I would not call myself a close-minded person. I would not even call myself a fully conventional person (unlike the allusion I appear to be while in class). Art is a very complex subject. While I cannot even begin to grasp some concepts of art, other forms I love. The discussion of the various interpretations of Muller's play in class I have to admit left me very confused. I do not want to seem as if I hate this class. This is definitely not the case. However, discussions were there is no definite answer honestly frustrates me. As I stated before, I am not close-minded. However, the continous questioning of a subject and of life in general is somewhat insane to me. The continous question of "What is art" only leaves me to one conclusion--everything is art. If art is self-expression, in a way, every thing is self-expressed because everything is created by something. Therefore, Earth is art. Now, I have pondered the discussion of the different interpretations of an artist's play, such as that of Muller's. I am actually beginning to understand why various interpretations exist and why they hold to the original name. I did not know that in the original text of a play, every single thing about the play was not spelled out. By this I mean, the point the playwriter is trying to make, costumes, exact setting, etc. Therefore, a play in a way has no choice but to be interpreted without the author at hand. On the other hand, what if as in Muller's case, the author is at hand? If the author of a play is alive and able to be communicated with, why not ask for his vision? This seems to be the problem that led to Muller's disappointment. But then again, this led to the debate of Muller beign hypocritical, since he seems to agree with interpreting art. To sum it up, I was left very confused at the end of the class. However, I am trying to keep up and not automatically give up because I don't understand a concept. I am glad I took this class because it is definitely a challenge worth taking.