What is Art?

What is Art

Banksy's Artwork

Why was it produced?

To create controversy in society and in art, to explain Banksy’s personal opinions on society in a picture form.

Do you think the artists thought of it as “art”?

Many people see Banksy’s art as disruptive and as unacceptable. Artists probably view Banksy’s work as a joke, rather than serious artwork.

What is your opinion of it?

I like Banksy’s artwork as I think it shows true opinion rather than conforming to the norms of society and creating artwork in the same way that everyone expects artists to do.

What is art?

ART has not always been what we think it is today. An object regarded as Art today may not have been perceived as such when it was first made, nor was the person who made it necessarily regarded as an artist. Both the notion of "art" and the idea of the "artist" are relatively modern terms.

Many of the objects we identify as art today -- Greek painted pottery, medieval manuscript illuminations, and so on -- were made in times and places when people had no concept of "art" as we understand the term. These objects may have been appreciated in various ways and often admired, but not as "art" in the current sense.

ART lacks a satisfactory definition. It is easier to describe it as the way something is done -- "the use of skill and imagination in the creation of aesthetic objects, environments, or experiences that can be shared with others" - rather than what it is.

How could the artistic qualities of a controversial work of art such as the installation above or a

winning entry for the Turner Prize be explained to someone who doubted its artistic merits?

(17 marks)

You cannot define art as any one thing - it is simply someone's feelings or opinions expressed in almost any form. Everyone has the right to create an art of their choice in which ever form they choose, whether that be a painting, to music, to a film. One person cannot define art no matter how logical their answer may be - as the appreciation of different artworks depends on the person. Different people interpret art in different ways - for example, Banksy's artwork to one person may be pure vandalism on public property, but to another, could be inspiring and appreciated greatly, if they share the same views on society, or even if they don't.

The African chief converted to Christianity by Dr Livingstone

The African chief converted to Christianity by Dr Livingstone

It is 200 years since the birth of David Livingstone, perhaps the most famous of the missionaries to visit Africa in the 19th Century. But as author and Church historian Stephen Tomkins explains, the story of an African chief he converted is every bit as incredible as Livingstone's.

According to the title of one biography, David Livingstone was "Africa's Greatest Missionary".
This is an interesting claim about the Lanarkshire-born man, considering that estimates of the number of people he converted in the course of his 30-year career vary between one and none.
The variation is because Livingstone himself wrote off his one convert as a backslider within months of his baptism.
The irony is that this one backslider has a much better claim than Livingstone to be Africa's greatest missionary.
This man on whom Livingstone gave up became a preacher, a leader and a pioneer of adapting Christianity to African life - to the great annoyance of European missionaries.
His name was Sechele, and he was the kgosi or chief of the Bakwena tribe, part of the Tswana people, in what is now Botswana.
Born in 1812, he was 10 when his father, the previous kgosi, was killed. Two of his uncles divided the tribe between them. Sechele escaped with a few followers into the desert for nine years, and returned to oust one of his uncles.
This was how things stood when Sechele first met Livingstone - he ruled a half-tribe. Livingstone persuaded him to make peace with his other uncle by sending him a gift of gunpowder for his rifle.

The uncle was suspicious that the gunpowder was bewitched, tried to neutralise it with fire, and in the resulting explosion was killed. Sechele thus ruled over a reunited Bakwena.

Like many kgosi, Sechele was keen to have a missionary living in his town. Missionaries came with guns (and powder), making them an invaluable defence, and with medicine.
Sechele amused Livingstone by asking for medicine to make him a better hunter. But the thing Sechele wanted above all from Livingstone was literacy.
He learned the alphabet, upper and lower case, in two days, compiled his own spelling books, and set about reading the one book in the Tswana language, the Bible. He ate breakfast before sunrise in order to start school as quickly as possible, and then taught his wives to read.
As Sechele grew increasingly interested in Christianity, he found two huge barriers in his way. One was rain.
Tswana tribes had rainmakers, whose job was to use magic to make the rain come. Livingstone, like all missionaries, vehemently opposed rainmaking, on both religious and scientific grounds.
Sechele happened to be his tribe's rainmaker as well as kgosi, and Livingstone's stay coincided with the worst drought ever known, so Sechele's decision to stop making rain was predictably unpopular.
The greater problem was polygamy. Sechele had five wives, and Livingstone insisted that to become a Christian he needed get rid of the "superfluous" ones. This was a political as well a personal nightmare, threatening the political structure of the tribe and relations with other tribes.
But in 1848 Sechele divorced four of the women and was baptised. The following year, however, one of his exes became pregnant, and it turned out that Sechele had fallen. He repented, and told Livingstone: "Do not give me up because of this. I shall never give up Jesus. You and I will stand before him together."
Livingstone did give up on him, going north to embark upon his celebrated adventures.

leveson

This is the official site of the Leveson Inquiry. It aims to provide the latest information on the Inquiry, including details of hearings and evidence, to the public and interested parties.
Background
The Prime Minister announced a two-part inquiry investigating the role of the press and police in the phone-hacking scandal, on 13 July 2011. Lord Justice Leveson was appointed as Chairman of the Inquiry.
Part 1 of the Inquiry examined the culture, practices and ethics of the press and, in particular, the relationship of the press with the public, police and politicians. Lord Justice Leveson was assisted by a panel of six independent assessors with expertise in the key issues that were considered.
Lord Justice Leveson opened the hearings on 14 November 2011, saying: “The press provides an essential check on all aspects of public life. That is why any failure within the media affects all of us. At the heart of this Inquiry, therefore, may be one simple question: who guards the guardians?”  A wide range of witnesses, including newspaper reporters, management, proprietors, police officers and politicians of all parties, all gave evidence to the Inquiry under oath and in public.
Lord Justice Leveson published his Report on Part 1 of the Inquiry on 29 November 2012.
Part 2 of the Inquiry cannot commence until the current police investigations and any subsequent criminal proceedings have been completed.

Censorship

Censorship

•      CENSORSHIP: the suppression, alteration or deletion of material which may be considered objectionable, harmful or sensitive.

•      DEFAMATION: anything that damages a person’s reputation in the eyes of society.

•      LIBEL: publishing a false statement that damages a person’s reputation (written defamation)

•      SLANDER: making a false verbal statement that damages a person’s reputation (verbal defamation)

GOVERNMENT CENSORSHIP: (formal) Used by Governments to withhold information from citizens. Often used during wartime to protect soldiers/public.

•      Used by the Department for Information during WW2. At one point the British Government considered taking over the BBC directly to control output

•     
Do you think Government’s should be requesting to have information removed or allow the internet to have complete freedom of speech?
I think they should be allowed to request for information to be removed because certain issues may disregard people’s human rights. Informal censorship is used, operating through independent regulatory bodies such as the PCC (Press Complaints Commission), Ofcom (Office of Communications) and the BBFC (British Board of Film Classification).

Do you think there should be informal censorship of TV? Should there be certain things that should/should not be said at certain times of the day?

•      I think that they should stick to how the current censorship works because if there was no censorship then at certain hours of the day, children may watch inappropriate things which can lead to negative values of life.

AUTHORITARIAN CENSORSHIP: positions of power are used to limit access to information. Media owners and editors can exercise this type of censorship.

•      SELF CENSORSHIP: individuals decide for they the information they will receive e.g. you turn the telly over because you don’t want to watch something you find offensive.

•     
Arguments for:

1.  To protect the security of the state

2.  To prevent children from being exposed to violence

3.  To protect people from being corrupted by overt sexuality

4.  To protect individual privacy

•     
Arguments against:

1.  People need accurate information in order to make choices

2.  Freedom of speech is a fundamental right

3.  It has not been proved that media material may corrupt or deprave

4.  Access to the internet has made censorship ineffective

WHAT PROBLEMS CAN YOU THINK OF WHEN IT COMES TO BLOGGING? DISCUSS!

Blogging allows freedom of speech on the internet however; this can criticise or target certain groups in society regarding social issues such as bullying and racism. Therefore there should be a limitation on blogging so that there is no risk of offence on the public audience.

I am a communist.

independent research
A meteor crashing in Russia's Ural mountains has injured at least 500 people, as the shockwave blew out windows and rocked buildings.
Most of those hurt suffered minor cuts and bruises but some received head injuries, Russian officials report.
A fireball was seen streaking through the clear morning sky above the city of Yekaterinburg, followed by loud bangs.
A large meteor fragment landed in a lake near Chebarkul, a town in the neighbouring Chelyabinsk region.
Much of the impact was felt in the city of Chelyabinsk, some 200km (125 miles) south of Yekaterinburg.
"It was quite extraordinary," Chelyabinsk resident Polina Zolotarevskaya told BBC News. "We saw a very bright light and then there was a kind of a track, white and yellow in the sky."
"The explosion was so strong that some windows in our building and in the buildings that are across the road and in the city in general, the windows broke."
Officials say a large meteor partially burned up in the lower atmosphere, resulting in fragments falling earthwards.
Thousands of rescue workers have been dispatched to the area to provide help to the injured, the emergencies ministry said.
The Chelyabinsk region, about 1,500km (930 miles) east of Moscow, is home to many factories, a nuclear power plant and the Mayak atomic waste storage and treatment centre.
'Blinding'

Of 514 people injured in the Chelyabinsk region, 11 were being treated in hospital, the regional emergencies agency said in a statement.
Among those affected by the meteor were children, in school when it fell at around 09:20 (03:20 GMT).
Video posted online showed frightened, screaming youngsters at one Chelyabinsk school, where corridors were littered with broken glass.

Chelyabinsk resident Sergei Serskov told BBC News the city had felt like a "war zone" for 20 to 30 minutes.

"I was in the office when suddenly I saw a really bright flash in the window in front of me," he said.
"Then I smelt fumes. I looked out the window and saw a huge line of smoke, like you get from a plane but many times bigger."
"A few minutes later the window suddenly came open and there was a huge explosion, followed by lots of little explosions."
In Yekaterinburg, 36-year-old resident Viktor Prokofiev was driving to work when he witnessed the event.
"It was quite dark, but it suddenly became as bright as if it was day," he was quoted by Reuters as saying.
"I felt like I was blinded by headlights."
Debris also reportedly fell on the west Siberian region of Tyumen.
The governor of Chelyabinsk region, Mikhail Yurevich, reported that the meteor had landed in a lake 1km outside Chebarkul, which has a population of 46,000.
A Russian army spokesman said a crater six metres (yards) wide had been found on the shore of the lake.

Where do our values come from and how does this affect us?

Suppose you smoke. Your parents tell you it is bad for your health. Teachers say it is bad for your health. Doctors say it can cause cancer. But you still smoke! Why? Because my friends smoke and it makes me look cool, also it is a thing to do at partys to be sociable. Culture: Culture is the distinctive way of life conducted by an entire community or society. Including codes of conduct, dress, language, religion. Cultural activities: Which include art, song dance, story telling or poetry. What cultural activities have you been involved in either past or present? I have not been involved in any cultural events. Socialisation: Is the process by which we learn the behaviour, values, attitudes considered appropriate in the culture and society in which we live. A society: A society is a grouping of individuals, which is characterised by common interest and may have distinctive culture and institutions. In a society members can be from a different ethnic group. How do your values and beliefs differ from your parents/grandparents? Why might this be? acceptance of alternatives to marriage attitudes to abortion and divorce employment opportunities for married woman equal opportunities (race and gender) using medical knowledge to aid human life What do you think has caused this change in values?

Nature vs nurture

Nature: Our abilities and successes are determined at birth though inherited traits. Nurture: Our abilities and successes are determined by the environment we are brought up in and the influences we are exposed to. Various factors about our environment effect our lives, for example: 1.Family structure 2.Education 3.Health choices/lifestyle 4.Income 5.Gender 6.Social Class 7.Immigrant status “To give all children an equal chance of a good education, all secondary school places in a local authority area should be allocated by ballot, even if that means bussing students around the authority” Discuss the usefulness of this view (7marks) I think that if children all had an equal opportunity being based on their area good be a good thing. This is because they would all have the same facilities and accessibility to developing their education. However this idea is not guaranteed being students may use options that are outside the area in order to pursue education further or receive help therefore perhaps making them more likely to be intelligent or talented at particular sports and hobbies. So this may be useful, but only to an extent due to not preventing the limitations into how educational developement can be secured.

life changes

Individuals ‘life chances’ are the opportunities each person has to improve their quality of life. 2 factors influence your life chances: — Social factors (nurture) – e.g. your family / access to money, type of school you go to / the environment you have been brought up in. — Genetic factors (nature) – e.g. your levels of intelligence / your physical, cognitive and psychological capabilities. Genetic Factors Do parents have the right to influence a child's characteristics in order to improve life chances? (for example make choices about what kind of child they want at conception or chose not to continue with a pregnancy if they detect abnormality.) In a way I think parents do have the right to influence their child's characteristics, for example if they are aware of a possibility of abnormality, it is their decision as to whether they feel they will be able to support the child's needs. Also, if they feel that this abnormality could cause problems for the child's life and perhaps may mean they lack life chances, then they could decide it is in the child's best interest to prevent this. However I think that parents should love their child no matter what is detected before birth - whether it be a preference in gender or ability. Social Factors Your life chances are mainly effected by your circumstances. It is a question of who you know not who you are! Case Study - Education The proportion of young people from working class families taking part in higher education is less than young people among better off families. Why do you think this is the situation? I think that people from better off families are lead to believe that higher education isn't as important for them as they are perhaps starting life into the working world with more of an advantage than those from working class families, who may feel that without a university degree they will get nowhere and earn no money. People from better off families may have parents in high up jobs who have connections, so that they can start on the career ladder straight away. Is it nature or nurture? What is the key determination in life chances? I think this is nurture - it's how the person is brought up and what their families views are like on higher education, aswell as their financial state. The UK government use ‘mean test’ so that only certain groups are given benefits. The government ‘Means tests’ focuses on offering financial support to the most needy. The government argue that a universal benefits scheme would mean supporting Many people who do not need financial support. Debate the argument above of a universal benefit scheme. What do you think? I think that the universal benefit scheme is in some ways a bad idea, as it can be a waste of money for the government as some people receiving benefits don't necessarily need them, when instead we can give those with larger financial issues more money in benefits so everyone is more equal. However for those that are only slightly above the income limit for benefits, it can seem unfair as this money could therefore help them out a lot. ‘Some people are born to be leaders and should get all the privileges society has to offer’ How far and in what ways does evidence support the view above?

article and questions

identify the different stages in the argument in the passage: proposition, conclusion and argument. To what extent are the arguments used supported by evidence? They are supported by a fairly large extent due to the analysing the validity and justification of the argument. It also includes anecdotes to provide real-life data along with statistics to give the argument evidence which is more reliable and accurate. How reliable is the evidence provided? The evidence is fairly reliable due to the information being from personal accounts; however this can be doubted whether or not these people are providing accurate analytical observations and information necessary to obtain the argument. Find 2 examples of argument based on authority. In what ways might the claim to be “authority” be A. justification, B. Unjustified Give reasons for your answer? An expert in one field is not necessarily an expert in others, this makes their claim to authority of justified by their type of field and instead being able to critique on all areas, therefore the topic matter is highly important. Also, Experts are no more entitled to claim authority than any other person, which means that anyone can have the right to authority based argument being easily justified, yet the explanation given can vary to be unjustified to whether or not it makes sense. Examples from text: “Club bosses believe…” They have authority justified by being bosses, yet their view can be bias or unreliable. “Jenny Brannigan, 18” shares her view, which suggests she is not of a particular authority but the claims in which any person can have the right supports this idea and gives it justification. Examples of deductive and inductive reasoning in the passage:Inductive: “If you allow two women into the same cubicle they’ll talk forever” who has rejected idea. Deductive: “it is fact that young women like to go toilet together”. To what extent is the conclusion of the passage implicit rather than explicit? How far is it justified?The conclusion considers two points of views which makes it explicit by considering more than one alternative. However, it can be implicit because it is quite vague and therefore not considering the information as effectively