Embryonic Fury: Stem Cell Research vs. The American Legal System
The present state of American politics can be reasonably characterized as a conflict of interests between the utilitarian left and the moral right. The issue of stem cell research certainly can be described in this manner, and the wide range of viewpoints expressed in the blogosphere reflect the difference in opinion concerning stem cell research. The editorial “A Law in Time?”, taken from the Nature website and representing the liberal perspective, discusses and disapproves of the recent decision by an American federal judge to block President Obama’s lift of the Bush ban on stem cell research. In opposition, the editorial “A Wrong Righted”, taken from the Washington Post editorial column and representing the conservative opinion, supports the judge’s decision from a moral standpoint, arguing that Obama was incorrect in his decision to lift the ban. Of the two editorials, “A Law in Time” provides vastly more convincing evidence to support its claim because of its rational nature, whereas “A Wrong Righted” relies on a conservative moral justification for the judge’s ruling.
In “A Law in Time?” the author argues for the effectiveness and radical potential of stem cell research. He states that “a halt to stem cell research would be devastating to scientific progress, as well as suffering citizens.” He also argues that the decision made by the judge was incompatible with the wishes of the majority of the voting populous. He states that “Congress is highly unlikely to overturn Dickey–Wicker, which touches directly on abortion politics. Yet polls show that 50–60% of Americans, including many who oppose abortion, are sympathetic to government funding for human embryonic-stem-cell research.” The concern that he raises with Congress is not that they will ultimately disagree with the judge’s decision and vote accordingly. Instead he is troubled by the fact that since this issue is so divisive and that the ruling has come so close to the general election, that representatives will be unlikely to bring this issue to a vote any time soon.
In “A Wrong Righted” the author is in agreement with the argument put forth by the judge who issued the ruling. What the ruling came down to is essentially an interpretation of the Dickey-Wicker amendment, which banned government funding to support acts which would damage embryonic cells. The author states that the amendment is poorly written and ambiguous, which allowed for stem cell research to be done up until the judge’s ruling. The author argues that “no matter the legislation, the destruction and defamation of embryonic stem cells should not be championed by science under the banner of supposed progress.” The author is arguing because of his personal moral beliefs, which cannot be justified rationally, as is the nature of moral claims in general.
I feel that the author of “A Law in Time?” was far more successful in his efforts, because his argument was based on reasoning and concern for the people who stand to benefit from this research. However, I am admittedly biased because of my respect for logic and high standards for soundness and justification when arguments are being evaluated. The author of “A Wrong Righted” does not base his argument on reason, however I do not think that he intends to. This is a conscious choice on the part of the author that I simply disagree with.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v467/n7311/full/467007a.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vegetarianism: The Silent Killer?
I will never be a vegetarian. This much I know to be true. I like meat too much, and have too much concern for my personal health to commit to a lifestyle in which I restrict my diet on a daily basis to a limited realm of foods. Social enculturation since the days of my childhood has encouraged me to practice a balanced diet of nutritious fruits, vegetables, vitamins, and grains, but also a healthy amount of protein each day. However, in the last 15 to 20 years, the number of vegetarians in the United States has grown from just over 3 million in 1990 to 7.3 million today (Perlot 1). Thousands of nutritionists have praised vegetarianism for its health benefits; however, a growing school of thought among researching nutritionists suggests that vegetarianism may not be as healthy as is commonly believed.
In a recent cross-sectional research survey, Dr. Ramona Robinson-O’Brien of St. Johns University sought the answer to the question of vegetarianism and its effects on the health of those who follow the practice. She and her consultants mailed a survey to just over 2,500 young people, among them current, former, and never vegetarians, asking them a series of questions about their respective daily diets. The survey inquired about weight status, dietary intake such as vitamins from fruit and vegetables, caloric intake, as well as if any dietary changes had been made by the participants to reduce their own weight. The results were analyzed and divided on the basis of socioeconomic status and sex, and the participants were divided into an adolescent (15-18) and adult (19-23) group. Of the roughly 2,500 participants who responded to the survey, 4.3% identified themselves as current vegetarians, 10.8% identified themselves as former vegetarians, and the final 84.9% had never practiced vegetarianism.
The results of the data analysis proved to be quite interesting. Some results were to be expected; for instance, current vegetarians were less likely than former vegetarians or non-vegetarians to be overweight or obese. They also were more likely to have healthy levels of fruit and vegetable vitamin intake, and also reported lower daily caloric intake levels. However, current vegetarians were far more likely to have practiced a number of unhealthful practices in an apparent attempt to lose weight. Adolescent and young adult vegetarians were far more likely than former and non-vegetarians to report binge eating with a loss of control. They also were more likely to engage in extreme unhealthful weight-control behaviors, such as under-eating, protein deprivation, and intake of artificial sweeteners.
In data analysis, the researchers raise an interesting point. They identify the health benefits of vegetarianism very clearly; vegetarians get more essential vitamins and healthy fats than either of the other two groups. Therefore, the researchers would agree with the statement that vegetarians practice a more healthful dietary route than the omnivorous, provided that sufficient alternative sources of protein and fats are included in their diet. However, they suggest that vegetarianism as a practice seems to attract the sort of person who is willing to sacrifice health in order to reduce weight. They do not have a concern about the practice of vegetarianism; rather the concern is with the psychological motivation of the people who are vegetarians. They seem to be more concerned with their weight than they are concerned with their health, and that is often more dangerous than a slightly less healthy diet. The researchers seem to suggest that vegetarianism in principle is absolutely a healthy way of living, but that it is sometimes used by certain weight-insecure individuals as an easy and sometimes unhealthy way to shed a few pounds.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 1 ProjectAdolescent and Young Adult Vegetarianism: Better Dietary Intake and Weight Outcomes but Increased Risk of Disordered Eating Behaviors :http://www.mdconsult.com.libproxy.lib.unc.edu/das/article/body/218547814-2/jorg=journal&source=&sp=21986431&sid=0/N/692295/1.html?issn=0002-8223\ Dr. Ramona Robinson-O’Brien; St. Johns University 2009http://www.raw-food-health.net/NumberOfVegetarians.html Andrew Perlot, 2009
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ethical treatment of animals. Do you not read that and cringe a little bit? Not because treating animals with respect is a bad thing; that would be ridiculous. You cringe because if you are asked to give your opinion on the topic, almost no matter what you say, it is possible for someone to find an inconsistency in the logical analysis of your opinion, and if you give your opinion you will often incense your audience. According to Clyve Wynne, author of the article “Our conflicted relationship with animals,” our attitude towards animals occupies a “moral gray area.” But does it? Is our treatment of animals sometimes just, and other times not? Furthermore, how is it that, in a world that treats every living member unequally, it is possible to affix a definition to the word justice? Clyve Wynne’s dilemma stems from the assumption that animals exist in this world as equal subjects to be judged rationally against one another. I do not struggle over this presupposition, because I do not believe it to be true. Assigning a universal value to all animals is irrational, for two reasons: first, it inherently implies that humans are superior to all other animals, and second, values are relative to each individual, but never universal.
In the article, Mr. Wynne attempts to make sense of human relationships with other animals. Wynne’s attempt at an argument is not so much a direct confrontation to the issue, but rather an exploration of why an apparent inconsistency exists. He cites psychologist Hal Herzog, author of Some we Love, Some we Hate, Some we Eat as saying that our conceptions of values towards animals is inconsistent; we do not value each animal equally. This is a relatively non-controversial claim. However, Herzog goes on to argue that this is a mistake. He says that the ethical dilemma that people struggle with concerning their relationship with animals occupies what philosopher Strachan Donnelly refers to as the “troubled middle.” This essentially means that moral judgments are not universal, and therefore to apply a universal judgment to a relative issue results in difficulties and contradictory opinions. Wynne uses the example of cats to illustrate this dilemma. While cats are used for testing in clinical health trials, something that animal rights activists are up in arms over, they are also attributed a wealth of emotional and intrinsic value by humans. Because of their appeal to human emotions, people allow their cats to do almost whatever they want under the rule of the owner. This includes venturing out and killing birds, mice, and anything the cat seems to find amusing to toy with, then slaughter. It would seem that if one were to oppose the unethical treatment of animals, that person would have to prevent their cat from harming other animals needlessly. That is not the way we think though, and Wynne acknowledges that fact. He goes on to give further examples of human hypocrisy on the matter, and arrives at a thesis. According to Wynne, our attitudes, relationships, and interactions with animals are “more complicated than we thought,” and any judgments we make are inevitably going to be ridden with contradiction and irrationality.
I disagree wholly with Wynne’s thesis. He assumes that human attitudes and relationships with animals are based on some moral fixture in the mind of a given person that is spewing out blanket judgments. Wynne would have you believe that a person could wholeheartedly believe and abide by the judgment “it is wrong to kill animals.” This is simply not the case. A judgment of that nature has the presupposition that all animals are equally valued by all other animals, when it is plainly not so. To illustrate this point, allow me to pose a question. Is it worse to kill an elephant or a mosquito? Animal rights activists may say it is wrong for either act to occur, but they are simply lying to themselves. However, I must entertain the possibility that some poor activist actually values mosquitoes and elephants equally, so I pose another question. Is it just to kill a mosquito which is spreading lime disease to human children? If they were to say yes, it is just, they value the child more than the mosquito, and if no, the converse. Asking questions of this nature assume internal moral value structure, and necessarily require any answer given to be a contradiction. It is questions like these that confuse people like Mr. Wynne, because they apparently reveal an inconsistency in the thought pattern of people who think that animals deserve respect. Wynne believes that all animals are created equal, like all people are created equal, when that is simply not the case. Cows that give milk and meat to aid the survival of many other species are more valuable than dust mites. Both are animals, and under the moral stances of some, deserve equal treatment, but those people are wrong.
In addition, it is a mistake to affix a definition to the word “justice” as it corresponds to morality, then base an argument on your personal definition of what justice is. In the school of philosophy, the vast majority of scholars agree that either it is impossible that we could have knowledge of a moral code that does exist, or that simply no such universal morality exists. This school is called moral relativism, and Mr. Wynne seems to discount or disagree with the overwhelming philosophical majority. Though this discrepancy does not immediately dissolve his argument, it does raise questions about the amount of depth of logical analysis that Wynne considered when he composed his argument. If you raise a philosophical question about morality and you are not a philosopher, it might be a good idea to respond to the question with consideration given to the overwhelming scholarly stance on the issue.
There are undoubtedly people who think some animals deserve equal treatment to humans, but there cannot possibly be someone who treats every animal with the same amount of respect as they treat humans. What these activists and pro-animal rights fail to acknowledge is the inherent conception of human superiority that is apparent within their arguments. They take it upon themselves to protect the rights of animals, which is no doubt a noble endeavor. However, the assumed role of guardian of animal rights inherently implies human superiority. If all animals are to be treated equally, would these people be torn between saving a cat from death and saving a human from a similar fate? I think not. The point of this argument is not to condemn animal rights activists for their views; rather I aim to explain that the dilemma expressed in Wynne’s article is not really as confusing as he makes it seem. It is far more practical to simply admit that animals are not all equal, and treat each accordingly. Moral ambiguity is avoided, and contradictory ideas are rendered irrelevant.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vegetarianism: The Silent Killer?
I will never be a vegetarian. This much I know to be true. I like meat too much, and have too much concern for my personal health to commit to a lifestyle in which I restrict my diet on a daily basis to a limited realm of foods. Social enculturation since the days of my childhood has encouraged me to practice a balanced diet of nutritious fruits, vegetables, vitamins, and grains, but also a healthy amount of protein each day. However, in the last 15 to 20 years, the number of vegetarians in the United States has grown from just over 3 million in 1990 to 7.3 million today (Perlot 1). Thousands of nutritionists have praised vegetarianism for its health benefits; however, a growing school of thought among researching nutritionists suggests that vegetarianism may not be as healthy as is commonly believed.
In a recent cross-sectional research survey, Dr. Ramona Robinson-O’Brien of St. Johns University sought the answer to the question of vegetarianism and its effects on the health of those who follow the practice. She and her consultants mailed a survey to just over 2,500 young people, among them current, former, and never vegetarians, asking them a series of questions about their respective daily diets. The survey inquired about weight status, dietary intake such as vitamins from fruit and vegetables, caloric intake, as well as if any dietary changes had been made by the participants to reduce their own weight. The results were analyzed and divided on the basis of socioeconomic status and sex, and the participants were divided into an adolescent (15-18) and adult (19-23) group. Of the roughly 2,500 participants who responded to the survey, 4.3% identified themselves as current vegetarians, 10.8% identified themselves as former vegetarians, and the final 84.9% had never practiced vegetarianism.
The results of the data analysis proved to be quite interesting. Some results were to be expected; for instance, current vegetarians were less likely than former vegetarians or non-vegetarians to be overweight or obese. They also were more likely to have healthy levels of fruit and vegetable vitamin intake, and also reported lower daily caloric intake levels. However, current vegetarians were far more likely to have practiced a number of unhealthful practices in an apparent attempt to lose weight. Adolescent and young adult vegetarians were far more likely than former and non-vegetarians to report binge eating with a loss of control. They also were more likely to engage in extreme unhealthful weight-control behaviors, such as under-eating, protein deprivation, and intake of artificial sweeteners.
In data analysis, the researchers raise an interesting point. They identify the health benefits of vegetarianism very clearly; vegetarians get more essential vitamins and healthy fats than either of the other two groups. Therefore, the researchers would agree with the statement that vegetarians practice a more healthful dietary route than the omnivorous, provided that sufficient alternative sources of protein and fats are included in their diet. However, they suggest that vegetarianism as a practice seems to attract the sort of person who is willing to sacrifice health in order to reduce weight. They do not have a concern about the practice of vegetarianism; rather the concern is with the psychological motivation of the people who are vegetarians. They seem to be more concerned with their weight than they are concerned with their health, and that is often more dangerous than a slightly less healthy diet. The researchers seem to suggest that vegetarianism in principle is absolutely a healthy way of living, but that it is sometimes used by certain weight-insecure individuals as an easy and sometimes unhealthy way to shed a few pounds.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 1 ProjectAdolescent and Young Adult Vegetarianism: Better Dietary Intake and Weight Outcomes but Increased Risk of Disordered Eating Behaviors :http://www.mdconsult.com.libproxy.lib.unc.edu/das/article/body/218547814-2/jorg=journal&source=&sp=21986431&sid=0/N/692295/1.html?issn=0002-8223\ Dr. Ramona Robinson-O’Brien; St. Johns University 2009http://www.raw-food-health.net/NumberOfVegetarians.html Andrew Perlot, 2009
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feeder 2.1
Fat loss and muscle gain are two complementary endeavors. A good rule of thumb, at least according to many leading sports physicians and nutritionists, suggests that the more muscle one has on their body, the more they can eat without gaining weight. However, exercise is not the only factor for optimal body weight; nutrition also plays an absolutely crucial role. In his article, “Keep the Body Guessing,” Dr. Tony Horton explores the formula necessary for proper weight loss, while maintaining muscle mass. He provides a workout plan to outline what one must do physically to maximize muscle growth and minimize fat percentage, and also proposes a crafted nutrition plan to supplement the workout.
Horton’s exercise plan is based on the concept of “muscle confusion.” Muscle confusion is, according to Horton, of paramount importance to growth, and also prevention of workout plateaus. The way he implements muscle confusion is by breaking down his suggested exercise program into 3 4-week segments, each of which have three phases: learning, mastery, and recovery. The first week of the segment is the learning phase; this phase is where the body learns how to perform the given exercises that may possibly be new to the muscles. During this phase the muscles attribute the exercises to muscle memory, thus making the next two weeks workouts slightly easier. Weeks 2 and 3 comprise the mastery phase, which is the phase in which the muscles are operating at their peak. This is where maximum effort should be seen, and where the optimum output should be at its highest. Week 4 is the recovery phase. Horton prescribes a less intense workout schedule for week 4, with an emphasis on stretching and core strength as opposed to heavy lifting and cardiovascular exercise. Week 4 is also intended to help the muscles “forget” how to do the exercises that it learned in the earlier weeks. After each week in segment 1 has been completed, the cycle is repeated for segment 2; however he prescribes scrambling the exercises so they do not directly match those of segment 1. This is the base of the entire premise of the concept of muscle confusion.
In addition to muscle confusion, Horton also stresses the importance of exercising complementary muscle systems on the same day. Complementary muscle systems occur when two or more muscle systems are utilized to perform any one given exercise. For example, a pushup utilizes the pectoral, triceps, and biceps muscle systems. Using complementary muscle systems is very important because of the overlap of some systems. For instance, chest exercises almost always utilize the triceps, and back exercises almost always utilize biceps. The varying of systems results in higher yield output, and also allows for rest of complete systems in between days.
All Animals are NOT Created Equal
The ethical treatment of animals. Do you not read that and cringe a little bit? Not because treating animals with respect is a bad thing; that would be ridiculous. You cringe because if you are asked to give your opinion on the topic, almost no matter what you say, it is possible for someone to find an inconsistency in the logical analysis of your opinion, and if you give your opinion you will often incense your audience. According to Clyve Wynne, author of the article “Our conflicted relationship with animals,” our attitude towards animals occupies a “moral gray area.” But does it? Is our treatment of animals sometimes just, and other times not? Furthermore, how is it that, in a world that treats every living member unequally, it is possible to affix a definition to the word justice? Clyve Wynne’s dilemma stems from the assumption that animals exist in this world as equal subjects to be judged rationally against one another. I do not struggle over this presupposition, because I do not believe it to be true. Assigning a universal value to all animals is irrational, for two reasons: first, it inherently implies that humans are superior to all other animals, and second, values are relative to each individual, but never universal.
In the article, Mr. Wynne attempts to make sense of human relationships with other animals. Wynne’s attempt at an argument is not so much a direct confrontation to the issue, but rather an exploration of why an apparent inconsistency exists. He cites psychologist Hal Herzog, author of Some we Love, Some we Hate, Some we Eat as saying that our conceptions of values towards animals is inconsistent; we do not value each animal equally. This is a relatively non-controversial claim. However, Herzog goes on to argue that this is a mistake. He says that the ethical dilemma that people struggle with concerning their relationship with animals occupies what philosopher Strachan Donnelly refers to as the “troubled middle.” This essentially means that moral judgments are not universal, and therefore to apply a universal judgment to a relative issue results in difficulties and contradictory opinions. Wynne uses the example of cats to illustrate this dilemma. While cats are used for testing in clinical health trials, something that animal rights activists are up in arms over, they are also attributed a wealth of emotional and intrinsic value by humans. Because of their appeal to human emotions, people allow their cats to do almost whatever they want under the rule of the owner. This includes venturing out and killing birds, mice, and anything the cat seems to find amusing to toy with, then slaughter. It would seem that if one were to oppose the unethical treatment of animals, that person would have to prevent their cat from harming other animals needlessly. That is not the way we think though, and Wynne acknowledges that fact. He goes on to give further examples of human hypocrisy on the matter, and arrives at a thesis. According to Wynne, our attitudes, relationships, and interactions with animals are “more complicated than we thought,” and any judgments we make are inevitably going to be ridden with contradiction and irrationality.
I disagree wholly with Wynne’s thesis. He assumes that human attitudes and relationships with animals are based on some moral fixture in the mind of a given person that is spewing out blanket judgments. Wynne would have you believe that a person could wholeheartedly believe and abide by the judgment “it is wrong to kill animals.” This is simply not the case. A judgment of that nature has the presupposition that all animals are equally valued by all other animals, when it is plainly not so. To illustrate this point, allow me to pose a question. Is it worse to kill an elephant or a mosquito? Animal rights activists may say it is wrong for either act to occur, but they are simply lying to themselves. However, I must entertain the possibility that some poor activist actually values mosquitoes and elephants equally, so I pose another question. Is it just to kill a mosquito which is spreading lime disease to human children? If they were to say yes, it is just, they value the child more than the mosquito, and if no, the converse. Asking questions of this nature assume internal moral value structure, and necessarily require any answer given to be a contradiction. It is questions like these that confuse people like Mr. Wynne, because they apparently reveal an inconsistency in the thought pattern of people who think that animals deserve respect. Wynne believes that all animals are created equal, like all people are created equal, when that is simply not the case. Cows that give milk and meat to aid the survival of many other species are more valuable than dust mites. Both are animals, and under the moral stances of some, deserve equal treatment, but those people are wrong.
In addition, it is a mistake to affix a definition to the word “justice” as it corresponds to morality, then base an argument on your personal definition of what justice is. In the school of philosophy, the vast majority of scholars agree that either it is impossible that we could have knowledge of a moral code that does exist, or that simply no such universal morality exists. This school is called moral relativism, and Mr. Wynne seems to discount or disagree with the overwhelming philosophical majority. Though this discrepancy does not immediately dissolve his argument, it does raise questions about the amount of depth of logical analysis that Wynne considered when he composed his argument. If you raise a philosophical question about morality and you are not a philosopher, it might be a good idea to respond to the question with consideration given to the overwhelming scholarly stance on the issue.
There are undoubtedly people who think some animals deserve equal treatment to humans, but there cannot possibly be someone who treats every animal with the same amount of respect as they treat humans. What these activists and pro-animal rights fail to acknowledge is the inherent conception of human superiority that is apparent within their arguments. They take it upon themselves to protect the rights of animals, which is no doubt a noble endeavor. However, the assumed role of guardian of animal rights inherently implies human superiority. If all animals are to be treated equally, would these people be torn between saving a cat from death and saving a human from a similar fate? I think not. The point of this argument is not to condemn animal rights activists for their views; rather I aim to explain that the dilemma expressed in Wynne’s article is not really as confusing as he makes it seem. It is far more practical to simply admit that animals are not all equal, and treat each accordingly. Moral ambiguity is avoided, and contradictory ideas are rendered irrelevant.
<object height="36" width="470"><param value="http://www.divshare.com/flash/audio_embed?data=YTo2OntzOjU6ImFwaUlkIjtzOjE6IjQiO3M6NjoiZmlsZUlkIjtpOjEzMjk4MTY2O3M6NDoiY29kZSI7czoxMjoiMTMyOTgxNjYtMzE0IjtzOjY6InVzZXJJZCI7aToyMTMwNzk5O3M6MTI6ImV4dGVybmFsQ2FsbCI7aToxO3M6NDoidGltZSI7aToxMjkwNTI0ODM2O30=&autoplay=default" name="movie"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed wmode="transparent" height="36" width="470" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" src="http://www.divshare.com/flash/audio_embed?data=YTo2OntzOjU6ImFwaUlkIjtzOjE6IjQiO3M6NjoiZmlsZUlkIjtpOjEzMjk4MTY2O3M6NDoiY29kZSI7czoxMjoiMTMyOTgxNjYtMzE0IjtzOjY6InVzZXJJZCI7aToyMTMwNzk5O3M6MTI6ImV4dGVybmFsQ2FsbCI7aToxO3M6NDoidGltZSI7aToxMjkwNTI0ODM2O30=&autoplay=default"></embed></object>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feeder 3.1
Feeder 3.1
What is art? This may seem like a silly question, since most people are so incredibly familiar with artistic disciplines like music, film, dance, painting, etc. However the question is one that has puzzled philosophers dating back to Plato, and a satisfactory answer still has not been given; there is much debate in the community of aesthetic philosophy about a definition of art. Joseph Margolis, in his article “The Importance of Being Earnest about the Definition and Metaphysics of Art,” proposes a variation of what is known as the Formalist theory of the metaphysics of Art. To explain this theory, he uses perhaps the most famous piece ever produced by my personal favorite artist: Andy Warhol and his Brillo boxes. Margolis argues that according to the formalist theory, that Warhol’s Brillo Boxes should not be considered works of art.
The question that Margolis raises is about the metaphysics of what art can be. There are such a vastly wide variety of objects, concepts, sounds, and images that are considered to be works of art, that it is difficult to attribute a formal definition that encompasses all of them. Margolis, in true form of an old-school aesthetician, is a formalist. Formalism is a school of thought that preaches that objects that are works of art must have formal characteristics contained within their phenomenally observable properties, i.e. the canvas of a painting, or what goes on stage at a play. This means that the observer must be able to make a judgment about whether they are observing art based on the physical properties of the piece only. Margolis brings up Warhol’s Brillo Box as an example of a piece that is conventionally thought of to be a work of art, that he says should not be. Since the boxes so perfectly mimic the formal characteristics of an actual Brillo Box, Margolis says that to the phenomenal experience, the two would be indistinguishable. Since an actual Brillo Box is not a work of art, Margolis says that Warhol’s creations are not either.
I feel very unconvinced with Margolis’s argument. Not only would his definition of art exclude works like Warhol’s, but it also excludes the conceptual aspect of art from the definition. Works of art like the Brillo Box are not works of art because they are beautiful, original, or shocking; they are works of art because the artist has created them, presented them to critique, and been granted the respect of a work of art by the art community. I would hesitate to adopt the formalist theory of art, because it is so exclusive and harsh, as well as plainly wrong. The art world is an institution, and it is that institution that determines whether or not something is a work of art. Art must be 1) an artifact created or manipulated by people, that is 2) presented as the subject of aesthetic and/or conceptual criticism.
Article: | The Importance of Being Earnest about the Definition and Metaphysics of Art | ||||
Author: | Margolis, Joseph | ||||
Journal: | The Journal of aesthetics and art criticism | ||||
ISSN: | 0021-8529 | Date: | 2010 | ||
Volume: | 68 | Issue: | 3 | Page: | 215 |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 3 Project
