Summary

The article that I read was called How art killed our culture, and is primarily focused on how the new age of consumerism that America entered after World War II led to the development of pop culture, which censors emotional depth. It explains in reference to the development of this new age that, “Abstract Expressionism had to die,” and that art was previously used as a tool to convey different perspectives of the world, but has now been seemingly dumbed down this level of higher thinking. The novel, cinema, and drama have all been, for the most part, untouched by the  ailment known as pop culture. In fact, the article states that modern day pop culture has become “so popularized that even intelligent people accept that reality television is a form of culture”. For these reasons, the modern world has lost the ability to ponder and methodize new thoughts that people such as Francis Bacon and Mark Rothko once achieved.

Response

Exploring this topic has enabled me to contemplate the effects of pop culture and consumerism on our society. I agree that, compared to eras such as the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, new ideologies and theories seem scarce. I am not entirely sure if the evolution of pop culture is what’s to blame, but I think that it is certainly a contributing factor to this decline in the arts. This post-war period has caused us to adapt a society that revolves around consumerism and the lack of ability to recognize “needs” versus “wants”. Pop art seems to have literally  painted a picture that money and mass-media is what is most important. The article implies that reality television is not a form of culture, however I surmise that, although it may not be as sophisticated as some former aspects of the arts that erupted in the past, it is nonetheless a part of our culture. I do not agree that it has “killed” the arts. In fact, it appears simply appears to be a new form of art. This drastic change in the arts is understandably difficult to accept and easily criticizable, but that does not mean that it is any less valuable to the development of our society than art in the past.

Pop Culture in Political Cartoons

This political cartoon is also criticizing pop culture and is implying that it negatively effects our society. Indeed, compared to how things used to be in America, pop culture seems to be full of scandals. Because of the incredible amount of influence that pop culture has on our society, in particular with young people who are still highly impressionable, it is quite alarming to think of what message the media is sending. While young people often accept these things as an absolute and believe that this is “just the way things are”, older people are more likely to criticize this major transformation of mass media, as illustrated in the picture.

Reflection

Considering both of the sources that I analyzed, my conclusion is that art has clearly and evidently changed from what is was in the past. Although it may not be all positive changes, it certainly has some high points. By adapting to our new lifestyle which is based on consumerism and widely dominated by the use of electronics,  mass media has become a major influential factor on peoples’ lives. The ability to keep people updated with current events and convey new ideas, just as artwork once did, is especially valuable. So in a way, pop culture replaced art rather than killed it.

While attempting to find an objective article about how we should treat our environment, I realized how difficult it was to accomplish this seemingly simple task. There is a plentiful amount of articles about the environment that are available, but few that presented information from a totally unbiased perspective. However, after a little bit of digging, I found one here that provides different points of view.

Background

We still do not have complete knowledge about how our fragile environment works, but what we do know is that for the past twenty years, our country has been rapidly industrializing. Although this is good for some reasons, such as the fact that it lessens the amount of laborious jobs in fields, it does bring several negative effects, like air and water pollution. Many of these harmful impacts are irreversible, so the best approach is prevention rather  than waiting until their needs to be intervention. The article also states that there is a need for not only government involvement and incentives, but individual awareness and action. Using China as an example, we are able to see the harmful effects of pollution in water, soil, and air. Because China is highly industrialized, there is always a risk that factories may release harmful chemicals that can lessen soil fertility. Also, China’s government has come up with a system to reward people who purchase a green car and to “desulphorize” power plants that use coal.

Response

This article is calling for us to better protect our environment by joining together, “government, business, nongovernment organizations and individuals to act with better laws and regulations, better implementation and better behavior of our individuals.” I agree that we need to takes steps towards making our environment healthier, and reduce the negative effects that we are causing. I think that it is especially important for countries like the U.S. and China that are rapidly industrializing to take steps towards the prevention of harmful environmental impacts and begin the implementation of more environmentally-friendly behavior.

Corporations on the Environment

After researching about an objective view on the subject of environmental treatment, I decided to look at another article that presented a different view about this. I found an article about corporations and their effects on the environment as a whole. Although it clearly leaned towards the idea that many corporations are causing negative effects on the environment, it still provided lot’s of valuable information and drew some eye-opening parallels between politics, consumerism, and environmental impacts. It talks about how political systems can seriously impact how corporations treat the environment based on what regulations and laws are put in place and enforced. A major problem that was discussed was when the U.N. created a project in order to get corporate collaboration and sponsorships in development projects while supporting the welfare of the environment. Unfortunately, companies were able to repair their image without actually fixing environmental problems, and it fell under harsh criticism. Although major corporations bring many positives to our lives,  “There are countless examples where corporate involvement in various issues could contribute to environmental problems as a result.” This article made me question if people are not as informed as they should be about what some corporations may be getting away with in terms of negative environmental impacts.

Reflection

Reading these two articles has made me think about all of the things that I can do to make a difference in the environment. It can be as simple as trying to drive less. The first and most important step is to simply try to make changes, whether they be big or small.  I believe that because our Earth is so fragile, it is imperative that we preserve it and prevent negative effects on the environment as much as possible. Taking steps to raise awareness and even getting the government involved to enforce regulations (in particular with Corporations that are causing harmful environmental discrepancies) is what is really going to help make a difference. Because we all live on the same earth, and we only have so many non-renewable resources, we should treat it as such with respect and caution. Personally I don’t think that means we need to stop industrializing or make other drastic changes, but instead we need to use more caution and try to look for more environmentally-friendly alternatives.

While deciding what to write for this free choice post, I came across a prompt that I thought was both interesting and relatable. Here it is:

Sometimes, we act on impulse: it could be something as small as ordering that special dessert on the menu, maybe asking out that cute boy or girl, or as large as quitting your job and selling everything you own to become a shepard in New Zealand. What’s the most crazy, outrageously impulsive thing you’ve ever done? If you’ve never succumbed to temptation, dream a little. If you gave yourself permission to go a little crazy, what would you do?

First off, I am the kind of person who doesn’t enjoy a lot of change. I heavily rely on routine and structure in my daily life, so I rarely make impulsive decisions. That is not to say that I don’t think about going a little crazy, though. For instance, the other night I was getting frozen yogurt. I always get the same thing every time, but this particular night the machine with the flavor that I so desired was out of order. I was suddenly faced with a dilemma of elephantine proportions- or at least it felt that way in the moment. For some reason I couldn’t bare the idea of trying a new combination. Although I have thought about changing it up a little on multiple occasions, I could never bring myself to do it. To no surprise, this time wasn’t any different and I ended up not getting anything.

In contrast to the comforting feelings I receive from the normalcies of everyday life, “quitting your job and selling everything you own to become a shepard in New Zealand” sounds oddly appealing. Well, not literally. The idea sounds interesting, but I don’t think that I would ever do that. As far as taking the challenge of giving myself permission to go a little crazy, I think that I am going to try it. Not at an extreme level, of course.  Sometimes, a little change can be nice and refreshing, so I think that I will benefit from this. I think that a continuos routine can also become laborious and cause people to lack motivation. Also, I think that you can’t better yourself or grow as a person if you never leave your comfort zone.

The Internet’s Ethical Challenges

This article by Sara Martin addresses several pressing questions related to internet ethics such as, “Should you Google your clients?” and, “Should you ‘friend’ a student on Facebook?”. The truth is that no form of communication over the internet is guranteed to be 100 percent private, and in a world where social media has become of prime importance, several “ethical pitfalls” are now present. The article interviews Stephen Behnke, PhD, JD, Director of APA’s Ethics Office, who begins by talking about the Ethic Codes drafted between 1997 and 2002. Behnke states that the codes do not prohibit social relationships, and applies to all electronic communication. He then goes on to talk about the effects of new technology in the workplace. The example of texting a client is provided, and it says that the messages may become part of the client’s records. In terms of social media, what you post may be publically accesible despite putting privay setting in place. Behnke also says that it is important to, ” educate yourself about privacy settings and how you can make your page as private as you want it to be”. These days, students are inviting professors to view their pages which inevitably allows professors to access more information about students’ lives than before. Behnke’s advice on the subjects is not only to “weigh the potential benefits and harms that could come from adding that dimension to the teaching relationship,” but to take into account the school’s policy towards the subject. The same goes for following on blogs and Twitter. As for Googling clients, his opinion is that there may be a good reason to search a client under certain circumstances (a safety issue, for example), but again, the professor should think about the relationship witht the student. Lastly, Behnke reveals that the next revision to Ethic Codes have not been scheduled, but it is important to view internet ethics from a developmental perspective. As the field evolves, new problems arise.

For the most part, I agree with this article. I think that it is important to remember that technology is always growing and changing, and with it comes new problems and responsibilities. Taking the time to consider how you are presenting yourself on the interent is key in terms of being an ethical social networking user. As for “friending” your professors, I believe that you should asses the situation and relationship fully before you make that decision. Personally, I would not “friend” or “follow” a professor until they are no longer teaching me. I also agree with the idea that Googling a client is acceptable if it is for safety issues. Because the internet is rich in information, I think that it can be a really helpful tool when considering whether or not to hire someone. I think that internet safety should be placed above all else.

After reading this article, I wanted some tips on how to be an ethical internet user. I found the “Ten Commandments of Computer Ethics” on Education World, and this page also had other useful information such as establishing a cluture of propor use and incorporating cyber ethics into your culture. One of the favorite “Commandments” was the first one, which stated, “Thou shalt not use a computer to harm other people.” It seems so simple, but if everyone really applied this, then the internet would be a much safer place. My second tip is to simply think about what you do before you do it. Fully asses the situation (like “friending” a professor) instead of taking immediate action. By taking all of this information into consideration, my conclusion is that although internet security isn’t always guranteed, you should do your best to be safe and be ethical towards others.

Welcome to your brand new blog at Edublogs!

To get started, simply visit your blog’s dashboard, edit or delete this post and check out all the other options available to you.

Like more help?

We can walk you through step-by-step in our guide to getting started with your blog.

Happy blogging!