medium/Techniques--> Oil Pastels by hand Message--> Uncle Sam: Join the Army History/Event---> Ferrnardo Amorsol: Death of wife Expression/Mood--> Sistine Chapel Awe Genre- --> Neo Expressionist Comparison--> Minchs Scream Copies
 * List of emphases (class list):**
 * Emphasis e.g. **

//10/9/10// There are a lot more differences between evaluating art and math, and only a few similarities. In art, the artist's personality, techniques, and genre are all taken into account, whereas in math, these really aren't contributing factors to the evaluation. This probably has to do with the fact that art deals more with interpretation and expression, whereas math deals with finding solutions and the practical implications of these solutions. Evaluation of art also generally brings in the question of what was the intended message behind the piece of art; this is not the case in math, as there are no messages to be conveyed. Again, to reiterate, math isn't like art in the sense that art focuses more on the expression or interpretation of a certain idea.
 * 1. Compare your team's list of emphases with that for judging another area of knowledge - in this case Math. Think about it - then, limiting yourself to five sentences max, how does evaluating art compare with evaluating Math?**


 * 2. Prepare to address the following challenge in class Saturday. "Can you justify the arts as part of a school curriculum compared to another area of knowledge (pick one: Math Language, Human Sciences, Natural Sciences, Ethics) No need to write anything - this is a thinking assignment. Be prepared to describe how you 'did your thinking'.**

Question 1: Does art bring about more positive or negative effects for a society? Question 2: Is it possible for someone to be considered a 'bad artist' (by everyone) since there are no universally accepted standards in art? Question 3: Is it right for a piece of artwork to have its value raised because of other factors besides the actual piece of art (something about the artist or the time period he was in)? e.g. Pollock's //No. 5// - he was famous before he created this, and that obviously raised the value of the art because if someone else who is not a famous artist (or an artist at all, for that matter) created the exact same thing, it would probably have gone unnoticed or just seen as meaningless splashes of paint here and there.
 * 3. Our work and thinking with Art has included: a) A look at what belongs int he category: Art - including painting, drama, poetry, dance, photography, architecture, fashion, and more. b) Consideration of the roles Art plays in our lives c) Listing areas of emphasis when we evaluate Art. Keeping these in mind, create three questions and save to your ART PAGE we might pose to Ms. Aguilera, Ms. Morris, and/or Mr. Whitehead.**

//10/11/10// //** Using your thinking comparing Art and Math in your initial five sentences, compare two as ways of knowing in writing. **// As ways of knowing, art and math differ greatly. They each have very different roles in our lives, and when evaluating them, we usually employ different emphases of evaluation, with few similarities. Because these similarities are scarce, one of the two is bound to be a more reliable way of knowing. Personally, I'd say math is the most reliable as a way of knowing between the two. Art plays several roles in our lives, and these roles range from entertainment to propaganda. However, entertainment is probably the most prevalent role today. And because so much focus is placed on entertainment, this distorts the accuracy and reliability of art as a way of knowing because when evaluating art, we don't evaluate these features. Instead, we evaluate art based one whether or not it is aesthetically pleasing - is this work of art pleasing to the eye? There are other emphases we place on evaluation of art, which include the message and genre of the art, but the most emphasis in evaluation is probably placed on aesthetics. In contrast, math's role is to find solutions to problems and implement these solutions practically. As such, it's solely based on accuracy. Similarly to art, math can be evaluated based on beauty (there are some examples of beauty in math, such as the golden ratio), but this is merely a "side-evaluation". It's noticeable, but it does not really have any effect on the role of math, unlike art, where beauty will affect the entertainment role it has. Although there can be similar roles between the two, such as the fact that both can, for example, integrate with science, the differences between the roles is what makes math the more reliable and ergo the more accurate way of knowing. To demonstrate, we could use an example to prove that math is more reliable and accurate as a way of knowing than art. Let's say an artist and a mathematician are told to convince the public that smoking is detrimental to one's health. The artist may paint a dying person with a cigarette in his hand, or will paint/draw/sculpt some way of expressing the dangers of smoking. However, people observing this work of art will notice one thing: there is no evidence to back up this notion (as it will be to them) that smoking is unhealthy. On the other hand, the mathematician gathers data regarding deaths by smoking and is able to create a function of some sort that shows the correlation between cigarettes smoked vs. approximate life expectancy. This will probably convince people more as there is evidence to back up the claim (since this function is based on date), unlike the work of art. In turn, this made people understand and KNOW that smoking is detrimental to the health of a person. Since math's role makes it seem like a more reliable and accurate way of knowing, and art's role is mainly for entertainment, this brings in to question whether or not a society derives much benefit from art in regards to the advancement of knowledge. This is not to say that art should just be eradicated, but rather the priority of its roles should be reviewed. Instead of its most prevalent role being entertainment, it should be education or something more beneficial. And again, this is only in regards to the advancement of knowledge - having art as a form of entertainment is also a good thing. When comparing the two as ways of knowing, we come to the conclusion that math is a more reliable and accurate way of knowing than art. This is because math's main role is to bring about solutions and make use of these solutions practically, whereas art's main role is entertainment. Art is often subjective whereas math is objective, and as such, this removes any bias from math and makes art very biased. And bias can drastically increase the unreliability of a way of knowing.

//10/13/10 - 10/18/10// ..... Art and math are two areas of knowing that differ greatly, and they each have different roles that they play in our lives. Art has several roles within itself, however the most prevalent role is probably that of entertainment. Still, art can be used for other roles such as propaganda or even an informative role. On the other hand, math's major role is to provide solutions to problems and implement whatever practical implications these solutions have. Since each have a beneficial role for a society, each should be taught in school, however from grades 9-12, choices should be allowed to be made by the students regarding where they want to put more emphasis. This is because there are people who are mathematical geniuses and people who are artistic geniuses: each can learn the other area of knowing, but they should focus on getting the most out of their strongest points. ..... That being said, however, it doesn't mean that if one student chooses art, then math should be completely disregarded. Math should always be taught, because it still may be a bit more beneficial for the future because it opens up more opportunities. Also, there is a lot of math in art, but not a lot of art in math. Therefore, if someone chooses art as their desired focus in grades 9-12, they should still have to take a substantial amount of math - however, the amount of time spent on art could be more, but not to the extent that the student disparages math. ..... The fact that math seems more important than art (at least to me) may have to do with the fact that math is evaluated in a different way than art. In art, evaluation is influenced by how the work of art is interpreted. Math, on the other hand, generally leaves no room for interpretation. Ergo, when evaluating math, we evaluate based on whether or not a solution right or accurate. As such, it's going to be more "solid" (in terms of understanding) than art, which can be very ambiguous. An example of the ambiguity of art could be Pollock's No. 5 which could be interpreted in so many ways. A function in math, such as f(x)=(1/10)x-5, however, will not be ambiguous - it brings about straightforward answers/results. An important implication of this argument is that it brings into consideration ambiguity's usefulness. Is it better to have ambiguity in certain areas, or should every area have only one agreed-upon interpretation? ..... Another reason math should be considered as more important than art is because math can be an important contributor to art, whereas art cannot be an important contributor to math. An example of this is the Golden Ratio. In art, the Golden Ratio is often used to make a piece of artwork more appealing. This is purely math as it is a ratio. Although it can be argued that the visual depictions of mathematical information in the form of functions or pie graphs can be considered art, it is not art that affects the outcome of the math. It is just a side-observation that can go noticed or unnoticed and will not really have an effect either way. ..... Although it is being said that math should be considered more important than art, that does not necessarily include all different levels of math. Instead, this argument should only pertain to math up to the level of Algebra 2. Algebra 2 and the levels of math before it build a solid foundation for an individual's future, because they cover necessary concepts that benefit everyone in the world, no matter what career they choose to pursue. For example, a section of math that would be of extreme importance to artists would be geometry. This branch of mathematics precedes Algebra 2, and places a heavy emphasis on shapes, an important feature in art. So when making the statement that math should be considered more important then art, it should be noted that the math being compared to art only includes Algebra 2 and the levels of math that precede it. ..... When taking all this into account, it can be concluded that students should be given the ability to choose where they want to place more focus on in grades 9-12 (math or art), but if they choose art, it does not mean that they should completely disregard math. Math is still a very important subject that will benefit anyone that studies art. For those that choose art, more hours can be spent on art, and for those that choose math, more hours should be spent on math.
 * Topic Choice A:**
 * Argue that schools designing curriculum for grades 9 - 12 should have more, less, or the same time devoted to Art as Math.**