It's important to remember that your opinion and feelings may not match those around you—and that's alright!! We each have our own emotions and thoughts, and that's what makes art so special to each individual person.

This statement reflects a stereotype about women that undermines their complexity and suggests that intelligence and sexuality (being sexual (not necessarily a bad thing)) are mutually exclusive: if a woman is intellectual, she cannot experience or cause sexual pleasure, and if a woman is sexually liberated or sensual in any nature, she is lacking intelligence. This notion perpetuates extremely harmful gender stereotypes and reduces women to 2-D caricatures of themselves, implying that a woman cannot experience any pleasure if they want to be considered smart. It’s a critique of how society often views and judges women based on narrow definitions of their abilities and desires.

Sometimes being emotional isn't a bad thing, especially when it comes to art—it's meant to make its viewers feel something.

Pragmatics plays an integral role in art—we engage with art through discussion, reflection, or emotional response, using our own knowledge, identity, and bias to form our own assessment of artworks. However, the way in which we interact with the work of 'monstrous' individuals is not just a matter of simple pragmatics, but a combination of multiple factors.

I don't know if awed is the right word here, but I do understand where the author is coming from. Sometimes a person is so monstrous, so despicable you can't help but be consumed into the disparity between them as an individual and them as a creator.

I love the suggestions for an alternative title to The Cosby Show! It excludes any mention of Bill Cosby, and focuses on the other cast members that contributed a lot of the show's success, plot, and popularity—such TV shows aren't a one-man job, and it's ignorant to ignore the work of everyone else that helped The Cosby Show become what it was!

I did not know that any of this had happened during the 2016 presidential election. I understand that it is likely protocol to investigate everyone who is even slightly connected to those accused, but it seems that such actions are often directed towards women who often have little to no involvement with such affairs, especially in this case. It's extremely unlikely that Huma had any involvement with Anthony explicitly texting/sexting a minor, especially since texting is a very easily hideable (I don't know any other synonym) action to do.

This is why determining an appropriate punishment is a delicate balance. If we punish the offender without careful consideration, it can unintentionally harm people who are not involved in the crime.

The consequences of Bill Cosby's actions isn't the only case where the action of one person affects everyone else around them; disappointingly, this is fairly common, not just in the media industry, but in ordinary circumstances/everyday life (I could not, for the life of me, figure out a phrase that accurately encompasses what I want to say) as well (e.g. when a family member does something bad, the whole family gets blamed). This is particularly true when it comes to marginalized groups due to the stereotypes that are often associated with these groups.

Sometimes silence is an sign of protest or harm as well.

It is unfortunate that the act of an individual person can permanently taint the work of hundreds, directly affecting those around him who weren't even involved in the perpetrated crime. It is also unfortunate that in the process of trying to protect women, or any victims for a matter of fact, we unintentionally are harming them as well. In this case, it seems that the choice to pull the reruns of The Cosby Show was more of a publicity stunt instead of a legitimate attempt to protect the demographic most harmed by Bill Cosby's actions. They could have easily simply done something to his residual payments to prevent him from profiting off the work he worked in—not his work, he was simply just one of the many people that helped The Cosby Show become reality. This is why it's important to think thoroughly of the consequences an action may have on not just the perpetuator, but also the victims and other parties, directly or indirectly, involved.

The product of creativity should never be used as an excuse for the explotation and process it took to make said creative work. We are fortunate to live in a day and age where individuals, especially those in marginalized groups, have more access to tools and supporting communities that allows them to speak upon their abuse at the hands of those in positions of power. However, it's important to continue supporting these individuals and not be drowned out by those against it. I really love how this sentence is worded, particularly with the usage of the word altar to describe the pedestal we often place celebrities and the like on, even though the persona we see on screen is often far from their true self—at the end of the day, we are strangers to these people, entertained by the lives we see online.

The destruction of one's reputation and the now tainted nature of their work is no one's fault by their own. Victims should never be blamed for speaking the truth. However, it is not wrong or a crime to enjoy said work---TV show in particular, as it's not just one person who works on the show, but tens or hundreds. We should discredit the artist, not the art.

The second half of this sentence is the unfortunate truth. It can be relieving to be able to finally tell someone your story, but, especially when your abuser is someone famous, someone with power, that relief becomes short-lived as you prepare yourself for the possible consequences, that shouldn't be consequences in the first place, for defending yourself rightfully so. When you're the only person against a sea of supporters to call out the wrong of someone so reputably seen as 'good,' it's a hard thing to do—that's why there's power in numbers, allowing for those involved to build enough confidence to speak their truth.

I agree with this statement. The actions of the artist does not discredit the work that they have done, but they should still, and always be, held accountable for the harm they have done to others. Given the speed at which news changes nowadays, it’s common for individuals’ crimes to be overlooked and for them to regain their previous reputations. Violence is not excusable, no matter the individual and their identity, and it is important that we do not allow such actions to be 'normalized within the industry,' and if possible, not support such individuals directly.

The harm that has been done upon others, especially marginalized groups, is often overlooked if the products created from that harm produces profit. This is why it's important not to diminish anyone's story no matter how popular or reputable the other party is. This paragraph's last line also comments on the importance of power in groups, as the stories of other people allows for those with similar stories to be more confident and come out as well.

The impact of language, especially in news articles, is blatantly clear. We get a lot of our information of the outside world from the news, and the first source of information we see and consume from these news articles are the headlines. These titles often introduce bias, either exaggerating or downplaying the content to attract readers and generate revenue, which is why it's important to also read the content of the article, and other articles, to fully grasp the situation the article is reporting on.

This is particularly problematic in cases of sexual violence, where articles frequently minimize the severity of the crime and may even favor the abuser. The distinction between "sex" and "sexual violence" hinges on one important element: consent. This difference is significant. It's not uncommon for me to see articles that cover rape, not label what is rape as rape (a 'recent' case I could think of is the mass rape trial in France). The connotations of the words used shape our perceptions (e.g. words like dislike, hate, detest, loathe---we feel different things regarding each of these words even though they are often referred to as synonym of each other), influencing how we judge the seriousness of these incidents.

I kind of don't like how these questions were framed, since it doesn't fully encompass the emotional weight that these issues can bring for the individuals/victims. The core message is clear, but the answers to these questions are fairly obvious, and the questions themselves don’t effectively summarize the article's main points.

Although art can be a reflection of the artist, it isn't always—because the art is a product of the artist, the artist can make it however they want. It's easier to separate the art from the artist when there is no explicit connection between the artwork itself and the artist's life, and is an example of when learning about an artist's experience doesn't inherently contribute to the art's meaning as a whole.

I believe this is one of the main reasons why contemporary art is often dismissed today: in order to analyze a piece, like the ones above this paragraph, most of its meaning comes from the story behind it—you cannot use traditional art analysis techniques and elements to infer the piece's message. Contemporary art also doesn't conform to what many people think art is, and by extension, what their definition of aesthetics is, as it isn't visually pleasing in comparison to art in previous eras.

This statement in particular is something I do agree with—using external qualities of a piece in combination with its existing artistic characteristics in an assessment is crucial in fully understanding an artwork—but although I appreciate the stories behind contemporary art, I also understand why it might be 'boring' to look at due to its lack of direct artistic meaning.

The analysis of art is interesting and engaging because of the boundless nature of art—different pieces are interpreted differently by different people due to their own experiences, knowledge of the author, etc. As such, its impossible to separate the artist, and by extension their moral character, from the art without removing what brings meaning to art as well.

I believe that while it's understandable in an academic context, it's unrealistic to assess art solely on aesthetic quality in an informal setting when we have prior knowledge of the artist. As humans, we naturally perceive connections and patterns. Having reactions, also aren't necessary a bad thing as well—it's part of the experience when viewing art.

I did not know much about Picasso, or have ever seen his paintings, before this, so it was interesting and unsettling to learn about his misogynistic nature and the extent to which he mistreated women. The phrase 'separate the art from the artist' is more-so referring to the analysis of art from an academic standpoint, but in reality, art is intrinsically tied to one's emotions, both the author's and the audience's—it's nearly impossible to truly separate the art from the artist. We can still recognize the influence Picasso had on modern and contemporary art, but also recognize the brutality that Picasso had subjected on the women around him. Judging art solely by the artist themselves limits our understanding of art as a whole, but the process of creation matters as much as the end product. As such, the reaction that I had towards learning about Picasso as a person supports the article's stance that 'an artist’s moral character can indeed affect the content of their art,' and is something I also agree on. It is important to find a balance between appreciating art and recognize the person behind the art, for both their good and bad, to truly understand their artworks on a deeper level. In the end, it depends on the artist's connection to the art itself on whether or not we should separate the art from the artist.

The word 'infected' carries a strong negative connotation, suggesting that our judgment of art could be tainted or distorted by our knowledge of the artist's life.

I believe that it is important to recognize how the artist's life and values may have affected their work, especially when a work is meant to be a reflection of the artist's own experiences (The Things They Carried, Toni Morrison's novels come to mind as obvious examples of this), as it gives us valuable context to the purpose of the art and allows us to appreciate said art on a deeper level. However, if our assessments are too focused on an artist's personal life and values, we risk undervaluing the art itself by prioritizing its morality over its quality and creativity.

Therefore, it is my belief that it is appropriate to understand and incorporate an artwork's 'creative origin' into our analyses of art if we want to fully appreciate it, especially when the art is so heavily tied to the artist's life, but it's also important to prioritize analyzing the art itself of its own artistic merit—finding a balance that allows for both the art and its context with the artist themselves coexist is crucial for developing open-minded and sounded analyses of art.

Alfred Hitchcock is an interesting director to bring up in this article. His movies are good examples of pieces of work that, I would say, don't meet the standards of morality today, but are very good films from an artistic and analytical perspective. The movies Psycho and Rear Window, for example, featured that voyeur-exhibitionist relationship between men and women common in films during their releases, and are both lauded as masterpieces for Hitchcock's cinematic storytelling skills. His film "Vertigo," as well, is commonly ranked as one of the best films ever, and has been subject to criticism from feminist film theory, most notably in Laura Mulvey's essay 'Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema,' where she introduces the idea of the "male gaze," a term that has been popularized by media. Such films bring to our attention the way in which modern-thinking around representation and diversity limit the way in which we explore various ideas and stories. Alfred Hitchcock's films are definitely a product of its time, and as such, we can use those films as examples of how not to promote inclusivity and better represent those marginalized groups, but also keep the same level of artistic creativity and quality as before—creating a healthy balance between the two.

I agree with this sentiment. It reminds me of the phrase by Cesar A. Cruz, and later quoted by Banksy: "Art should comfort the disturbed and disturb the comfortable." All these responses of what art should be, and what defines it as good, brings us to the ultimate question: "What is art?"

While art isn't everything, I believe it encompasses anything meant to express or convey something, When we impose limits on expression by confining it within the constraints of values and morality, we risk hindering art and contradicting the purpose of our fight for diversity, which seeks to promote open expression for everyone. Although this definition has its complexities, art is fundamentally about creativity. Art doesn’t always need a specific political message; it can exist simply for the creator's satisfaction or the enjoyment of others. While analyzing a work's artistic merit is valuable, it’s important to recognize that some art is created purely for joy.

Marginalized groups should have the opportunity to speak out for diversity in Hollywood, it's something, as the paragraph states, that we've longed fought for. It's always an amazing feeling to see someone on-screen that's part of your culture and your identity! However, while inclusivity can play a role in enhancing art, it shouldn't be the only measure of a work's quality.

The importance of values has grown in recent years, which is mainly a positive thing—fostering a more open-minded community where people can express their identities comfortably. However, in the arts, morality should not be the sole basis for a work's worth; artistic quality, instead, should take precedence in analysis. While it's a beautiful feeling when a piece resonates with you, the audience, art can, and should, be open to interpretation—and some of those meanings often extend beyond individual values. Appreciation of the arts mean appreciation of every aspect of art, not just in its morality.

Coincidentally, I'm working in front of an "Insecure" poster at the CSA building.

I agree with the paragraph’s message to some extent, but it doesn’t fully reflect the current state of the music and Hollywood film industry. For the Oscars in particular, voting from film professionals not only aims to align with the audience's moral views, but also their preferences as well—what films are the general public most likely to have watched, and enjoyed? Many deserving films may not gain recognition simply because they weren't popular or were too complex for mainstream audiences by Hollywood/Oscar-worthy standards. As a result, the Oscars, and the Grammys be extension, can appear more focused on reflecting the industry's moral and opinionated stance to satisfy the audience rather than showcasing the artistic quality of the works in its industry(s). It is not just about morality, it's also about popularity as a whole.

This paragraph was kind of confusing to be honest. The last sentence in particular seems very out-of-place in this paragraph as well, transitioning from the previous sentences in this paragraph, to the next paragraph, very awkwardly, and is more suited for a separate conversation about black people and their "wokeness," which is a message I disagreed with in this paragraph. The word "woke," like what @/Kendramv mentioned, means 'alertness to racial prejudice and discrimination,' which is moreso connected to one's mindset Although there are many groups of people that have been stereotyped as "woke" nowadays, usually in a derogatory fashion, including black people, its false to state that all black people were born with this mindset—it's something that its a product of the environment they grew up, and is something that, when aligned with its original definition, a good mindset to have.

The words "problematic" and "cancel" also have often been used inappropriately, and are in itself controversial due to the way it downplays the severity of the crimes that many "problematic" people have done, like done in this paragraph.

I agree that inclusivity should be actively included in media, especially when it aligns with a narrative's core message (Wuthering Heights as a recent example, cough). However, while promoting inclusivity is important, it should not serve as a defense mechanism to excuse a lack of creativity or artistic merit within a show or other forms of media. Striking a balance between inclusivity and creative excellence, I believe, is important in creating meaning and impactful media that satisfies all types of audiences, and communicates a message that inclusivity and diversity within the art industry does not harm a media's potential to convey a message, but rather can strengthen and enhance it.

This opener brings into question how the growing focus on morality in recent decades has influenced our culture. I'd argue that this shift has largely benefitted society, especially in the sciences category (e.g. psychology, medicine) by emphasizing the importance of having rules of ethics, and has fostered greater acceptance of diversity within the general public. However, this increased concern of moral is not without its drawbacks, particularly regarding the over-criticism and limitations it places on (the arts/aesthetics of) culture.