Geoffrey was one of the most entertaining and wholesome guests we’ve had on the show yet. I really admire his commitment to helping people in quarantine find a reason to carry on. I respect how he put himself out there, and personally offered to talk to any member of the class if they have doubts in these trying times, even though we are a group of strangers that he most likely will never see again. He just has an aura of wholesomeness that surrounds him, no matter what he is speaking about. One of the main ideas that left me thinking after class was Geoffrey’s distaste for mixing art and money. This is not a shocking idea, since we spent a lot of time discussing this idea of the rich controlling expression of thought, going back to renaissance art like self portraits and scenes of excess and status. But I wonder if the involvement of money itself devalues paintings, or if it is the side effects of what that money entails. For example, if two separate paintings were both highly successful pop culture icons that became catalysts for progressive societal change, but the artist that created the first one was contracted to paint it, whereas the second painting was created without any recognition or monetary gain for the artist, would the first painting have any less merit than the second?