Korsmeyer, 150-154 and 171-178 (Bourdieu and Cohen); Looking High and Low, chapter 2, by Liza Bakewell; and chapter 5, by Barbara Babcock.

From Distinction.

This passage talks about how the viewer cannot completely appreciate a work of art without knowing the "culture" or background of the piece or of art in general. "A work of art has meaning and interest only for someone who possesses the cultural competence, that is, the code, into which it is encoded." I feel like this is true to some extent, if you don't know something about what your are viewing or about the culture you which to explore you cannot completely appreciate it. Although sometimes it helps to not know about the piece of work to experience it for yourself and on your own terms. I feel like this doesnt only have to do with art, or culture for that matter. Someone could look at the desk in our classroom and say, 'now that is a cool shaped table,' while someone who knows what it takes to construct and create such desk would look at it and say 'that is a really cool shaped desk, i wonder if they did... or this took alot of time because...' In everything in life it helps to know a little about the subject or thing you are dealing with to fully understand and appreciate it to its fullest.


High and Low Thinking about High and Low Art.

In this passage Cohen discusses the distinctions between what is and what is not. He first gives the example of a movie critic, saying that the critic wouldnt give the movie a serious review because it was not a serious movie. Cohen goes on to question high and low art, and how this critic could "articulate this difference," between art and non-art. He gives the example of Shakespeare and how most people think that Shakespeare is deeper than that of the 'Simpsons,' But why is this? Why do we make these distinctions?
Art on its own is such a subjective subject that everyone will definitely makes distinctions on what is considered good, bad, high, or low art. And who can say whether it is art or not? Its up to the individual, and I agree. Things don't have to be one way or the other, everyone is naturally going to have thier own opinions, so how can one person set a standard for everyone else to follow?


The Implications of Difference in the Mexico City

In this reading, Liza Bakewell talks about Mexican contemporary artists. She describes how a painting that is "folklorico" by critics is considered bad and not inspired by the Mexican crafts. But how is she to say that these paintings are bad? A piece of art does not have to fit the standards they have for "westerized" looking art in order for it to be considered "good art." Yet the implications that art had on the cultural and political ways of how things were done are interesting. I didn't think that they could be connected art and politics? I understand art and culture can be interconnected, but art and politics?


The Tribal Artist in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction

Barbara Babcock dicusses how art and ceramic making has changed in the Pueblo Indian tribes over the years. She goes into detail about how Maria and Julian Martinez were made into this "poster image" of the Pueblo image because of the handmade crafts and pieces they made. She goes as far as to say that they were museums themselves. She said that Pueblo women are basically aesthetic objects in themselves because of the experience that comes along with the traditional making of the Pueblo pots and the images associated with these pieces. I liked the way Babcock wrote. Her piece on the Pueblo women I feel she did them justice in her discussion on their work, them as a whole, and as a person.