These articles all discussed the support and the destruction of important pieces of art. However, none of them really defined art or what a culturally significant piece is defined as. There are so many products produced daily. Objects inherently have value if they are ancient, but everyday more and more art, more products, and more artistic products and exhibitions of design are being produced everyday. How can governments choose what pieces are most valuable and worthy of production and how do governments decide what is worthy of being subsidized in the modern day. None of the articles explicitly addressed the cultural significance of any piece specifically. These articles posed situations that can bring up one's core existential values like whether or not one's heritage or one's mark on the world is more important than their life at the moment. Some of these issues were discussed in seminars but if we do not know how something is defined, we cannot conclude anything about it or think beyond to the implications of these definitions.
These readings are presented to a class of liberal, young, creative students who are getting one of the most inclusive and sometimes the most cynical depictions of history that is offered in this state and probably in this country. Our discussions generally turn into rants on politics, regarding issues that we all agree on. For example, my group today was talking about where to cut and where to spend which led us on a tangent on the US's excessive military spending, which we all agreed was excessive. We for the most part all agree that censorship is bad, patronage is good, pillaging is bad, museums should be protected, and that Hitler did nothing for European artistic promotion. No one in an art class is going to argue against a positive community for artistic advancement and none of the articles made any controversial theses that would be cause for significant and thought-provoking discussion. Most of us need very little context, which is all that articles like the Medici blog post were about. Most of these articles are pretty interesting, but none really present any ideas or arguments that would promote argument among a group of liberal, relatively politically aware art students. We all share the basic core views regarding art, politics, and history so these articles are not particularly challenging or though provoking, they merely reaffirm what we already think. I believe tougher ideological questions need to be posed and what we are discussing must be very specific and detailed, but at the same time, inherently controversial if we are to actually be forced to think.