The author seems to have a great dislike for a large amount of the art at the Chelsea Galleries, stating only one or two things out of fifty shows would really impress a viewer. However, he then says that “you [the reader] and I will be thrown by different things.” So, doesn’t that negate his previous statement, since the reader may be impressed by more/fewer artistic creations than the writer has? Saltz seems to be assuming his audience thinks the same as him one minute, and then acknowledging their differences the next, which tosses a whole section of the article out the window.

25-69: Where the Gestalt psychologists are concerned with art that is based on the context in which we view it in, isn’t this form of art counter to what art is meant to be? That is, instead of attempting to evoke an emotion or explain something to the audience, doesn’t this abstract form of art actually attempt to trick or challenge its audience? I feel as if it is purposed differently than other styles of art.

99-111: With the advent of more advanced forms are art, are we to expect that older styles of art such as sculpting and painting will eventually fade away and be fully replaced by their more contemporary versions, via computer design and digital art? Similar to how the old forms of cameras have been beaten out by the easier-to-use phone and digital cameras we now use, isn’t it likely that those art forms of the past will be eliminated by their cheaper, more user-friendly counterparts?

In You Never Can Tell, my question is as to what happens to Valentine and Gloria’s relationship following the events of the play (and, supposedly, their marriage). It feels as if the play implies that their marriage is not meant to last, based on various hints thrown out over the course of the play. Early on, Crampton states that he had seen many men marry out of desperation for money and that it had not worked out. This seems like a foreshadowing of the events to come, as Valentine makes the decision to get married that very same day, when he is broke and penniless, and he even admits as such. Another tell is when Philip addresses their relationship as Romeo and Juliet – the star-crossed lovers. It may mean that he suspects their love will not last and will end tragically. Aside from that, Valentine has said he has felt the same way about other women before – who is to say Gloria isn’t the only one naive enough to fall for him? His last name is even Valentine, like Valentine’s Day – perhaps that’s a hint by the writer that the character is willing to give his heart up to any pretty lady he sees. So, my question: Will the marriage really last or will it simply be a repeat of Crampton and Mrs. Clandon’s failed relationship?

For the Theatre reading, my question stems from where it is stated that the director is interpreting what the playwright has created. If the director’s interpretation is what is being presented on the stage and, thus, is the finished product that the audience will view, does that mean that the play truly belongs to the person directing it and not the writer? It’s almost as if the writer simply creates a guideline of themes and characters and such, and the director’s job is to work within that mold to actually generate the play. As we can see in film and theatrical works adapted from literature, such as A Streetcar Named Desire or The Great Gatsby, the interpretation of the director can be drastically different from what was in the original work. Within the theatre, are we truly ever seeing the creation of the playwright, instead of the director?

The opening quote particularly caught my attention. Picasso states that humans will attempt to solve and understand things like portraits (and presumably, artifacts, sculptures, etc. as well). But he also says humans ignore birdsongs – which are perhaps a more natural, even primal form of art that dates back long before the dawn of man. What does he mean in this statement? Does he imply that certain art forms, maybe those created by humans, are seen as superior to others, and are thus worthy of our attention, while others are not? Is this a form of elitism within art that Picasso is acknowledging? Maybe he’s saying that more modern forms of art are representative of a higher intelligence – is the advancement of art indicative of an advanced society?