In response to Shawna...

Shawna asked: "Do you think that it is possible for someone to be consistent in their feelings towards a particular piece of art? meaning not change the interpretation at all in the slightest."
In short, yes. I think that throughout one's life, one can certainly gain new appreciation for new things and lose appreciation for others. (For example, I've recently been getting into jazz music, a genre that I never would have expected to like, had you asked me a few years ago.) I think that this is inevitable because of the drastic change, events, and growth that people experience throughout their lives. However, I believe that it is definitely possible to maintain the same appreciation for certain works throughout these life changes. For example, I have always loved Whitman's Noiseless Patient Spider. I first read this poem about 5 years ago, while in a dramatically different point of my life. To this day, I find this poem beautiful and moving for inexplicable reasons. Similarly, I know that I will always harbor a deep love for certain novels, music, or works of visual art. To me, there are certain things that just hit you; they affect you in a way that is on such a deep level that it cannot mitigated by time or the changing world around it.
Q: How has your taste in visual art, music, or poetry/prose changed or evolved throughout the years? Have there been any significant events in your life that have drastically altered or affected these preferences?

Significant or Irrelevant?

In Bell's view, a work of art's subject matter and symbolism are irrelevant, if not downright distracting, to the overall work, and I find this incredibly hard to believe. I think it cheapens the entire experience to say that art is nothing more than a certain way of arranging lines and colours. I dont believe that something necessarily HAS to have some intrinsic deeper meaning or intricate symbolism for it to be considered artwork, but I also dont believe that this aspect should be completely disregarded all together. I have taken many art classes, and I have frequently worked independently. Through both of these experiences, I have accrued many pieces that Ive done over the years. Some of them were assignments that I had no interest in completing and for which I sort of did the bare minimum. Others were completely of my own volition and creativity, and others still were a mixture of the two. I think that some art may not have any meaning, symbolism, or significance, and that's okay. But I believe that the pieces of art that do have contextual or subliminal meaning should definitely recieve credit for those aspects. The artist either intended for them to be there or was affected by his/her surroundings and it came across in the piece, and he/she should not be robbed of that 2nd layer of richness.
Q: Do you think that artwork created for an art class or as an assignment should still be considered art?

Pornography versus Prostitution

This is only slightly related to class discussion by the thread of pornography, but I had a conversation with someone about it the other day and figured I'd blog about it. So.. Prostitution is illegal because our government has decided that people should not be allowed to sell sex for money. However, following their logic, I fail to understand why pornography is not illegal. Are the people in the videos being paid? Yes. What is their job? To have sex. Whether there is a camera involved or not, or whether the individual is being paid to have sex with someone else or with the person giving them the money, he or she is still being paid for sex. If youre going to outlaw one, why not both? By the same mentality, if youre going to allow one, why not the other?
In my own view, I think prostitution should become a legalized and regulated official industry and all else should remain illegal (random hoes trying to make a buck for their pimp). If prostitution were legal, I'm sure it would diminish the underground venerial disease-ridden prostitute-on-the-street-corner business that is in effect today. Why would anyone choose to go to an unregulated hooker when they could go somewhere that is legal and has regulated standards? Not to mention the number of jobs it would create.
Q: This proposal might be a little "out there"... what do you think about it? Should prostitution be legal? or is this suggestion completely out of line?

In response to Jenna...

Jenna asked: Do you think that Freud is correct in saying that our dreams are the hidden wishes that we dont want anyone to know about?
I have always been fascinated by dreams, possibly because mine are usually very vivid and crazy weird. In short, I dont think that they necessarily have to express deeply hidden desires (though they certainly can). I think dreams are a combination of the unconscious mind (including beliefs, desires, emotions etc) and random stimuli. For example, I often end up having dreams in which odd scenarios or obscure people are present. After waking up, I realize that I'd seen that obscure person on Facebook the day before or had a hypothetical conversation with a friend. Contrarily, I have also had dreams about a failing friendship in which I find myself desperately searching in the ocean for this friend (BLUNT symbolism, if you ask me). A third and final example is the stuff thats just plain weird and I have no idea where or why it is (subconscious imagination?). I think that dreams are a conglomeration of these three aspects; stimuli, unconscious mind, and inexplicably random shit.
Q: My boyfriend very rarely has good dreams. Are yours generally good or bad? How do you interpret the meaning or symbolism in your dreams? Do you take them seriously?

Phreud and Phantasy

One aspect of Freud's philosophy that I could not understand was his definition of fantasy and the fact that it must be suppressed or hidden. Contrarily, I believe that our phantasies (sexual or otherwise) are what make us human, regardless of their inapropriateness or repulsiveness. In some cases, our fantasies are what connect us. Yes, some phantasies such as rape, murder, or pedophelia are harmful to others. However, I feel that as long as the phantasy does not harm another person or interfere with his free will, there is no problem with it. Furthermore, I believe that there is a distinct line between mere fantasizing and actually fulfilling the fantasy. An artist who paints a representation of murder is far less repulsive or inappropriate than an actual murderer.
Q: Do you think that any sexual fantasies should be considered "wrong"? How do you define or support what should be considered inapropriate vs. what is acceptable?