This past week in class, I noticed a recurring topic of “what is art?” The debate is widely recognized and I don’t believe that there is a true definition of what exactly art is, due to the topic’s subjectivity. When I went to the National Association of Women Artists exhibit on Wednesday, I couldn’t help but keep questioning why a beautiful hyper-realistic painting would be placed next to something that looked incomplete and amateur. If I really wanted to, I could squeeze a tomato and smear some toothpaste onto a canvas and it would look just as good as some of the artwork displayed at the exhibit. I wish that I were able to understand the inspiration behind some of the more abstract pieces of “art” there because I feel like I wouldn’t be as quick to judge the piece. But that goes for all of the pieces on display. If each of the artists took a few minutes to write a short paragraph on what made them construct what they created, I might have been able to understand why they considered this to be art. This brings me back to an idea presented last Friday regarding the idea of art losing its title of “art” once it is sold for money. I don’t agree with this statement because art doesn’t only include paintings, sculptures, etc. It also is defined as music, literature, and poetry, which are all just as artistic as visuals created by hand and these things are sold on a much more regular basis. On the other hand, I do think that art, once sold, should be available to the public. Just because someone isn’t rich enough to afford to buy a piece of art doesn’t mean that they should be able to view it. And that’s where technology comes in. Decades ago the only way that people were able to see a specific work of art secondhand was through reproductions, but now, anybody with access to the Internet can become an art activist. Although technology might be considered to have a negative impact on the art world, it is slowly working its way into art in a way that was never possible before.