What is Art?

Write a personal definition of art.
A piece of art is a man-made creation made for the purpose of communicating truths, feelings, or ideas. 

What do you know via Art as an Area of Knowledge?  Give a specific example to support your response.

I think that the Knowledge Area of Art can help you to learn more about yourself. In creating art, you can take what is inside of you (feelings, thoughts, ideas...) and bring them into the material world in order to examine them. By examining your art, you can gain a lot of knowledge about how you really feel, or what you value or maybe it will trigger an idea you weren't conscious you had. For example, I once decided to paint a barn scene. As I began to sketch out my ideas, I realized that the scene I was thinking of was the view at the beginning of one of my favorite movies. Through this, I was reminded of something I valued. After the painting was completed, I was also able to look at it and learn more about myself. I liked the colors in the painting and that way that the sun came through the trees. I could tell that I liked nature. The overall tone of the piece was calm and peaceful. Because I liked the piece, I could tell that I liked peace and calm. Other people could learn about themselves in similar ways. 

Knowledge Issues in History

1.  What is historical pluralism?
I don't know what it is and I can't find any information on it.


Historical pluralism refers to the idea that multiple (even contrasting) histories may be written (attributable to differences in historial evidence used, personal perspective (bias) of the historian etc). ~Dr. Gilligan 

2. What factors influence the process by which the historian picks and chooses his/her "facts"?  Please provide a specific example for each factor.
The reliability of the sources (ex. Nazis and Jews may say different things about concentration camps), the date of the sources (ex. whether they were written at the time of the event they describe, written before it, or after it) , the number of times the fact is mentioned in the same way (ex. the more people say the same thing the more likely the historian is to believe the fact) , whether or not the fact makes sense to the historian (ex. if they were told that Americans flew cows to India during a famine for them the Indians to eat in the 1700s, a historian would be unlikely to believe it) .

3.  According to Reuben Abel: "The patterns to be found in past events are selected by the historian; like the hypothesis of the scientist, they may be suggested, but are neither imposed nor dictated, by the facts" (Man is the Measure (MIM), p. 166-7)."  Based on your experience with the Cheques Lab, how far do you agree with this explanation of history?


I agree with the statement for the most part. I guess that facts can't really dictate patterns. The conclusions we made about the Whitneys from the checks were all our own hypothesis. We don't know why things were then way were. The checks don't tell us that the Whitneys had a son, but it is strongly implied by the data in the checks.

4.  Abel also writes: "Macaulay regards history as a branch of literature (MIM, p. 174)."  How would Jill Lepore of "Just the Facts, Ma'am" respond?  Please provide to specific quote from the article to justify your claim.

Lepore would probably understand what Abel is saying. She quotes Jane Austen (a writer of fiction) and the Author of Tom Jones (a work of fiction) and they both make statements to the effect that their fictional novels are just as true as history books. Lepore says, "Fielding insisted that what flowed from his pen was “true history”; fiction was what historians wrote."

5.   What does Reuben Abel mean when he says: "No crucial experiment can test the validity of a theory of history, any more than than it can the truth of a metaphysical theory (MIM, p. 174)."?

He means that there is no way to go back in the past and prove a historical theory just like there is no  way to prove a metaphysical theory. Metaphysical theories are philosophic explanations of what things are like and why they are there. Both metaphysical theories and historical theories need some overarching authority to ultimately prove or disprove them. 

Art

Choice A. Did you know that many tribal cultures have no word for art or artist?

Without words for art is it still possible to create and appreciate art?

An example of a tribal culture without a word for Art is Bali. In Bali, activities such as painting are closely connected to religious ritual. I think that this changes the artists purposes in creating art. Rather than trying to make something for the sake of art, they are simply participating in religious ritual. Because of their purpose, I would not call the things they create as art. However, I think it is possible for us to create statues and paintings just like theirs and call them art, because our purpose would be different. Or, if we found ancient artifacts of their creations we could call them art because they would no longer be fulfilling their purposes. 

I definitely think it is possible for these tribes to appreciate art though. If they saw something man-made for the purpose of art and admired it, they would be appreciating art. Because their creations are used for specific purposes though, they may not appreciate "non-practical" art as much as their own creations. They might see our art as useless.

In such communities does art have a different function or role within the society?

Yes, in Bali it has religious functions.

To what extent then is "art" a culturally relative term?

I guess I wouldn't call art a culturally relative term.

Stanford Prison Experiment

What police procedures are used during arrests, and how do these procedures lead people to feel confused, fearful, and dehumanized?
Police take people out of their environments and forcibly take them to unfamiliar and more uncomfortable locations. Police don't talk very much, only saying what is exactly necessary in the situation. People are pushed up against a car, so they can't see what is happening to them and they have no way to escape. Handcuffs are also placed on them. 


People could feel confused because there is not much communication between themselves and the police. 
They could feel fearful because they have no control over the situation and because they are being removed from their homes.
They could feel dehumanized because of both the lack of communication and the harsh treatment.  


After the study, how do you think the prisoners and guards felt when they saw each other in the same civilian clothes again and saw their prison reconverted to a basement laboratory hallway?


The prisoners probably felt confused, and maybe they even ashamed of themselves. Seeing everything go back to normal would remind them that the whole thing had only been an experiment, and that all of the pain, humiliation, and suffering they had been through was all just a set up. They would be reminded that they did in fact have control in the situation and could have left at anytime. I think it could also make them angry, they were miss treated for no reason. They would also probably feel relieved that it was all over.


The guards who had been cruel probably felt horrified with themselves. They had become terrible people. When the prisoners were dressed in the same clothes the guards were, the guards would be reminded that the prisoners were no different than they were. They had miss treated normal people, not animals. 


Some of the guards might feel angry because their power and authority had been taken away.