A Critical Study on the Real Essence of ART

The world has become a very visual one - art is all around us, or at least they are art as people classify them. Understanding art is understanding our world. A good first step is to try to understand what is mean by art.
"Art--the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects."--(Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary)
The word "art" comes from the Latin ars, which, loosely translated, means "arrangement" or "to arrange", though in many dictionaries you will simply find it tautologically, translated as "art". This is the only universal definition of art—that whatever it is was at some point arranged in some way. A few examples that show this meaning is too broad, includes artifact, artifice, artillery, medical arts and military arts. However, there are many other colloquial uses of the word, all with some relation to its etymological roots.
A definition of art that seems correct to many Americans in the 21st century is likely to differ greatly from definitions of art in non-Western cultures, in tribal societies, and in other historical periods (Barnes, 2006).
Defining art raises problems also in that since the beginning of the 20th century some artists have sought to challenge the very definition of art. Their art objects may lack the qualities long associated with art, such as beauty, skilled craftsmanship, and clear organization. These art objects may even be indistinguishable from consumer products.
Art is a very slippery subject for whom everyone has a different definition. There had been a lot of curiosities on art. Academicians, thinkers, and scholars of all ages and nationalities around the globe have endeavored to define this thing called art. However, the definition of art is extremely elusive or indefinable. It is difficult (or perhaps impossible) to come up with a single definition that will include all forms of art and please everybody.
Recent attempts at explicating the essential character of art have given rise to discussions concerning the significance of this question for artistic or aesthetic theory and to skepticism in some quarters about the very possibility of defining ‘art’ (Berleant, 1964). While this issue raises numerous difficulties, not the least of these revolves around the nature of the concept of ‘art’ itself. Some term it an “open” concept, since its boundaries, by the very nature of an empirical concept, cannot be finally drawn. Consequently, defining art is a very subjective matter.
Thus, the word art connotes a sense of ability, of the mastery of a medium, of the efficient use of a language so as to express meaning, nearness or depth. Making this judgment requires a basis for criticism: a way to determine whether the sensory input meets the criteria to be considered art, whether it is perceived to be ugly or beautiful. Perception is always colored by experience, so a reaction to art as "ugly" or "beautiful" is necessarily subjective.
Although a firm definition of art may seem like a good idea, and
philosophers in the field of aesthetics have attempted to come up with one, it is
possible to create and enjoy art without such a definition.

(Research Proposal/AH2)

Vote Your Favorite Actor.... Into OFFICE?

DO not be surprised. Expect at least one if not all of the celebrities running for political office to have a position in the government. Track the history of elections and the people winning and it is no surprise that most of the political figures were once public figures or what we call celebrities. Should celebrities be encouraged to run for public office?
The thought of celebrities running for office can be connected in one scenario in Back to the Future- a scientific fictional novel- specifically Doc Brown's (main character) shocked response when Marty tells him that Ronald Reagan is President of the United States in 1985. "Then who's vice president?" asks Doc, "Jerry Lewis? I suppose Jane Wymann is the first lady. And Jack Benny is secretary of the Treasury”. It is a little joke that is so perfect. It is not surprising if Bob Gale and Robert Zemeckis revolved the entire script based on that one situation of trying to explain to someone from the past that a B ‑ movie actor has turn out to be the head of the nation.
Nowadays the idea of celebrities becoming politicians isn't as funny, because there have been so many in office. Just like in the United States of America, from the very famous Arnold Schwarzenegger to the lesser-known Fred Thompson, they are/were mayors, governors, senators, diplomats, you name it. Apart from those who actually run and/or are elected, there are a number of celebrities with political interests that don't include holding office. Actors such as Warren Beatty, George Clooney and Sean Penn continually gain media attention for their activist campaigns and charity work, and are constantly asked about their desire to run in the future.
In the Philippines, from Vilma Santos to Joseph Estrada, Jinggoy, Ramon Revilla and Bong, they are celebrities who gained political powers through their positions in the government and by the people who voted for them. They are just few of the many public figures turned political figures. And in this coming May 2007 election, still, several candidates are celebrities, like the boxing champ Manny Pacquiao and others like Cesar Montano and Richard Gomez.
In an era of political scandals and an increasingly unpopular war, does the country need a popular celebrity to take back the government “for the people”?
There are a number of factors that have made it possible for celebrities to run for elective office. One key aspect of celebrity politics in the post-World War II period has been the emergence of television and its enormous consequences for the political process. Prior to 1960, when television emerged as a major communications avenue, most people got their public affairs information from newspapers. In 1959, for example, more people indicated they received most of their information from newspapers and found the printed press to be more believable than television. Within ten years, though, these numbers would become reversed. Ever since that time, more people have tuned into television and found it to be a believable source compared to newspapers.
The television era advantages celebrities because these individuals are skillful at using the medium, are photogenic, and are very good at attracting media exposure. As the culture has moved toward the adoration of celebrities, celebrities make for great copy and receive a great deal of coverage when they enter into the political realm. In addition, celebrities are perfectly matched for the contemporary political era because of their wealth and fundraising capacity. With the high cost of political races and the large amount of money required to broadcast ads, fundraising is vital to electoral success. Finally, celebrities make good candidates because of the "white knight" phenomenon. In an era of extensive citizen cynicism about conventional politicians, voters often see celebrities as white knights from outside the political process who are too rich to be bought and thereby deserving of trust from the electorate. This gives celebrities a kind of credibility that normal politicians do not have.
But being famous alone does not guarantee victory as seen by the failure of John Glenn’s presidential bid, Oliver North’s unsuccessful Senate candidacy, and Bill Bradley’s inability to wrestle the Democratic nomination away from Al Gore, all in the US. Political success requires qualities beyond a famous name and celebrity background.
The biggest challenge for celebrity candidates is the tabloid press. Befitting their past as entertainers or just public figures, celebrities attract both positive and negative coverage. More so than other politicians, celebrities tend to get very personal coverage. Reporters are much more likely to focus on their background and personality than their substantive stances. This can either help or hurt celebrities, depending on what things are in their past that get uncovered by reporters.
The ultimate question of celebrities is what kind of office-holder will they be. Do celebrities make for effective governors, Senators, and representatives? What challenges face them when they win a major office? What determines how successful they will be in the governing process? Are they of worth of being elected?
Definitely not. Not to generalize it, but not all celebrities are smart especially when they aim for a public office.
Experience counts. Several experts said celebrities do better in office if they have some earlier experience with the political process. But seeing it, most celebrities running for office do not have any experience. It is an obvious use of popularity to gain political power. Worse case is that some celebrity candidates did not even finished schooling when they should have before entering politics. Education is very crucial here since we are talking of nation building and nation leading for progress. In addition, the very qualities (independence and originality) that voters find appealing often set against the media and legislators. When these individuals start complaining, voters sometimes see the celebrity as an amateur and a novice who is not up the governing job. If that perception becomes widespread, it is hard for celebrity politicians to govern very effectively.
Celebrities cover those candidates that are more worthy of the people’s votes. They are famous. People love them because of their shows, their acts, performances their products and everything. It is very unfair for those more deserving candidates because these celebrities are the ones often seen on public. That is why people more than likely to vote them right away into office-without thinking their abilities in politics- than the best candidate. People only see their skills as TV personalities and their abilities to convince people themselves.
One of the major difficulties that plague celebrity politicians is the problem on the lack of a firm political base. To win office, celebrities often assemble unconventional coalitions that transcend normal party alignments. Unlike established politicians who most appeal to conventional political constituencies, celebrities can build coalitions that are more broad-based. They can reach out to Republicans, Democrats, and Independents without necessarily compromising their public support. Although this electoral strategy works very well and helps to explain why celebrities win, this same quality harms them in the governing process. The presence of broad voter support often is based on a faithfulness that is not very deep. The lack of a firm base means that when their public supports drop, they do not have a committed base that will stay with them through thick and thin.
The possibilities are endless, the tabloids are at the ready and we, the public, are willing to consider it. Horror of horrors: Celebrity politicians are here to stay.
But whatever the possibilities may be, celebrities should not be encouraged to run for public political office.
Celebrities are famous for acting, singing and being famous. They should be happy with the fame that they possess and not try to parlay that on to another profession. Despite the few exceptions, actors should keep acting; rappers keep rapping.
If you are famous for what you do, keep doing it.

(Reaction Paper/AH2/2nd sem/Up Mindanao)