CRIME PREVENTION IN AMERICA Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words

CRIME PREVENTION IN AMERICA - Essay Example The rate of daily crimes shows that a person living in America cannot sure if he will live the next moment. â€Å"In America, the crime clock continues to click: one murder every 22 minutes, one rape every 5 minutes, one robbery every 49 seconds, and one burglary every 10 seconds.† (Anderson, 2009). The gravity of the situation has forced the government to make maximum efforts in the direction of controlling crimes of all kinds in the country. Various crime prevention programs are undertaken at federal, state and local levels. There are programs aiming every section of the people, implemented at each of these levels depending upon their importance and seriousness. It is found that many of these crimes involve teenagers or generally the youth. Juvenile crimes are a nightmare to the Americans. School violence and under-age drinking lead to fights and murders, suicides, rapes, gun violence and so on. It is found that under-age binge drinking is more among teenagers below the age of 21 than adults. Drug abuse is another major issue regarding the youth in America. Students are frequently seen carrying guns to schools. A major reason for this situation is the extreme exposure to television, computer games and internet. It was found that girls did more crimes than boys. To add on to i t, juvenile justice system showed no mercy to these children. In 1970s the statistics of juvenile crimes rose terribly, making it very important for the government to control juvenile crimes and giving better juvenile justice to them, in order to reduce the crimes in America. For this purpose, the federal government introduced a new act, called the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act in the year 1974. The major aims were to prevent juvenile wrongdoings, improve the juvenile justice system in order to protect them. This act was reauthorized in 2008, to be called the ‘Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Reauthorization

The importance of Thanksgiving Essay Example for Free

The importance of Thanksgiving Essay Holidays in my opinion are times for families who are spread across the United States and those around the world to come together and share laughs, memories, and stories. One of the most important and my favorite holiday is Thanksgiving. Thanksgiving in my family is a time for love, giving thanks, and simple joy of being with family. It is a time to give thanks for all the things you’ve been blessed with from family right down to the shoes on your feet. Thanksgiving is so important to me because it allows me to spend time and visit with my family. Being around family just provides a sense of serenity and calmness. When we are all together everyone is laughing, and just enjoying each other. My family’s presence makes me feel as if there isn’t a care in the world. Love is indescribable and one of the greatest things about Thanksgiving. The entire atmosphere during Thanksgiving is that of uplifted spirits and rejoicing with family and friends. I get so excited just waiting on everyone to arrive and start sharing stories about work and life. The love that my family has is greater than any problem or circumstance that arises. When we all gather together to give thanks, I can feel the love in the air. The warmth I feel in my heart is a feeling that I wouldn’t trade for all the money in the world. Although we disagree at time my family is always there for me when I need them most. Giving thanks is another reason Thanksgiving is my favorite and in my opinion the best holiday I celebrate. Although I pray and thank the Lord every night before I go to sleep, giving thanks and being around the people you love while doing it makes it all the more special. When my family prays over the food before we eat Thanksgiving dinner we all join hands and go around the circle and say what we give thanks for. Giving thanks shows how grateful you are for the smallest things in life like the beauty of our world to the things we take for granted such as air, functioning limbs and hearing. The joy I get from being around my family is simply electrifying. I get so excited just thinking about celebrating Thanksgiving with my family. They are always so positive and fun to be around especially during the holidays. I feel like during Thanksgiving I don’t have a single care in the world. When I wake up during the days leading to Thanksgiving the happiness I feel is unexplainable. It is a feeling of freedom and just a relaxation from the everyday burdens of life. I give my family full credit for the person I am today. Without their loving and caring spirits and personalities I don’t know how I would be where I am today.

Reflective Essay on Reality Shows

Reflective Essay on Reality Shows Reality Shows should be Banned The main essence of reality shows is to put ordinary people in a social confined setting with extraordinary environment and activities with the aim of entertaining audiences with the illusion that what is going on is not scripted nor rehearsed. Most reality shows attempt to convince the audience that the participants of the show are being pushed to their physical, emotional or physiological limits in order to complete a specific task or attain a certain goal of which audience cheer on their favorite participant. With the change in times and technology most reality shows have gone over board and have forgotten the basic concept of reality shows and are now focusing more on entertainment than reality that has lead to increase in sexual exposure, humiliation and immorality. Reality shows have lost their way from original series like survivor to the new mediocre series of two celebrities living in a farm yard for a week. Reality TV has joined the ranks of day time entertainment and has l ost the spark of spontaneous originality from other forms of scripted entertainment. Additionally, the most famous reality shows worldwide are big brother and Idols; these two are examples of scripted and well rehearsed reality shows. In the just concluded episode of idols a judge was dared to sing out of the blue and it so happened just by â€Å"coincidence† that the band started playing a song which the judge joined in emphatically without hesitation. The crowed cheered and applauded for the â€Å"unexpected† performance by the judge. Such reality T.V. shows give viewers and more so children false hope of a â€Å"happily ever after† reality were heroes and heroines live thus insulting the intelligence of the viewers. In the case of big brother viewers are subjected to sex as a form of entertainment. Relationships formed in the big brother house give the participant a better chance of winning the competition and increase his/her ratings thus the audience spends time and money voting for the participant so they can enjoy seeing the participants relationship grow. And due to the full disclosure nature of the show all activities are broadcasted and shown live on our T.V. sets exposing and encouraging our youths, young adults and children to sex, immorality and promiscuous behaviors. Furthermore, the common comic saying â€Å"its funny until someone gets hurt, then its hilarious† comes to life in most reality shows. Producers of reality shows capitalize on the demise and misfortunes of participants. When a contestant falls down or gets hurt in anyway it is taken as a form of entertainment or comedy not knowing the humiliation and psychological trauma they instill in the participant. Examples of such shows are â€Å"show me the funny† â€Å"Real T.V.† and â€Å"Fear factor†. Show me the funny capitalizes on bloopers of home made videos which show family member having accidents such as hitting each other being bitten by a snake or having a ball hit them on their faces. Turning such perilous or even fatal accidents to o form of humor encourages children to view violence and accidents as vivacious events and not the precarious activities they are. Producers also capitalize on the eviction or the inability of a participant to complete a cer tain assignment. The humiliation and reaction of a participant being evicted or accepting defeat is a high point of most reality T.V. which is morally and ethically wrong. The failure of a fellow human being should be frowned upon and not celebrated. The planned scripting and acting that happens in reality T.V. shows insults the viewers intelligence. A good example of this is the most popular TV show on the planet, the WWE wrestling. Such shows give the viewers the misapprehensions that what is going on is ad hoc, spontaneous and impulsive and yet they are not. The physical abuse that is entailed in the WWE wrestling show is unfeasible, ridiculous and impracticable. No human being can with stand such maltreatment and continue to show aggression to his opponent with full body strength. Majority of the audience know that such reality shows are scripted and premeditated but to the young and young at heart, the level of belief and credence they have in reality shows is hazardous to their mental capability to distinguish authentic violence from fictional performances. Such reality shows affect the social interactions of youths. They encourage violence as a form of entertainment and not the atrocious, offensive conduct that it is. Suc h Reality shows have promoted violence in children which has consequently increased gang related bloodshed in America and violent behavior schools. Though most violent reality shows try and warn the audience against performing their impractical physical fetes and aptitude, audiences cannot help but to try out what they see on T.V. and in turn end up hurting themselves and others in the process. Contrarily the banning of reality shows would give us false hope of protecting our children from the bad aspect of â€Å"sex and violence† because it is not only in reality shows that our children are exposed to sex and violence, technology has made it possible for our children to access sexual contents and violent games and videos via the internet. Though banning reality shows would reduce the amount of sexual content they would be exposed to it would only pave way to new forms of sexual and violent entertainment which would conveniently reach our children. Reality TV shows are one but not the most sexually explicit forms of entertainment, so we should not elude our selves that banning reality television would solve the problem, it will only reduce it for a some time, until other forms of explicit entertainment come along. Banning reality TV will be breaking of international laws. It would be an infringement of basic rights, freedom of speech. Every and all human have the right to express themselves in a way they deem fit and so by banning reality TV show we would contravene with their democratic right to convey their grievances and views. With this in mind it would be erroneous to ban the shows since most of the producers know their rights and follow them to the latter, this will convey the violation of these rights and hence it will be impracticable. The viewers too have the absolute right to watch these shows and amuse themselves; banning these shows will create an international outcry from the viewers who derive pleasure from these shows, it will also be in breach of the viewers rights. We should also take heart in the fact that most people will se right through scripted reality shows. We live in an informed world where information is at our finger tips. The shallow scripts and predictability of mediocre reality TV are clichà ©s and with time audiences will distinguish between scripted premeditated and organized reality TV shows and the real thing. At the end of the day if a reality show does not appeal to your everyday life and situation then one should know that the show is scripted. More so with information and technology easy accessibility most viewers get to know the hollowness of reality TV shows and watch them primly for entertainment. This makes the banning of the shows irrelevant and unimportant because to the viewers they are more or less a form of amusement. Finally we need to accept that reality shows have fallen from grace and are not what they used to be. We need to ask ourselves who is to blame, the producers who make the reality TV shows or we the audience who give the producers reason to dramatize reality in a sexually immoral way that that affect the behavior and morals of our young. If the producers made real reality shows that speak to the day to day events of our lives would we watch them with the same interests we watch the current scripted shows? Would we still enjoy the true conflicts triumphs and struggles or are we already hooked to the soap opera type of reality TV that is being broadcasted through out the world/ are we our own worst victims, influencing the increase of sex violence and immorality that is reality TV shows? Or should we shift the blame to those who produce the shows? If we didnt create a market for low quality TV productions would our children be exposed to such appalling entertainment range? The question remains would it help if reality TV was banned? References Murray, S. Ouellete, L. (2008). Reality TV: Remaking Television Culture.(2nd Ed). New York, NYU Press.

Personal Narrative - Catapulting Fish :: Personal Narrative Writing

Catapulting Fish I saw fish. We all did. Little silver fish the size of my palm were all lying sideways on the surface of the water. There were just a few at first, but they kept appearing. I saw a little boy point to a fish and ask his father about it. The boy knew the difference between the fake shark and the real dead fish. I entered Amityville from the employee entrance. Just past the break room there is a 7-foot-tall light blue wooden gate door. Even from there, I could smell it. I made my way up the stairs to the crows’ nest, wearing my uniform and nametag, and opened another blue door. There inside was an old couch, stained and saturated with lagoon water and the skippers’ sweat through the years. I swiped in on the time clock and went back down the stairs to the unload dock to learn which rotation I had been placed in, and with whom. In the closet, on the west end of the unload dock there was a dry erase board with the assigned positions for the skippers during their shifts. I do not remember which rotation I had that day, but I do remember how hard it was to breathe. When I bumped into my first rotation of the day, I discovered a little more about the disaster that accompanied the sharp chlorine-like stench. From the front of the boat, I could see months of accumulated hydraulic fluid floating in metallic and neon colored swirls at the surface of the murky brown lagoon water. The water had been murky for as long as I had worked at JAWS, but that day all of the reasons for its usual questionable color and odor rose to the surface. The boat rounded the corner between the unload and load docks, and arrived at the loading dock, where another skipper at a different stage in his rotation counted the passengers and closed the gate of my boat.

The Benefits and Costs of Two or More Countries Sharing a Common Currency

Examine the benefits and costs of two or more countries sharing a common currency, and comment on the impact of the ‘one size fits all’ monetary policy of the Eurozone. Normally, the accumulation of a set of countries accepting a specific common currency is known as a monetary union. This involves the countries becoming part of the same trading bloc and accepting free trade policies between the member countries. Since the focus of the question is centrally revolved around the monetary union, the other aspects of the union will not be considered in detail. Naturally, the prime example to use when discussing the use of a common currency is the European Monetary Union. Launched on January 1st 1999, the union boasts a 16 country agreement to use the same currency- the euro. For countries to merge by a single currency requires the merging countries to meet certain criteria. This obviously brings both benefits and costs to the table. Benefits are associated with higher stability of the union as only those countries that meet the minimum requirements can join. This allows the union to ensure that the countries that join add something to the union and add value to the currency. For example, conditions in the European Monetary Union state entrant countries must have interest rates within 2% of the 3 lowest interest rate countries in the EMU and also have inflation within 1. 5%. This is important because if we take a scenario where the inflation rate is excessively high in a country, then this will affect the value of the currency by devaluing it. This devaluation has clear knock on effects as the devaluation will cause the cost of imports to rise. Domestic consumers will also shy away from domestic consumption as they see the high prices and so they will shift their consumption on consumer durables from other countries. Exports would be heavily affected by this scenario as the foreign countries would see the high prices associated with the importing of the goods and shift their interest into consumption from countries with lower relative price levels. Not only does the high inflation associated with the currency affect consumption but also investment. The unstable level of inflation will deter foreign direct investment and also reduce the net domestic investment as the returns to the investment would have a high risk associated. So obviously having specific criteria that member countries must meet help to ensure stability in the union. The negative associated with having these criteria is the one size fits all policy which will be discussed later. There are many costs and benefits associated with having the same currency. There is a key advantage to consumers and residents in the country of having the same currency. The transaction costs associated with exchanging the currencies is eliminated. This means that if domestic consumers were to travel abroad to countries within the monetary union, the identical currency would enable them to spend abroad without the need to swap currencies. This advantage is more of a social benefit as this would reduce stress to the consumer. This is because the consumer would not be worrying about if their money would arrive on time. Also the excess commission associated with changing the currencies is eliminated. Although again this commission only represents a small amount of GDP the advantage is again a social benefit as the consumer escapes the hassle associated with the exchange of the currency- often quite a stressful factor when planning to travel. There is also a benefit associated with price transparency where if the same good is sold in many of the countries in the monetary union, then it is easy for the consumer to compare prices. This should reduce price discrimination and increase competition. This is a healthy scenario for the consumer as they would benefit from price competition- often the price of the good or service falls. Despite this potential benefit there is evidence that this is not the case and that price differentiation exists- an example being price differences within member countries in the EU. The same currency and stability associated with the monetary union encourages transnational companies to invest. This is because there would multiple countries across the zone to invest in and get returns from as they all follow the same currency and would all be under the same central control. This may help the multi-national countries achieve greater economies of scale as there would be easier trading and investment capabilities across the zone. This would lower average costs for firms and increase the relative GDP in the zone. This would increase economic growth. Therefore having the same currency enables economic growth in a country through increased business confidence as there is increased stability. The drawbacks of using the same currency are also quite evident. The main and key drawback is the ‘one size fits all’ policy. Here the monetary policy is controlled by the central bank. Countries have no ability to set the interest rates in the country. This can be disastrous in a country with low consumption or investment levels. This is because if the central bank placed high interest rates on countries within the union, consumption would be further detracted, leading to a drop in economic growth. Therefore the loss of individual control is a major factor that needs to be considered before becoming part of the same currency. There can also be a case where the central bank will set interest rates that accommodate the larger, higher productive countries in the union. This will mean the smaller countries will grow at a slower rate and potentially lead to greater inequality. The one size fits all policy may mean that the union becomes less flexible and therefore the policies can place constraints on economic growth for countries. This can cause inefficiency as the production will not be at optimum potential and will limit countries. Another huge drawback is the effective exchange rate differences would be eliminated. For example, during the economic boom of the early 2000’s, England had a very strong exchange rate compared to the other European countries. This enabled cheap imports for the country, increasing domestic consumer welfare. By switching to the euro, the imports would not have been cheaper and would have left consumers with a drop in welfare as they would not have been gaining through a stronger exchange rate. Overall the costs of switching to the same currency have its drawbacks outweighing its benefits. This is especially the case for the one size fits all policy as this is the policy that loses the country its individuality and means the country loses control of its monetary policy.

Night By Elie Weisel

To suffer, as defined in the dictionary, means to undergo or feel pain or great distress. Another way to say it is to sustain injury, disadvantage, or loss. And yet another way to definesuffering is to say to endure or be afflicted with something temporary or chronically. If they wereto ask Elie Wiesel what his definition of suffering was, he would have a lot to say and what hetold them would be more horrible than their wildest dreams. It is hard to relate to something ofthe magnitude of Elie’s suffering, without actually being there, but after reading his book I have awhole new understanding and sympathy for the Holocaust victims. Elie’s story took place while he was a very young boy, approximately 14. His friend(town beggar) Moshe, had been somewhat helping with his studies until all the foreigners wereforced to leave the town. Sneaking back in several weeks later Moshe told of the stories that hehad witnessed. They were gruesome accounts of what the Nazi’s were doing to innocentchildren. His stories were payed little attention, but soon the townspeople were being forced toleave and migrate towards ghettos. From there it was just waiting till they were moved by train tothe concentration camps. Once off the train, Elie and his father were separated from Elie’smother and sister, little did he know that he would never see them again. Through bribery andfriendships along the way he managed to stay close to his aging father. Little respect and evenless food was given to the captives while they performed labor intensive tasks in the quarries. During the day work was performed and if anyone was caught doing anything illegal the weremurdered in front of anybody to set an example of what would happen if an escape was tried. Throughout Elie’s horrific ordeal, he would always comment on the night. This wasfitting being the name of the book, but also because that is the time most of us do our reflection. It is time spent alone and it giving a chance to sort out your thoughts and be one with yourself. Nighttime was probably when reality set in. Elie would often compare himself and the othervictims to the trials that Job went through. If you remember, the book of Job did not explain the mystery of suffering but explored the idea of faith in the midst of suffering. It started out as adiscussion between Satan and God on the loyalty of his servants. Satan proposed that if he wereto take away all of Job’s values in life that he would indeed curse the name of God. God agreedto let Job be tested but his live could not be taken from him. So, Satan did take away every thingincluding his family, his house, and all of his livestock. Then to top it he afflicted Job with boilsand sores all over his body. Job had no idea all of this was being done to him but his friendsseemed to think that it was because he had done something wrong and God was punishing him forit. Elie felt the same way but at the end of Job’s story God tries to rectify Job’s life to the statefrom which it came. Elie was not as lucky. Elie’s health was deteriorating but his old father felt it worse. They were bothmalnourished but at Elie’s young age he could hold out a little longer. On January 29 were Elieawoke his father was gone. His father lack of health and old age was his downfall. The death ofhis father made Elie and stronger person with only his own well-being on his mind. He no longerhad to worry if his father was keeping up with the work or that he had enough food. He wasliving for himself. This new focused energy is what kept Elie from dying himself. Not too longafter his father’s death the Allies moved in and Elie and the few remaining prisoners wereliberated. This was a time of joy for some but also a time of sadness in remembrance of all whohad gone before them. Before reading this book I had a somewhat skeptic view of what exactly had taken placeduring the war. While reading this book I believed this man’s testimony 100%. It was beyond mycomprehension how something like this could have and did take place. The only thought that Ihad at the completion of this book was, what about the other victims (non-jews). I guess becausethis was only one man’s story and Jews were the only people he saw so that is what he wroteabout. This book really makes you think about all the freedoms that I (WE) take for grantedeveryday. I have learned to view the Holocaust in an all new perspective.

Art After Philosophy (1969) Joseph Kosuth Essay

The fact that it has recently become fashionable for physicists themselves to be sympathetic toward religion . . . marks the physicists’ own lack of confidence in the validity of their hypotheses, which is a reaction on their part from the antireligious dogmatism of nineteenth-century scientists, and a natural outcome of the crisis through which physics has just passed. –A. J. Ayer. . . . once one has understood the Tractatus there will be no temptation to concern oneself anymore with philosophy, which is neither empirical like science nor tautological like mathematics; one will, like Wittgenstein in 1918, abandon philosophy, which, as traditionally understood, is rooted in confusion. –J. O. Urmson. Traditional philosophy, almost by definition, has concerned itself with the unsaid. The nearly exclusive focus on the said by twentieth-century analytical linguistic philosophers is the shared contention that the unsaid is unsaid because it is unsayable. Hegelian philosophy made sense in the nineteenth century and must have been soothing to a century that was barely getting over Hume, the Enlightenment, and Kant.1 Hegel’s philosophy was also capable of giving cover for a defense of religious beliefs, supplying an alternative to Newtonian mechanics, and fitting in with the growth of history as a discipline, as well as accepting Darwinian biology.2 He appeared to give an acceptable resolution to the conflict between theology and science, as well. The result of Hegel’s influence has been that a great majority of contemporary philosophers are really little more than historians of philosophy, Librarians of the Truth, so to speak. One begins to get the impression that there â€Å"is nothing more to be said.† And certainly if one realizes the implications of Wittgenstein’s thinking, and the thinking influenced by him and after him, â€Å"Continental† philosophy need not seriously be considered here.3 Is there a reason for the â€Å"unreality† of philosophy in our time? Perhaps this can be answered by looking into the difference between our time and the centuries preceding us. In the past man’s conclusions about the world were based on the information he had about it – if not specifically like the empiricists, then generally like the rationalists. Often in fact, the closeness between science and philosophy was so great that scientists and philosophers were one and the same person. In fact, from the times of Thales, Epicurus, Heraclitus, and Aristotle to Descartes and Leibnitz, â€Å"the great names in philosophy were often great names in science as well.†4 That the world as perceived by twentieth-century science is a vastly different one than the one of its preceding century, need not be proved here. Is it possible, then, that in effect man has learned so much, and his â€Å"intelligence† is such, that he cannot believe the reasoning of traditional philosophy? That perhaps he knows too much about the world to make those kinds of conclusions? As Sir James Jeans has stated: . . . When philosophy has availed itself of the results of science, it has not been by borrowing the abstract mathematical description of the pattern of events, but by borrowing the then current pictorial description of this pattern; thus it has not appropriated certain knowledge but conjectures. These conjectures were often good enough for the man-sized world, but not, as we now know, for those ultimate processes of nature which control the happenings of the man-sized world, and bring us nearest to the true nature of reality.5 He continues: One consequence of this is that the standard philosophical discussions of many problems, such as those of causality and free will orof materialism or mentalism, are based on an interpretation of the pattern of events which is no longer tenable. The scientific basis of these older discussions has been washed away, and with their disappearance have gone all the arguments . . .6 The twentieth century brought in a time that could be called â€Å"the end of philosophy and the beginning of art.† I do not mean that, of course, strictly speaking, but rather as the â€Å"tendency† of the situation. Certainly linguistic philosophy can be considered the heir to empiricism, but it’s a philosophy in one gear.7 And there is certainly an â€Å"art condition† to art preceding Duchamp, but its other functions or reasons-to-be are so pronounced that its ability to function clearly as art limits its art condition so drastically that it’s only minimally art.8 In no mechanistic sense is there a connection between philosophy’s â€Å"ending† and art’s â€Å"beginning,† but I don’t find this occurrence entirely coincidental. Though the same reasons may be responsible for both occurrences, the connection is made by me. I bring this all up to analyze art’s function and subsequently its viability. And I do so to enable others to understand the reasoning of my – and, by extension, other artists’ – art, as well to provide a clearer understanding of the term â€Å"Conceptual art.†9 THE FUNCTION OF ART The main qualifications to the lesser position of painting is that advances in art are certainly not always formal ones. –Donald Judd (1963). Half or more of the best new work in the last few years has been neither painting nor sculpture. – Donald Judd (1965). Everything sculpture has, my work doesn’t. –Donald Judd (1967). The idea becomes a machine that makes the art. –Sol LeWitt (1965) The one thing to say about art is that it is one thing. Art is art-as-art and everything else is everything else. Art as art is nothing but art. Art is not what is not art. –Ad Reinhardt (1963). The meaning is the use. –Wittgenstein. A more functional approach to the study of concepts has tended to replace the method of introspection. Instead of attempting to grasp or describe concepts bare, so to speak, the psychologist investigates the way in which they function as ingredients in beliefs and in judgments. –Irving M. Copi. Meaning is always a presupposition of function. –T. Segerstedt. . . . the subject matter of conceptual investigations is the meaning of certain words and expressions – and not the things and states of affairs themselves about which we talk, when using those words and expressions. –G. H. Von Wright. Thinking is radically metaphoric. Linkage by analogy is its constituent law or principle, its causal nexus, since meaning only arises through the causal contexts by which a sign stands for (takes the place of) an instance of a sort. To think of anything is to take it as of a sort (as a such and such) and that â€Å"as† brings in (openly or in disguise) the analogy, the parallel, the metaphoric grapple or ground or grasp or draw by which alone the mind takes hold. It takes no hold if there is nothing for it to haul from, for its thinking is the haul, the attraction of likes –I. A. Richards. In this section I will discuss the separation between aesthetics and art; consider briefly formalist art (because it is a leading proponent of the idea of aesthetics as art), and assert that art is analogous to an analytic proposition, and that it is art’s existence as a tautology that enables art to remain â€Å"aloof† from philosophical presumptions. It is necessary to separate aesthetics from art because aesthetics deals with opinions on perception of the world in general. In the past one of the two prongs of art’s function was its value as decoration. So any branch of philosophy that dealt with â€Å"beauty† and thus, taste, was inevitably duty bound to discuss art as well. Out of this â€Å"habit† grew the notion that there was a conceptual connection between art and aesthetics, which is not true. This idea never drastically conflicted with artistic considerations before recent times, not only because the morphological characteristics of art perpetuated the continuity of this error, but as well, because the apparent other â€Å"functions† of art (depiction of religious themes, portraiture of aristocrats, detailing of architecture, etc.) used art to cover up art. When objects are presented within the context of art (and until recently objects always have been used) they are as eligible for aesthetic consideration as are any objects in the world, and an aesthetic consideration of an object existing in the realm of art means that the object’s existence or functioning in an art context is irrelevant to the aesthetic judgment. The relation of aesthetics to art is not unlike that of aesthetics to architecture, in that architecture has a very specific function and how â€Å"good† its design is is primarily related to how well it performs its function. Thus, judgments on what it looks like correspond to taste, and we can see that throughout history different examples of architecture are praised at different times depending on the aesthetics of particular epochs. Aesthetic thinking has even gone so far as to make examples of architecture not related to â€Å"art† at all, works of art in themselves (e.g., the pyramids of Egypt). Aesthetic considerations are indeed always extraneous to an object’s function or â€Å"reason-tobe.† Unless of course, that object’s reason-to-be is strictly aesthetic. An example of a purely aesthetic object is a decorative object, for decoration’s primary function is â€Å"to add something to, so as to make more attractive; adorn; ornament,†10 and this relates directly to taste. And this leads us directly to â€Å"formalist† art and criticism.11 Formalist art (painting and sculpture) is the vanguard of decoration, and, strictly speaking, one could reasonably assert that its art condition is so minimal that for all functional purposes it is not art at all, but pure exercises in aesthetics. Above all things Clement Greenberg is the critic of taste. Behind every one of his decisions is an aesthetic judgment, with those judgments reflecting his taste. And what does his taste reflect? The period he grew up in as a critic, the period â€Å"real† for him: the fifties.12 How else can one account for, given his theories – if they have any logic to them at all – his disinterest in Frank Stella, Ad Reinhardt, and others applicable to his historical scheme? Is it because he is â€Å". . . basically unsympathetic on personally experiential grounds†?13 Or, in other words, â€Å"their work doesn’t suit his taste?† But in the philosophic tabula rasa of art, â€Å"if someone calls it art,† as Don Judd has said, â€Å"it’s art.† Given this, formalist painting and sculpture can be granted an â€Å"art condition,† but only by virtue of their presentation in terms of their art idea (e.g., a rectangular-shaped canvas stretched over wooden supports and stained with such and such colors, using such and such forms, giving such and such a visual experience, etc.). If one looks at contemporary art in this light one realizes the minimal creative effort taken on the part of formalist artists specifically, an d all painters and sculptors (working as such today) generally. This brings us to the realization that formalist art and criticism accepts as a definition of art one that exists solely on morphological grounds. While a vast quantity of similar looking objects or images (or visually related objects or images) may seem to be related (or connected) because of a similarity of visual/experiential â€Å"readings,† one cannot claim from this an artistic or conceptual relationship. It is obvious then that formalist criticism’s reliance on morphology leads necessarily with a bias toward the morphology of traditional art. And in this sense their criticism is not related to a â€Å"scientific method† or any sort of empiricism (as Michael Fried, with his detailed descriptions of paintings and other â€Å"scholarly† paraphernalia would want us to believe). Formalist criticism is no more than an analysis of the physical attributes of particular objects that happen to exist in a morphological context. But this doesn’t add any knowledge (or facts) to our understanding of the nature or function of art. And neither does it comment on whether or not the objects analyzed are even works of art, in that formalist critics always bypass the conceptual element in works of art. Exactly why they don’t comment on the conceptual element in works of art is precisely because formalist art is only art by virtue of its resemblance to earlier works of art. It’s a mindless art. Or, as Lucy Lippard so succinctly described Jules Olitski’s paintings: â€Å"they’re visual Muzak.† 14 Formalist critics and artists alike do not question the nature of art, but as I have said elsewhere: Being an artist now means to question the nature of art. If one is questioning the nature of painting, one cannot be questioning the nature of art. If an artist accepts painting (or sculpture) he is accepting the tradition that goes with it. That’s because the word art is general and the word painting is specific. Painting is a kind of art. If you make paintings you are already accepting (not questioning) the nature of art. One is then accepting the nature of art to be the European tradition of a painting-sculpture dichotomy.15 The strongest objection one can raise against a morphological justification for traditional art is that morphological notions of art embody an implied a priori concept of art’s possibilities. And such an a priori concept of the nature of art (as separate from analytically framed art propositions or â€Å"work,† which I will discuss later) makes it, indeed, a priori: impossible to question the nature of art. And this questioning of the nature of art is a very important concept in understanding the function of art. The function of art, as a question, was first raised by Marcel Duchamp. In fact it is Marcel Duchamp whom we can credit with giving art its own identity. (One can certainly see a tendency toward this self-identification of art beginning with Manet and Cà ©zanne through to Cubism,16 but their works are timid and ambiguous by comparison with Duchamp’s.) â€Å"Modern† art and the work before seemed connected by virtue of their morphology. Another way of putting it would be that art’s â€Å"language† remained the same, but it was saying new things. The event that made conceivable the realization that it was possible to â€Å"speak another language† and still make sense in art was Marcel Duchamp’s first unassisted Ready-made. With the unassisted Ready-made, art changed its focus from the form of the language to what was being said. Which means that it changed the nature of art from a question of morphology to a question of function. This change – one from â€Å"appearance† to â€Å"conception† – was the beginning of â€Å"modern† art and the beginning of conceptual art. All art (after Duchamp) is conceptual (in nature) because art only exists conceptually. The â€Å"value† of particular artists after Duchamp can be weighed according to how much they questioned the nature of art; which is another way of saying â€Å"what they added to the conception of art† or what wasn’t there before they started. Artists question the nature of art by presenting new propositions as to art’s nature. And to do this one cannot concern oneself with the handed-down â€Å"language† of traditional art, as this activity is based on the assumption that there is only one way of framing art propositions. But the very stuff of art is indeed greatly related to â€Å"creating† new propositions. The case is often made – particularly in reference to Duchamp – that objects of art (such as the Ready-mades, of course, but all art is implied in this) are judged as objets d’art in later years and the artists’ intentions become irrelevant. Such an argument is the case of a preconceived notion ordering together not necessarily related facts. The point is this: aesthetics, as we have pointed out, are conceptually irrelevant to art. Thus, any physical thing can become objet d’art, that is to say, can be considered tasteful, aesthetically pleasing, etc. But this has no bearing on the object’s application to an art context; that is, its functioning in an art context. (E.g., if a collector takes a painting, attaches legs, and uses it as a dining table it’s an act unrelated to art or the artist because, as art, that wasn’t the artist’s intention.) And what holds true for Duchamp’s work applies as well to most of the art after him. In other words, the value of Cubism – for instance – is its idea in the realm of art, not the physical or visual qualities seen in a specific painting, or the particularization of certain colors or shapes. For these colors and shapes are the art’s â€Å"language,† not its meaning conceptually as art. To look upon a Cubist â€Å"masterwork† now as art is nonsensical, conceptually speaking, as far as art is concerned. (That visual information that was unique in Cubism’s language has now been generally absorbed and has a lot to do with the way in which one deals with painting â€Å"linguistically.† [E.g., what a Cubist painting meant experimentally and conceptually to, say, Gertrude Stein, is beyond our speculation because the same painting then â€Å"meant† something different than it does now.]) The â€Å"value† now of an original Cubist painting is not unlike, in most respects, an original manuscript by Lord Byron, or The Spirit of St. Louis as it is seen in the Smithsonian Institution. (Indeed, museums fill the very same function as the Smithsonian Institution – why else would the Jeu de Paume wing of the Louvre exhibit Cà ©zanne’s and Van Gogh’s palettes as proudly as they do their paintings?) Actual works of art are little more than historical curiosities. As far as art is concerned Van Gogh’s paintings aren’t worth any more than his palette is. They are both â€Å"collector’s items.†17 Art â€Å"lives† through influencing other art, not by existing as the physical residue of an artist’s ideas. The reason that different artists from the past are â€Å"brought alive† again is because some aspect of their work becomes â€Å"usable† by living artists. That there is no â€Å"truth† as to what art is seems quite unrealized. What is the function of art, or the nature of art? If we continue our analogy of the forms art takes as being art’s language one can realize then that a work of art is a kind of proposition presented within the context of art as a comment on art. We can then go further and analyze the types of â₠¬Å"propositions.† A. J. Ayer’s evaluation of Kant’s distinction between analytic and synthetic is useful to us here: â€Å"A proposition is analytic when its validity depends solely on the definitions of the symbols it contains, and synthetic when its validity is determined by the facts of experience.†18 The analogy I will attempt to make is one between the art condition and the condition of the analytic proposition. In that they don’t appear to be believable as anything else, or be about anything (other than art) the forms of art most clearly finally referable only to art have been forms closest to analytical propositions. Works of art are analytic propositions. That is, if viewed within their context – as art – they provide no information whatsoever about any matter of fact. A work of art is a tautology in that it is a presentation of the artist’s intention, that is, he is saying that that particular work of art is art, which means, is a definition of art. Thus, that it is art is true a priori (which is what Judd means when he states that â€Å"if someone calls it art, it’s art†). Indeed, it is nearly impossible to discuss art in general terms without talking in tautologies – for to attempt to â€Å"grasp† art by any other â€Å"handle† is merely to focus on another aspect or quality of the proposition, which is usually irrelevant to the artwork’s â€Å"art condition.† One begins to realize that art’s â€Å"art condition† is a conceptual state. That the language forms that the artist frames his propositions in are often â€Å"private† codes or languages is an inevitable outcome of art’s freedom from morphological constrictions; and it follows from this that one has to be familiar with contemporary art to appreciate it and understand it. Likewise one understands why the â€Å"man in the street† is intolerant to artistic art and always demands art in a tr aditional â€Å"language.† (And one understands why formalist art sells â€Å"like hot cakes.†) Only in painting and sculpture did the artists all speak the same language. What is called â€Å"Novelty Art† by the formalists is often the attempt to find new languages, although a new language doesn’t necessarily mean the framing of new propositions: e.g., most kinetic and electronic art. Another way of stating, in relation to art, what Ayer asserted about the analytic method in the context of language would be the following: The validity of artistic propositions is not dependent on any empirical, much less any aesthetic, presupposition about the nature of things. For the artist, as an analyst, is not directly concerned with the physical properties of things. He is concerned only with the way (1) in which art is capable of conceptual growth and (2) how his propositions are capable of logically following that growth.19 In other words, the propositions of art are not factual, but linguistic in character – that is, they do not describe the behavior of physical, o r even mental objects; they express definitions of art, or the formal consequences of definitions of art. Accordingly, we can say that art operates on a logic. For we shall see that the characteristic mark of a purely logical inquiry is that it is concerned with the formal consequences of our definitions (of art) and not with questions of empirical fact.20 To repeat, what art has in common with logic and mathematics is that it is a tautology; i.e., the â€Å"art idea† (or â€Å"work†) and art are the same and can be appreciated as art without going outside the context of art for verification. On the other hand, let us consider why art cannot be (or has difficulty when it attempts to be) a synthetic proposition. Or, that is to say, when the truth or falsity of its assertion is verifiable on empirical grounds. Ayer states: . . . The criterion by which we determine the validity of an a priori or analytical proposition is not sufficient to determine the validity of an empirical or synthetic proposition. For it is characteristic of empirical propositions that their validity is not purely formal. To say that a geometrical proposition, or a system of geometrical propositions, is false, is to say that it is self-contradictory. But an empirical proposition, or a system of empirical propositions, may be free from contradiction and still be false. It is said to be false, not because it is formally defective, but because it fails to satisfy some material criterion.21 The unreality of â€Å"realistic† art is due to its framing as an art proposition in synthetic terms: one is always tempted to â€Å"verify† the proposition empirically. Realism’s synthetic state does not bring one to a circular swing back into a dialogue with the larger framework of questions about the nature of art (as does the work of Malevich, Mondrian, Pollock, Reinhardt, early Rauschenberg, Johns, Lichtenstein, Warhol, Andre, Judd, Flavin, LeWitt, Morris, and others), but rather, one is flung out of art’s â€Å"orbit† into the â€Å"infinite space† of the human condition. Pure Expressionism, continuing with Ayer’s terms, could be considered as such: â€Å"A sentence which consisted of demonstrative symbols would not express a genuine proposition. It would be a mere ejaculation, in no way characterizing that to which it was supposed to refer.† Expressionist works are usually such â€Å"ejaculations† presented in the morphological language of traditional art. If Pollock is important it is because he painted on loose canvas horizontally to the floor. What isn’t important is that he later put those drippings over stretchers and hung them parallel to the wall. (In other words what is important in art is what one brings to it, not one’s adoption of what was previously existing.) What is even less important to art is Pollock’s notions of â€Å"self-expression† because those kinds of subjective meanings are useless to anyone other than those involved with him personally. And their â€Å"specific† quality puts them outside of art’s context. â€Å"I do not make art,† Richard Serra says, â€Å"I am engaged in an activity; if someone wants to call it art, that’s his business, but it’s not up to me to decide that. That’s all figured out later.† Serra, then, is very much aware of the implications of his work. If Serra is indeed just â€Å"figuring out what lead does† (gravitationally, molecularly, etc.), why should anyone think of it as art? If he doesn’t take the responsibility of it being art, who can, or should? His work certainly appears to be empirically verifiable: lead can do, and be used for, many physical activities. In itself this does anything but lead us into a dialogue about the nature of art. In a sense then he is a primitive. He has no idea about art. How is it then that we know about â€Å"his activity†? Because he has told us it is art by his actions after â€Å"his activity† has taken place. That is, by the fact that he is with several galleries, puts the physical residue of his activity in museums (and sells them to art collectors – but as we have pointed out, collectors are irrelevant to the â€Å"condition of art† of a work). That he denies his work is art but plays the artist is more than just a paradox. Serra secretly feels that â€Å"arthood† is arrived at empirically. Thus, as Ayer has stated: There are no absolutely certain empirical propositions. It is only tautologies that are certain. Empirical questions are one and all hypotheses, which may be confirmed or discredited in actual sense experience. And the propositions in which we record the observations that verify these hypotheses are themselves hypotheses which are subject to the test of further sense experience. Thus there is no final proposition.22 What one finds all throughout the writings of Ad Reinhardt is this very similar thesis of â€Å"artas-art,† and that â€Å"art is always dead, and a ‘living’ art is a deception.†23 Reinhardt had a very clear idea about the nature of art, and his importance is far from recognized. Because forms of art that can be considered synthetic propositions are verifiable by the world, that is to say, to understand these propositions one must leave the tautological-like framework of art and consider â€Å"outside† information. But to consider it as art it is necessary to ignore this same outside information, because outside information (experiential qualities, to note) has its own intrinsic worth. And to comprehend this worth one does not need a state of â€Å"art condition.† From this it is easy to realize that art’s viability is not connected to the presentation of visual (or other) kinds of experience. That that may have been one of art’s extraneous functions in the preceding centuries is not unlikely. After all, man in even the nineteenth century lived in a fairly standardized visual environment. That is, it was ordinarily predictable as to what he would be coming into contact with day after day. His visual environment in the part of the world in which he lived was fairly consistent. In our time we have an experientially drastically richer environment. One can fly all over the earth in a matter of hours and days, not months. We have the cinema, and color television, as well as the man-made spectacle of the lights of Las Vegas or the skyscrapers of New York City. The whole world is there to be seen, and the whole world can watch man walk on the moon from their living rooms. Certainly art or objects of painting and sculpture cannot be expected to compete experientially with this? The notion of â€Å"use† is relevant to art and its â€Å"language.† Recently the box or cube form has been used a great deal within the context of art. (Take for instance its use by Judd, Morris, LeWitt, Bladen, Smith, Bell, and McCracken – not even mentioning the quantity of boxes and cubes that came after.) The difference between all the various uses of the box or cube form is directly related to the differences in the intentions of the artists. Further, as is particularly seen in Judd’s work, the use of the box or cube form illustrates very well our earlier claim that an object is only art when placed in the context of art. A few examples will point this out. One could say that if one of Judd’s box forms was seen filled with debris, seen placed in an industrial setting, or even merely seen sitting on a street corner, it would not be identified with art. It follows then that understanding and consideration of it as an artwork is necessary a priori to viewing it in order to â€Å"see† it as a work of art. Advance information about the concept of art and about an artist’s concepts is necessary to the appreciation and understanding of contemporary art. Any and all of the physical attributes (qualities) of contemporary works, if considered separately and/or specifically, are irrelevant to the art concept. The art concept (as Judd said, though he didn’t mean it this way) must be considered in its whole. To consider a concept’s parts is invariably to consider aspects that are irrelevant to its art condition – or like reading parts of a definition. It comes as no surprise that the art with the least fixed morphology is the example from which we decipher the nature of the general term â€Å"art.† For where there is a context existing separately of its morphology and consisting of its function one is more likely to find results less conforming and predictable. It is in modern art’s possession of a â€Å"language† with the shortest history that the plausibility of the abandonment of that â€Å"language† becomes most possible. It is understandable then that the art that came out of Western painting and sculpture is the most energetic, questioning (of its nature), and the least assuming of all the general â€Å"art† concerns. In the final analysis, however, all of the arts have but (in Wittgenstein’s terms) a â€Å"family† resemblance. Yet the various qualities relatable to an â€Å"art condition† possessed by poetry, the novel, the cinema, the theatre, and various forms of mus ic, etc., is that aspect of them most reliable to the function of art as asserted here. Is not the decline of poetry relatable to the implied metaphysics from poetry’s use of â€Å"common† language as an art language?24 In New York the last decadent stages of poetry can be seen in the move by â€Å"Concrete† poets recently toward the use of actual objects and theatre.25 Can it be that they feel the unreality of their art form? We see now that the axioms of a geometry are simply definitions, and that the theorems of a geometry are simply the logical consequences of these definitions. A geometry is not in itself about physical space; in itself it cannot be said to be â€Å"about† anything. But we can use a geometry to reason about physical space. That is to say, once we have given the axioms a physical interpretation, we can proceed to apply the theorems to the objects which satisfy the axioms. Whether a geometry can be applied to the actual physical world or not, is an empirical question which falls outside the scope of geometry itself. There is no sense, therefore, in asking which of the various geometries known to us are false and which are true. Insofar as they are all free from contradiction, they are all true. The proposition which states that a certain application of a geometry is possible is not itself a proposition of that geometry. All that the geometry itself tells us is that if anything can be brought under the definitions, it will also satisfy the theorems. It is therefore a purely logical system, and its propositions are purely analytic propositions. –A. J. Ayer26 Here then I propose rests the viability of art. In an age when traditional philosophy is unreal because of its assumptions, art’s ability to exist will depend not only on its not performing a service – as entertainment, visual (or other) experience, or decoration – which is something easily replaced by kitsch culture, and technology, but, rather, it will remain viable by not assuming a philosophical stance; for in art’s unique character is the capacity to remain aloof from philosophical judgments. It is in this context that art shares similarities with logic, mathematics, and, as well, science. But whereas the other endeavors are useful, art is not. Art indeed exists for its own sake. In this period of man, after philosophy and religion, art may possibly be one endeavor that fulfills what another age might have called â€Å"man’s spiritual needs.† Or, another way of putting it might be that art deals analogously with the state of things â€Å"beyond physics† where philosophy had to make assertions. And art’s strength is that even the preceding sentence is an assertion, and cannot be verified by art. Art’s only claim is for art. Art is the definition of art. NOTES * Reprinted from Studio International (October, 1969). 1 Morton White, The Age of Analysis (New York: Mentor Books), p. 14. 2 Ibid., p. 15. 3 I mean by this Existentialism and Phenomenology. Even Merleau-Ponty, with his middle-of-the-road position between empiricism and rationalism, cannot express his philosophy without the use of words (thus using concepts); and following this, how can one discuss experience without sharp distinctions between ourselves and the world? 4 Sir James Jeans, Physics and Philosophy (Ann Arbor, Mich.: University of Michigan Press), p. 17. 5 Ibid., p. 190. 6 Ibid., p. 190. 7 The task such philosophy has taken upon itself is the only â€Å"function† it could perform without making philosophic assertions. 8 This is dealt with in the following section. 9 I would like to make it clear, however, that I intend to speak for no one else. I arrived at these conclusions alone, and indeed, it is from this thinking that my art since 1966 (if not before) evo lved. Only recently did I realize after meeting Terry Atkinson that he and Michael Baldwin share similar, though certainly not identical, opinions to mine. 10 Webster’s New World Dictionary of the American Language. 11 The conceptual level of the work of Kenneth Noland, Jules Olitski, Morris Louis, Ron Davis, Anthony Caro, John Hoyland, Dan Christensen, et al., is so dismally low, that any that is there is supplied by the critics promoting it. This is seen later. 12 Michael Fried’s reasons for using Greenberg’s rationale reflect his background (and most of the other formalist critics) as a â€Å"scholar,† but more of it is due to his desire, I suspect, to bring his scholarly studies into the modern world. One can easily sympathize with his desire to connect, say, Tiepolo with Jules Olitski. One should never forget, however, that a historian loves history more than anything, even art. 13 Lucy Lippard uses this quotation in a footnote to Ad Reinhardt’s retrospective catalogue, January, 1967, p. 28. 14 Lucy Lippard, â€Å"Constellation by Harsh Daylight: The Whitney Annual,† Hudson Review, Vol. 21, No. 1 (Spring, 1968). 15 Arthur R. Rose, â€Å"Four Interviews,† Arts Magazine (February, 1969). 16 As Terry Atkinson pointed out in his introduction to Art-Language (Vol. 1, No. 1), the Cubists never questioned if art had morphological characteristics, but which ones in painting were acceptable. 17 When someone â€Å"buys† a Flavin he isn’t buying a light show, for if he was he could just go to a hardware store and get the goods for considerably less. He isn’t â€Å"buying† anything. He is subsidizing Flavin’s activity as an artist. 18 A. J. Ayer, Language, Truth, and Logic (New York: Dover Publications), p. 78. 19 Ibid., p. 57. 20 Ibid., p. 57. 21 Ibid., p.90. 22 Ibid., p. 94. 23 Ad Reinhardt’s retrospective catalogue (Jewish Museum, January, 1967) written by Lucy Lippard, p. 12. 24 It is poetry’s use of common language to attempt to say the unsayable that is problematic, not any inherent problem in the use of language within the context of art. 25 Ironically, many of them call themselves â€Å"Conceptual Poets.† Much of this work is very similar to Walter de Maria’s work and this is not coincidental; de Maria’s work functions as a kind of â€Å"object† poetry, and his intentions are very poetic: he really wants his work to change men’s lives. 26 Op. cit., p. 82.