For this assignment, I had decided to pick out three people that stood out the most to me during my time of people watching.

The first person that I’m going to describe about was American. He had long blond-brown hair, tattoos on his neck and his legs, sporting pink earrings. As for his clothing, he wore what appeared to be some rock band group (I wasn’t able to properly see the name) with baggy cargo shorts and flip-flops. He was wearing glasses and appeared to be around 5’10 and he looked a little big (chubby). In my opinion, I felt that they are truly invested in the individuality/hipster look, as they seemed like they wanted to look different from the rest. Based on their appearance I assume that they are American, around their mid-twenties, and that they must’ve had a rebellious teenage era earlier on in their lives. I also think that they are very liberal in person, as seen by their tattoos and pink earrings and what not. As I come from a very conservative culture, I do feel that his outfit was a little vulgar for me, as I know personally my family would never let me tattoo myself nor sport any earrings, nonetheless pink ones. Likewise, I know I’m personally the last person to want to stand out I always try to look as conservative as I can, so his look was different for sure.

The next person that I saw was a lot different. She was about 5 foot 4, wearing an all black dress and a hijab to cover her face. The only attribute that stood out was her eyes, which appeared green. From this look my assumption is that is she is Middle Eastern, and that she is cultural and religious as well. I’m a partially aware of the significance behind the hijab, but not too familiar with the cultural ideals overall. I just know that women only permit their husbands to look at their hair. I know there are similar cultural practices across the world, and appreciate having to see such differences today. For me however, I know I am not too conservative myself, and that the women in my culture aren’t as modest as this girl that I’ve seen earlier as well. However, one thing I can interpret from this is that the girl is very cultural and has a lot of self-respect for herself as well, and I am impressed to see that type of person in America despite living in a much different culture and lifestyle.

Finally, the last person that I observed was Asian. He was tall and skinny, wore big square glasses, and black hair with a Fohawk part in the middle. His clothes, unlike the other two, appeared a lot more city-like, in which he wore a black t-shirt with a fur jacket and dark blue jeans and black and gold shoes. However, I don’t think anything he wore were of an American brand, and I saw this because I’ve never quite seen anything he wore at various stores/malls that I’ve been too, nor have I seen anyone else with his particular style of clothes as well. I’m usually the last person to be able to identify a brand of jeans, but I can tell when they’re normal jeans and when they’re high-end, and his jeans definitely looked high-end to say the least. His shoes stood out the most to me however, as he was wearing a black with gold diamonds plated across the sides. They obviously didn’t seem like a Nike or Adidas style, nor were they an Armani or anything else; they didn’t appear to have a brand on them. One thing that I observed about him was that he had a different kind of walk. I’m not sure if I’m overthinking his appearance, but it almost seemed like he was a little uncomfortable with his surroundings; he walked around rigidly and then he kept turning back all of a sudden and going somewhere else, as if he forgot where he is supposed to be going. I felt that he was perhaps an international student and appeared to still be in the process to accustom himself here, although like I said earlier, I may be overthinking his background. However, his appearance slightly reminds me of myself, as I wear a similar style of clothing that he did today, minus the fur jacket. I like wearing darker clothes and always like to try matching, as he done well himself. I also think he is an international student because his style seemed very modern, and a lot of kids in India as well have been sporting the same style there as well, from the glasses to the shoes, etc.

Overall I enjoyed this activity, as it make us understand and appreciate different cultures and lifestyles around us, along with our own values and beliefs as well.

The article that I want to discuss about in regarding food as a form of art is found in the New York Times “A Matter of Taste?” by William Deresiewicz. In this, he explains the history behind the culture of what is known as, “foodism”, and claims that it has not only led to art, but has also replaced it as well. However, he criticizes the creation of food by claiming that it is not a form of art as it has a very limited range in terms of symbolism and evoking emotion. Deresiewicz claims that the art of food is essentially overrated and that our American culture is decorating by allowing something so insignificant become such a dominant role in our daily lives. How concludes the article by comparing to European culture where although food there is highly valued as well, it doesn’t take anything away from the centuries of pure art that has been laced throughout the world; however Americans are simply focusing on the present and are too naïve to look past the initial stage of general feelings when it comes to consuming such items, and that it is negatively effecting our society today.

The author of this article utilizes various metaphors to show how much more value the significance of food has risen in our society in this past century. However, he is very critical of this process, saying that food isn’t anywhere near as cultural and powerful as our actual works of art. He states that “[Food] is not narrative or representational, does not organize and express emotion. An apple is not a story, even if we can tell a story about it. A curry is not an idea, even if its creation is the result of one.” Deresiewicz believes that food has one purpose and that it shouldn’t be taken anymore into consideration than it simply being an essential for survival, and not to be revered and respected as much it is today. The Fast Food YouTube video showed a similar perspective, particularly for the fast food industry where the artist stated that even the ingredients for the food at hand are vile and gross by default because of the various chemicals used. Along with the process of making these items so blandly via the use of machines, that creator claimed that there is nothing creative about this form of food, let alone considering food a work of art. So this argument shows that food in general, especially fast food such as McDonalds should NOT be considered as art.

Surprisingly however, Telfer anticipated such criticism from philosophers and others in that their claim is similar to this author’s claim on the limited symbolism of the art of food. Nevertheless, Telfer wrote a really well response of their similar criticisms. He starts by defining the ideals behind a ‘work of art’; “One problem is that the phrase ‘work of art’ can be used in either a classifying or an evaluative way. To use it in a classifying way is to say something about how the object is regarded, whereas to use it in an evaluative way is to say something about eh extent to which it merits the label ‘ work of art’” (Tefler 13). He goes on further by using his own metaphors, by claiming that a pile of metal pipes and a chair can be looked upon as a ‘work of art’ if the maker claims it to be such even though it may serve a different purpose. Likewise even though religious buildings and others aren’t considered as art by the construction workers, it ends up becoming a work of art to society, as it is ‘aesthetically pleasing’. In other words, Tefler is saying that one can’t critic the definition of art on such a broad and opinionated terms of condition. “Our definition of a work of art, in the classifying sense, was ‘a thing intended or used wholly or largely for esthetic consideration’. This is not true of run-of-the-mill food. But many meals are intended by their cooks to be considered largely in this way – to be savored, appraised, thought about, discussed-and many eaters consider them this way” (Tefler 14). So here Tefler is claiming that chefs make various dishes and items for viewer appreciation, just as many artists would with their work. Therefore creations of dishes are also considered a work of art as well.

In conclusion, both sides have showed a strong justification on determining whether or not food should be considered as art. Deresiewicz showed valid points about how many food items are created for momentary pleasure and that its not ‘inspired’ by any idea or significance behind the items at hand. The author of the Fast Food YouTube link expand further on this notion, specifying fast food and how it kills any idea of food itself, let alone art. However, Tefler expands about how the judgment of art is flaw in itself and questions its every angle. Both views are very valid at the least. My final perspective is that not every food is a work of art, just as how many “works of art” aren’t works of art as well. Art in general has a very vague terminology based on interpretations and symbolism. Many items that would be defined as art wouldn’t be something the majority of society would see as art. In order words, fast food can be looked as art by some just as how a rubble of pipes can be seen as art by others. Just as no two snowflakes are the same, every individual is unique, with different beliefs and different interpretation on life. So everything in life can be considered as art depending on the person, which is what makes life so beautiful in the first place overall.

Deresiewicz, W. (2012, October 27). A Matter of Taste? Retrieved January 31, 2015, from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/28/opinion/sunday/how-food-replaced-art-as-high-culture.html?_r=0

Telfer, E. (2002). Food as art. In Neill, A. & Ridley, A (Eds.), Arguing About Art: Contemporary Philosophical Debates (2 ed., pp. 9-27). New York: Routledge.

Huette, S (2009, September 9). Fast Food. YouTube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGCQ40d063Y

After reading Dissanayake’s perspective about art, my question is does “art” get devalued when people look at an item as art? When I think of art, I think of the Renaissance, where sculptures were create and cities and nature was build upon the fact to showcase their knowledge and skill during that era. Nowadays, art is considered an interpretation of one’s mind upon a black canvas. That being said however, I feel that the word “art” is demeaning and devaluing the exotic nature of cultural activity. “There is no known society that does not practice at least one of what in the West we call ‘the arts’” (Dissanayake 21). This article relates to me well as I was born and raised in India before my family decided to move here. My parents are very cultural and they bestowed their values and ideologies to me; so I know a lot of our own history and its significance. I feel that labeling culture as art is insulting because it makes it seem that our ancestors were just prancing around and designing items to be a showpiece to others. I know for a fact that my ancestors, the Indo-Aryans, had their way of living and brought upon a lot of tools and technologies that wasn’t discovered and utilized till after hundreds of years and thousands of generations. I guess it just depends on interpretation, but I feel that we don’t appreciate the work of our ancestors enough when we just take their struggles and accomplishments for granted and use them as a showpiece for our entertainment. “ I find it significant that the word ‘art’ acquired its modern meaning and its existence as a concept as the arts themselves became practiced and appreciated by fewer and fewer members of society” (Dissanayake 21). I believe that our ancestor’s and other culture’s work may be artistic in which their significance behind their work was tremendous. Appreciating the dances and cultural activities of others as artistic is acceptable; but by just labeling it as art devalues the history of our world to an extent. What Leonardo da Vinci did was art, what Michelangelo had done was art, but what the Indians, Chinese and other cultures performed in their past isn’t just art, although their livelihood and significance to us today is just as beautiful.

My activities today reflected my top values at a considerable amount. One of my good friends that I haven’t talked to in a couple of years just got engaged, and so I got in touch with her and gave her my congratulations, and received an invite for her wedding as well. I also worked out and ran two miles and I’ve also started the P90x workout, in addition to my workout that I’m still maintaining. One of my biggest goals short term is to achieve a perfectly fit, aka a ‘six pack’ body. I’m overall a health minded person with an average fit body, but I’ve always to be the best I can be physically and also I’ve been told throughout my life that my kind of people (Indians) aren’t capable of having such an ability, and I would love to prove everyone wrong one day. That is one of my driving motivations for me to attain that kind of body, and I hope to accomplish it in the near future. I know I have the capability to do so; but my biggest issue is food. I usually will eat something in the moment that I will regret later on; it usually is a result of my momentary urge and peer pressure because if my friends are eating when we’re out, I’d want to eat too. However, I’m starting to control my mindset and I hope my resistance will pay out. I know we were only supposed to select the top 5, but if I were to include wealth as well those six ideals would be goals I’d want to accomplish one day. No one is perfect; but if I could attain the best levels of these 6 values I would feel accomplished and satisfied with my life.

My family is very high standard, and one belief that I inherited from them is the ideals of karma, and to treat everyone how you would want them to treat you. I always grown up treating people even better than I would myself, and I am always respectful to everyone I encounter. However, a trait that my parents endure that I don’t bestow on me anymore is to always help others no matter what. I used to be that kind of person but I felt that I was constantly taken advantage of and being granted by some, and being disrespected in any level is my biggest pet peeve, especially if I had done nothing to deserve that. I always try to be good to be people, but now I like to take karma in my own hands, in that if someone isn’t good to me, I won’t be good to them as well. I’m aware of the “eye to an eye makes the whole go blind” philosophy, but I just feel like a lot of good people taken advantage over and are mistreated for being too good in this world and it hurts me to see that happen to others, let alone myself. So overall, my motto is to still to treat everyone how I would want them to treat me, but if I get treated bad I’ll be the same as well. I’ve been blessed to attain the values from my parents that I have today, and I hope to use them to make them proud.

I like how the author was attempting to write about a very ambiguous topic that we deal with every day. My favorite part of his reading was about personal values, in which he had questioned whether or not human beings have instincts that are “dress[ed] up with the term values, so that we can pretend there is a measure of choice in the process” when it truly is an ideal that we are ingrained to (Lewis 7). I believe that there isn’t such thing as ‘normal’, but its an average of all of our values as an individual. That being said, we follow a certain mindset because we are obligated even though individuality is celebrated, in order to achieve a stance of normality in society that isn’t even attained by anyone directly. However, I do like the 4 basic nodes of developing values as I feel that it does describe the human nature to a certain extent. No two people, even twins, grow up with exactly same experiences and backgrounds; different people gain different values and characteristics. However, creating a general background as these nodes have set help characterize our emotions and values to something we can come to terms with.

The other part that I agree with is when Lewis stated that we are driven by “peer pressure [through] the relentless demands of the society” (Lewis 8). Everyone wants to fit in and look impressive compared to others; it is our instinct to do so. However, this multiplies extensively with the rise of social media, since more people can contact one another at a much higher rate. And because people can hide behind computers and have a level of anonymity, this creates a fake social persona by millions of individuals. As a result, I feel that our drive and individuality is faltered even more when we accept the words from others online as true, building our newfound experiences and backgrounds through unreliable information. This does make me worry for the future generations as more and more younger folks begin using such social tools and ingrain more of it into their personal lives. I personally have dealt with numerous incidents due to gossip and online information that ended up being false, starting arguments and burning solid friendships and connections due to assumptions. Also I have known some that committed suicide due to cyber bullying not being able to match “normality” as set by false social standards. So from personal experience and hearing from others, I strongly agree with the author in that our drives and individuality is suffering through social standards. Although it does have the potential to create a positive form of standardization, which we can hopefully follow, social media will harm our individuality and personal ideal of values.

Through our past, vast number of people have been murdered, or brutally harmed. It seems as though for every one good person in society, there are two evil. Crime rates are rising and jails are filling out by the dozens. Because of this, I strongly believe in initiating the death penalty and having it legalized in the United States. This is for a variety of reasons:

1) People that murder others or commit a horrendous act in crime should not be given the gift of life, especially if they are using it to ruin the lives of others

2) Millions of our tax money are going to creating and maintaining these jails and prisons, in which our hard earned money is going to sustain the lives of those who are the last people to deserve it, when it could be going to making the society a better place for the rest of us.

3) There is no pleasure of life by spending the rest of your life in prison by yourself anyway, it’d be much more beneficial for us and the culprit to go about with the death sentence and move on with life that way.

However, this blog, Abolish the Death Penalty shows otherwise. In this particular piece, the author wrote about an article that described about how a judge overturned a case that happened in 1944 of a 14-year-old boy who had received a death sentence. His claim with this article is that had we not had a death sentence that kid “could have been a father or someone beneficial to society”. However, even if the death sentence wasn’t a thing back then and that boy had to be in prison for life, he would still be dead by now as this had occurred 70 YEARS ago. Why they even brought this case back up is beyond me, but I find it absolutely ridiculous to use this example as a claim for not legalizing the death penalty, as this kid would be dead plus the nation would be a million or so poorer maintaining this person. Even if was alive the state would have had to give him another million or more for their in correction, causing us to pay that much more.

The one thing I would agree to is that in order for us to utilize this, we have to be 100 percent sure that the criminal is guilty for their acts of crime. Also this means that racism (if present) have to minimized greatly as well, and our court system will have to be sharper in order to promote justice. That being said, I feel that the death penalty will not only save the nation millions, it will also create a stronger force of justice, and by removing these horrendous people from our society, our nation will benefit through a multitude of ways.

My name is Ankit, I’m a senior with a major in Business Administration with a concentration in Finance.