Is art a lie?

While a kindergartener’s finger-painted picture may seem priceless to their parents, hundreds of people in the art world set high price tags for pictures that may seem up to par with that of a young preschooler. Recently, a documentary was released of a young girl whose story ran across the head lines about two years ago. The film “My Kid Could Paint That”, presents the story of little Marla, just 4 years old when the story began, and her rise to fame when her paintings started to be sold in an art gallery in up-state New York.

Although the film serves its purpose in showing the little girl's story and how she managed to create these magnificent abstract paintings, it does raise a good question on art. When is something considered art, and who is it that can set the price on it? In revealing the story of Marla, the documentary also showed an report that was done on 60 Minutes which stated that Marla simply painted like any other preschooler and that her parents had to be helping her with the art. It was then up to the director of the documentary to film Marla painting on of the abstract pieces in order to prove to the world that the art was really hers. However, it is more than evident in the film that the painting that was recorded was not merely as high quality as the painting Marla had sold before.

In not finding a straight conclusion to the accusations, the question of art being a lie is brought up. A New York Times reporter that was interviewed for the film states, "all art is a lie".

Upon hearing this, I was more than shocked, but then in taking time to think about it, this statement was true. I now believe that art is art only when someone is willing to call it that, and it is a lie because it is not showing us a truth. Although this can be argued with earlier paintings which were set up to show realistic images, contemporary art is a clear example of how a persons interpretation creates the art. However, if it is a person's interpretation of the art that makes it a good piece, who is it then that can set up these sometimes ridiculous prices on these paintings? Should art be priced on personal value, or on the value that others give to it?

To a parent, their kids smear may seem priceless, but who is to say that it isn't?

"keeping close to home"

In the essay “keeping close to home: class and education”, bell hooks opens her story with the fact that her parents did not want her to go away for college. As stated in the title of her essay and in her remarks, her parents did not want her to go off due to an “ignorance” marked by her family’s economic status. In presenting these contrasting ideas, bell hooks states that her parents, “like many working-class folks, they feared what college education might do to their children’s minds” (153). Undoubtedly this referring to the fact that receiving a higher education is viewed as climbing up to a new social standing. As believed by the majority of main stream America, it is quite normal to see kids in a family go off at the age of eighteen or nineteen to college and separate themselves for ever from their families. Most of these college students never live under their parents’ roofs again; it is almost unseen that students live at home during their college experience and beyond.

Unlike the American ideal of breaking away from home and growing as a person in college, the general Mexican culture believes that it is better for a person to live with their family until they are truly independent; that is, they leave home until they have a job or sometimes until they are married. When reading bell hooks’ essay, it was quite normal to see her parents’ hesitation, but the difference here was in their economic status. In most Mexican families, wealthy, middle-class or lower, the kids often stay as close to home as possible because it is in the mainstream culture that our families are the center of it all. In being so, newly bound college students tend to find a university in their city if there is one, or a college where they know they will have family close by. Unlike bell hooks, my quest in finding a college was more similar to that of other Mexican students. Although I had lived in the U.S. for the past five years, my parents still believed that it was necessary for me to stay as close to home, or at least Dallas which was more familiar. I have also come to see that there is more hesitation in leaving home by Mexican girls than boys. In the majority of cases, it is the daughters that often decide to stay home during their college experience, although there are always exceptions. It could be sad for some to see that I fit just that stereotypical mold that I have come to build of the majority of Mexican students, but I am just that. Being brought up in such a thigh-knit family environment, I saw it important for me to keep as close to home as possible while still having the opportunity to expand my knowledge and make connections at school.

Although I am not being bias in seeing these two different lifestyles, I find it interesting how the cultures of two neighboring countries see college in different lights. For Americans, college is a time to become complete independent from ones family and grow in their own way. For Mexicans, college is a time for students to maintain close contact with their families and continue to grow with the help of the people that care for them the most. Not taking into account the differences, it is good to notice that education above all, in both societies, is seen as the main ingredient for a person to succeed.

Are you the middle or younger child?

I was a bit bored last week and decided to go online and read random news articles that might not be shown on TV. The first I came across was "Does birth order matter?" on CNN.com. Being the youngest of three, immediately my instinct was to read on.

This article stated that Norwegian scientists discovered this summer that the order in which children are born in has an affect on their IQ and their overall achievement in life. Although there are many marginal errors in their analysis, they say that there are many reasons for why this is true.

The first child comes into a world were the parents are inexperienced, so they have their undivided attention. Later when sibling come into the mix, they have to be the responsible ones and show their younger siblings that they are role models. The scientists also believed that older children can relate more to adults since they spent more time alone with their parents.

The middle children are the laid-back relaxed ones that can sometimes seem to be "unnoticed". It is said that because they are left in the middle, they often tend to be rebellious and very competitive.

And then there's the last one. Coming into this world with more than experienced parents but can often receive less of their attention. In trying to win as much attention as possible, it is said that the youngest children can be perceived as the "spoiled" ones.

Although I found this article more that interesting, I must say that it really did not apply to my family. I do agree to some extent that my older sister tends to be the most responsible one, and my brother, the "middle" child, is the most care-free, but I don't think that our IQ or achievement levels are different. All three of us have been more than highly competitive in school, and for my older siblings work, and all of us have very high standards and goals for ourselves. I did find this article informative, but I think that it maybe wrong to make false assumptions about siblings, even when given scientific proof. Maybe my family does not exactly fill the cookie cutter mold.

Does your family?

All For the Gold

Olympic athletes have always been icons and legends in all human eyes. They exceed an average person's strength, ability, speed, and endurance. Some might say that being an Olympic athlete means you are close to physical perfection. But, is there was an easier way to reach this "perfection", more of a "short-cut", would you take it?

This past Friday, Marion Jones, one of the U.S.' leading track and field athletes admitted, after years and years of denial, that she had be using performance steroids. Immediately, millions and millions of fans felt the strong betrayal of trust. With great guilt, she admitted to using these steroids since before the 2000 Olympic Games in Australia. According to Jones, her coach at the time in 1999 first gave her the steroid often called "The Clear", and did not quit using it until 2001. Now at 31, she has decided to come out with the truth and retire from the sport.

However, is apologizing enough? Sure, there is not much she can do now, but what about the millions of boys and girls that looked up to her? And not only her, but hundreds of other athletes that also use steroids, admitted or not? Just confessing their past actions will not cover for the millions of dollars they might have wrongfully won and the people they deceived. If our goal as humans is to ultimately improve our lives and do anything to reach it, is cheating in such a way wrong or right?

The truth is that there will always continue to be steroid use among athletes whether we like it or not. As new drugs and supplements are invented that can improve athletic performance more and more will begin to use them. The problem will only be greater in deciding if an athlete wins by their own work and sweat, or if they took a short-cut.

Can the DREAM be achieved?

Every year, more than 65,000 undocumented immigrant students graduate from high schools across the country. Most of them having been in the U.S. throughout their academic career, they dream of pursuing a higher education or military service like their American peers. However, the cruel reality, is that undocumented students are not given in-state tuition, grants or loans, and cannot work legally to afford their college education. Much like any young high school graduate, these teenagers dreams are to pursue a better education and prove to the world that they were brought to this country to succeed. Although their reasons for staying in this country seem more than just, a new wave of deportations have split the country's opinion in half yet again.

On July 25th, two teenage brothers in Florida, Juan and Alex Gomez, were awaken and arrested by U.S. Immigration officers along with their parents. Like thousands of other young immigrants that are being deported along with their families, Juan and Alex have been living in the U.S. since they were merely toddlers and are more than assimilated into the American mainstream culture. Their parents, having left behind a war torn Colombia, decided to stay in the U.S. after their tourist visa expired, in order to give their kids an opportunity to a better future. That, they did so far; Juan who recently graduated from a high school in Miami, excelled in 15 advanced placement classes and aced the SATs. However, because of his status, his family can only afford a community college education, and now with their sentence to deportation, his goal might never be reached.

As soon as Juan and Alex's friends heard the news, they immediately set out on the Internet to promote their case, and effectively reached Capitol Hill. The family's deportation was suspended for 45 more days in order for Congress to review the case. Through emails, Facebook, and telephone calls, teenagers from across the country heard that news, and in early August, stormed Washington with their cries.

Although nothing has been achieved yet, the teenage lobbyists and supporters from Congress want the DREAM act to succeed. If passed, the DREAM act ("Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors"), will allow undocumented young immigrants to receive federal aid so that they can continue with their higher education. Setting a high standards for young students, the DREAM act would allow thousands of highly achieving teenagers to have an equal opportunity as their peers. The act would also allow for a path to citizenship, if students prove and successfully complete their college education or serve in the army for at least two years. In other words, it would allow these teenagers that are practically assimilated into American culture and have high aspirations, to have a chance to better themselves.

However, critics from both conservative and liberal sides of Congress say that the act would merely be another form of amnesty to immigrant law-breakers. In effect, an act like the DREAM act would serve as a form of pardon and easier way to reach citizenship, but who can limit the "American Dream"? If these young immigrants are more than willing to educate themselves or fight in the army in order to help the U.S., is it right and just for anyone to prohibit this?

How would you feel if you were in their shoes?

The Millionaire Dog

Believe it or not, but there's a dog out there that's probably wealthier than most of us! The news came last August 20th, when New York Real Estate mogul Leona Helmsley died, and in her will left $12 million to her little Maltese, Trouble. It is almost unbelievable how this woman left this portion of her $8 billion estate to her pet and left absolutely NOTHING to two of her grandchildren!

Known for her eccentric personality and harsh temper, Leona Helmsley was nicknamed the "Queen of Mean". Managing hotels and other real estate, she became an infamous popular culture icon for the rich New Yorker who thought she didn't need to pay taxes. However, whenever it came to her little Trouble, the Queen of Mean did not set any limits. According to People magazine, the dog maintains a healthy diet of cream cheese, steamed vegetables, organic chicken, and fish. Not to mention she is always served by hand.

Although the news of Trouble receiving this fortune is mind blowing, she is not the richest puppy on the planet. Crazy but true, there are other people that have left fortunes to their pets, like a German shepherd named Gunther III who received $80 million from the countess Carlotta Liebenstein, and later passed down the fortune to his heir, Gunther IV. Even though it is no one's business to tell these more-than-well-off people what to do with their well earned, or sometimes inherited, riches, it is bothering to know what they are doing with it at the end. It is right to leave your family pet millions and millions of dollars and not leave your family anything? Is this right, even if people all over the world are starving each day, and the dog has absolutely no comprehension of money?

I myself am a dog owner too, and consider my pets a part of my family, but I know that at then end of the day, it is the actually people in my life that matter the most. As much as we want to admit it, a pet can never fill in for family member. They are animals and ultimately do not have the same mind capacity to understand and reproduce the same feelings and thoughts of a human being. That is why I find it more the ridiculously astonishing what these peculiar people do.

Copycat

We've all seen and heard the commotion that the release of the iPhone made this summer. It's the "must-have" piece of technology of the moment. Costing more, sometimes double, of what any other cellphone on the market, the iPhone displays a touchscreen, MP3 player, Internet browser, and the clearest and brightest camera a phone can have. People all across the US stood in line for hours just to get a piece of the newest product from Apple.

What , then, will happen once more and more phones, like the iPhone, starts popping up in the market? The answer to that reached my ears just last week as I sat in the cafeteria talking to a friend. A copycat, look-a-like, exact replica of the iPhone was being made in China! According to my friend, it would be twice as fast, double the memory, fancier exterior, and more than half of what the original iPhone costs. Being the skeptical person that I am, I immediately went and did the research.

As soon as I found the page, I couldn't believe my eyes! A Chinese company by the name of Meizu is currently manufacturing a product so close to the iPhone, that many journalists and tech experts say Apple will surely sue. Just little differences in the chrome finish of the phone and length are visible by the photos online. However, this got me thinking if copying a product this exactly was ethically correct?

Many critics online say that the product will not reach popularity because it is such an exact copy of the iPhone that Apple will surely sue and no miniOnes by Meizu will be made. On the contrary, maybe a copycat phone is the ideal solution for those of us who want a stylish and high-tech phone, but would rather spend their money on something else. Isn't that how everything evolves? One idea copied from another, but only made better, and in this case cheaper? Maybe the miniOne won't guarantee that quality of its product, or have as much status, but if released, it will be a quick end to the iPhone craze that is sweeping this country.

Can you see a difference?