When I was young, I didn't understand why art is created. Mostly I focused on what was tangibly in front of me and not what was underneath, which is the artwork's purpose. Never have I given much thought about the purpose of art, but it always striked a chord in me. Something that is hard for me to describe and explain in words. But thankfully these authors and their articles helped give me a better understanding of why I get this feeling. In Ralph Waldo Emerson's article “Art” and in Scott Momaday's article “The Arrowmaker”, both authors clarifies arts significance despite referring to different types of art. Although it is only an invented image, art in all forms communicates a deeper meaning through its influential beauty and power. In
…show more content…
In Emerson's article, he explains the purpose of artwork describing it as “when your heart is touched by genius. [Artwork] was not painted for [picture-dealers], it was painted for you” (585). This is an explicitly spoken concept of the author, who is supporting the idea that art has beauty by using Raphael's The Transfiguration as an example, which affects the person who sees the piece of art (Emerson 584). This is an effective way of using logos to support his claim because he used an existing artwork to help support his claim that arts beauty is meant for others and not for anyone else. With the beauty of an artist's work in mind, a person is touched which is why Emerson states that art works are meant for the public. I can neither agree nor disagree on this authors view because I feel like when an artist creates their work, they are creating for themselves and not for others. On the other hand, I agree with Emerson because there are instances where most art work carries the artist's message and when their work is showcased, the art isn't meant for professionals, but for public citizens because the artist wants to show their work to the world. The artist probably wants acknowledgement of their work more so than criticism of how the artist created their …show more content…
The author appears deeply passionate based on his use of connotations; therefore, he is displaying an emotional appeal towards readers. Considering those connotations, Momaday is implying that words are a type of weapon. I assent with that conclusion because take bullying for instance. Bullying is not just a physical act but also a mental attack. It is well known that bullying is one of the causes of suicides particularly in teens in the United States and also one of the causes to start a campus shooting. Words are indeed powerful enough to wreck havok on the world. Another of Momaday's ideas is that “language does indeed represent the only chance for survival [for the storyteller and the arrowmaker]. It is appropriate that he survives in our time and that he has survived over a period of untold generations” (616). He is insisting that telling a story repeatedly will make that last for a long time. Also, the author is implicitly stating that it is a universal idea that language represents people's only chance for survival. In which, when relating to the previous quote, words can create or break someones fate. I concede that words decide peoples fate because say
In Emerson's article, he explains the purpose of artwork describing it as “when your heart is touched by genius. [Artwork] was not painted for [picture-dealers], it was painted for you” (585). This is an explicitly spoken concept of the author, who is supporting the idea that art has beauty by using Raphael's The Transfiguration as an example, which affects the person who sees the piece of art (Emerson 584). This is an effective way of using logos to support his claim because he used an existing artwork to help support his claim that arts beauty is meant for others and not for anyone else. With the beauty of an artist's work in mind, a person is touched which is why Emerson states that art works are meant for the public. I can neither agree nor disagree on this authors view because I feel like when an artist creates their work, they are creating for themselves and not for others. On the other hand, I agree with Emerson because there are instances where most art work carries the artist's message and when their work is showcased, the art isn't meant for professionals, but for public citizens because the artist wants to show their work to the world. The artist probably wants acknowledgement of their work more so than criticism of how the artist created their …show more content…
The author appears deeply passionate based on his use of connotations; therefore, he is displaying an emotional appeal towards readers. Considering those connotations, Momaday is implying that words are a type of weapon. I assent with that conclusion because take bullying for instance. Bullying is not just a physical act but also a mental attack. It is well known that bullying is one of the causes of suicides particularly in teens in the United States and also one of the causes to start a campus shooting. Words are indeed powerful enough to wreck havok on the world. Another of Momaday's ideas is that “language does indeed represent the only chance for survival [for the storyteller and the arrowmaker]. It is appropriate that he survives in our time and that he has survived over a period of untold generations” (616). He is insisting that telling a story repeatedly will make that last for a long time. Also, the author is implicitly stating that it is a universal idea that language represents people's only chance for survival. In which, when relating to the previous quote, words can create or break someones fate. I concede that words decide peoples fate because say