# data[].attributes.body
I found it absurd that they were arguing over a plain white painting with lines on it. It was crazy to me because it is something so simple, yet they argued deeply about it. Reza uses comedy in this situation to prove how fragile pride can be in friendships. When people can not get over their own ego in situations involving their friends, it can create tension and even a loss of a friendship. The humor also makes the situation feel more realistic as people tend to do that in arguments in real life.

If one of my friends bought a painting for that much money, I would be taken back at first. I would probably assure them also went crazy to buy a plain white painting, but then I would try to consider if it meant something more to them. Even if I did understand their perspective, I would still judge them for spending that much money on it.

Humor makes the themes easier to deal with the more serious topics liek friendship, values, and betrayal. Using humor makes it more realistic to show how people are flawed and that mistakes are going to be made.

# data[].attributes.body
I believe that Serge's painting is a piece of art but it goes under modern art. I personally don't really like modern art because to me I feel like it lacks meaning and emotion. To me Serge's all white canvas doesn't say much and it just looks plain. But if someone else sees its significance and meaning then it becomes art for them. Also to me art is completely subjective. One person might find a piece of art very beautiful and significant and some might say that it's ugly and meaningless. It just depends on the person and what they think. In Art, Marc sees the painting as ridiculous while Serge feels deeply connected to it even putting their friendship on line. Neither of them are wrong but this just shows how art can be viewed differently. It also shows that art values don't come from what it looks like but how it makes the viewer feel. Even though I don't really like Serge's painting, I still think it's art.

# data[].attributes.body
I side with Yvan the most due to the fact that he was the most neutral and least problematic. He doesn’t yell at anyone till he is at a breaking point. In contrast, Marc and Serge are constantly at odds with each other. Yvan exclaims, “ You’re starting again!... You’re in a downward spiral, both of you, you can’t stop yourselves…It’s like me and Yvonne. The most pathological relationship you can imagine!” This scene shows how Yvan begins to crack. After everything he’s been through, something like Marc’s and Serge’s argument. That is the only time when Yvan does lash out. He is also comparing his own experience with his stepmother to Marc and Serge’s situation, with them constantly fighting over the art. I think there's a deeper meaning behind their actions. It was revealed earlier that Marc resented Serge for past actions, so I believe that there are unresolved issues which is causing them to act more irrationally with one another.

# data[].attributes.body
Noah, I 100 percent agree with you that comedy adds a very needed contrast to the overall story about extreme conflict and the fragility of the friendship. This connection between comedy and conflict is a necessity as it shows how comical this conflict is because it stems from jealousy and other unimportant topics. I really liked your example as well, talking about how they use irony and their own sense of humor to push a point and accuse others of changing, it truly shows how the author's intent was to use comedy to disguise and sneakily insult the other characters within the comedy. Overall this was very well written and I completely agree with your statement that comedy was perfect to counteract the conflict present within the play.

# data[].attributes.body
Laci, I agree that out of all the friends, Yvan is the peacemaker because he strives to keep the friendship together and is also extremely loyal. You stated here that throughout the deeper meaning of the friendship, jealousy was apparent and the author purposely used the painting to provoke the fragility of the friendship. This truly again shows how Yvan was trying to be the mediator, through all of the flaws, his loyalty remained strong to his friends. Overall this was a very good analysis of how Yvan with his loyalty tried to prevent in-depth conflict and how there were deeper conflicts than just the painting present during the comedy.

# data[].attributes.body
If I had to pick a character I side with the most, it would be Marc. I understand that he can come across as a little rude, but he was being honest and expressing his thoughts. He didn't mean to hurt anyone, but Serge took it too personally and made it worse. Marc even tried to fix things, but Serge didn’t want to hear it. Yvan acted like the peacekeeper, but he couldn’t even handle his own problems, so he wasn’t really helping either. The quote “Are you saying I replaced you with the Antroios?” and Marc says, “Yes.” shows that they are finally being honest and rebuilding their friendship. I don’t think the play is just about the painting. It’s really about friendship and how easily small things can ruin it if you don’t discuss things openly or understand each other with honesty.

# data[].attributes.body
I side most with Yvan because he tries to stay neutral and keep the friendship together, even when Marc and Serge are tearing each other apart. Yvan understands that the friendship itself is more important than arguing over a painting. He tries to calm the situation instead of choosing a side, which shows his patience and loyalty to both friends. A moment that really shows the breakdown of their friendship is when Marc says about the painting: “It’s a piece of white shit.” This harsh statement isn’t just about the canvas—it’s an attack on Serge’s taste, judgment, and even identity as a person. That’s why I don’t think the play is really about the painting. The canvas is just a trigger. The deeper issues are about respect, pride, jealousy, and how much friends can truly accept each other’s differences. The story uses the painting to reveal hidden tensions, showing how fragile, complicated, and meaningful friendships actually are.

# data[].attributes.body
I think that Serge's painting is not actual art, but I could see that it could also be art. But what was most surprising was that it had a cost of 200,000 francs for just white, which is just around a quarter of a million dollars. Which is just disappointing, there are many other things that you can spend a quarter million on, like a nice car that actually has a function instead of hanging on a wall for all of its life. I also think that the play pushes the painting to be subjective because of the three different personalities that show different views on the painting. Like how we see that Serge and Marc are fighting because they both see it in different ways, Marc seeing nothing but white, and Serge something with color. Even though Marc doesn't see art in the painting, Serge draws on it so that Marc at least sees something in the painting. Which means the art needed “life” to it, meaning there was no objective thought by Antrios.

# data[].attributes.body
In my opinion, Marc tends to be somewhat inconsiderate of Serge and Yvan’s feelings, especially when he harshly criticizes Serge’s decision to pay what he did for the white painting. Rather than simply sharing his opinion, Marc’s dismissive attitude escalates the situation and creates unnecessary tension, turning their argument that was originally about art into a deeper argument about respect and judgement. Caught between the two, Yvan seems to struggle with being in the middle of both sides of the argument, as well as trying to maintain peace while juggling his own problems, and frustrations. His inability to side with either, emphasizes the strain of being stuck in the middle of a disagreement where both parties feel attacked. Through their arguments, you can see how easily misunderstanding and insensitivity can unravel long bonds of friendship. ‘Art” ultimately shows that friendship depends not only on honesty, but also on having empathy and willingness to respect another’s choice.

# data[].attributes.body
I feel like I side with Yvan because he represents the middle ground of the argument. I find it hard to balance out a lot of friends, even a trio. You wouldn't want to take a side and end up losing/hurting someone. Yvan didn't want to lose Marc or Serge, so he didn't choose sides. Yvan may seem like he doesn't know which side to choose, but his role shows how frustrating it can be to be caught between two strong personalities. A quote that shows the breakdown of their friendship is when Yvan says, “What is this all about? Are you fighting because Serge bought a painting?” His frustration showed how the argument is about their lack of communication and respect for each other. I dont think the play is about the painting. The painting is what starts the conflict. In a deeper perspective, it's more about the challenges within a long-term friendship and how pride and differences can cause arguments. Yvan’s struggle to keep the peace shows how fragile the friendship is.

# data[].attributes.body
In my opinion, Serge's painting is an example of modern art. While I am not a fan of modern art myself, Art isn’t limited to being “pretty” or realistic; it’s more about expression, creativity, and provoking thought or emotion. By presenting something minimalist and controversial, Serge’s painting meets one of art’s highest purposes: making people reflect, debate, and feel. At first, Serge’s all-white canvas might just look plain or pointless. But honestly, I think that’s kind of the point. What makes it interesting isn’t how it looks, but the way it gets people talking and questioning what actually counts as art. In a way, its real value comes from the debates and strong opinions it inspires. My opinion has changed slightly from reading the play about what art truly is.

# data[].attributes.body
I would side with serge because marc has no right over Serges money or what he spends it on because marc does more than gives his opinion he yells and crosses the line . sure I think the painting is dumb and expensive but I wouldn't give my option like marc . I believe if Serges makes the money he can spend his money how he wants it because serge don't judge marc when he buys stuff . "No. I’m not. By whose standards is it shit? If you call something shit, you

need to have some criterion to judge it by" surge says then marc replies with "Who are you talking to? Who do you think you’re talking to? Hello!" this part of the conversation you can tell marc and Segre are mad and marcs comments got to surge and I think as it goes on surge will say less to marc

# data[].attributes.body
I would side with Marc because I feel that spending that much on a painting is absurd in general, as it is a waste of money, especially if the painting does not have any details. A painting like that does not require skill, and I personally believe art should be skillful and meaningful. Some might see meaning in a simple painting, but is that meaning even what the artist is trying to convey? Marc expresses his ideals about this painting and how it could be a way for Serge to express his money, as some could not afford it. Marc speaks, "It’s a complete mystery to me, Serge buying this painting. It’s unsettled me, It’s filled me with some indefinable unease." Marc's complications with the painting aren't only about the painting, but their differentiating personalities, as Marc seeks meaning and only sees the bigger picture, and Serge sees the small details in life. Overall, I believe Marc has reasoning for his conflicts and his opinions towards the paintings.

# data[].attributes.body
In my opinion, I do not believe Serge's painting is art in itself. A blank white canvas has no true meaning, as there is nothing to even look at and analyze. Discovering that it was 200,000 francs made me feel even more disdain towards the painting. I am very smart with my money, and hearing that he spent a house's worth of money on a blank canvas he could have made himself gives me a lot of anger. The real art lay within the conflict between the friends. A blank canvas created so much destruction within the friendships that the argument started to go below surface-level ideas and mock the insecurities of each character. I believe it heavily leans toward the idea that art's value is subjective rather than objective. It presents this with the fact that a single piece of art provokes such strong but divergent opinions, suggesting the play is arguing that value in art depends on individual perception, personal taste, and social context, not some universal or objective standard.

# data[].attributes.body
I side with Yvan on a personal level because, in the story, Yvan is very passive and tends to avoid conflict. When one of the two other characters, Mark and Serge, has a strong opinion, Yvan always mediates the situation. I tend to do the same when strong opinions are being argued. I sit back and watch, but also tend to try to calm the situation down or just let it be, and express that they need to agree to disagree becuase people are allowed to have differing opinions. like when Marc came to Yvan yelling about Serge's painting, "These white lines. If the background’s white, how can you see the lines?

Marc: You just do. Because I suppose the lines are slightly grey, or vice versa, or

Anyway, there are degrees of white!

There’s more than one kind of white!

Yvan: Don’t get upset. Why are you getting upset?" Right, as when Mark was starting to get upset and loud, Yvan immediately told him to calm down because there was no need to be upset. With Yvan always being a mediator, I think the story holds a deeper meaning, in which the story shows how friends with differing opinions that can't understand where each other is coming from can quickly ruin a friendship. With Yvan being the mediator, I side with him becuase there's no need to always be loud or arguing against an opinion that goes against yours. Yvan also has a point that I strongly agree with, implying that time is too valuable to argue over opinions that aren't the same, to be wasting it when there are more important things going on in your life.

# data[].attributes.body
Whenever I heard what the price was, I was definitely a little shocked. I felt very conflicted about the price. On one hand, I agree that the price is very high for a solid white painted canvas. On the other hand, I have always believed that art is subjective and meaningful to different people for different reasons. On the surface it appears to lack any emotional depth when all we are perceiving is a solid white canvas. However, I feel that the ability to link it to whatever emotion, feeling, or moment is what makes it truly beautiful. It is now a completely unique experience for everyone who views it. The value of one object to another is completely subjective depending on personal experiences and values. If Serge genuinely holds this painting in high regards and perceives it to be a deep and beautiful painting, I believe he should have thee ability to spend however much he is inclined to without feeling strain on his friendship.

# data[].attributes.body
I side with Marc in this story. He was very clear about how he felt about the painting, and I think that is a good thing. It is clear that him and Serge has been good friends for a while, so it seems healthy that criticism would be introduced, especially in matter as heavy as this. The painting is not worth as much as it is, no matter what anyone says. In my opinion, I think it was very caring that Marc shared his opinion with Serge. Marc says, "I’m disturbed, I’m disturbed, more than that, I’m hurt, yes I am, I’m fond of Serge, and to see him let himself be ripped off and lose ever ounce of discernment through sheer snobbery." It shows just how much he cares about him, and wants him to be ok. If this was going to ruin him financially, I deeply hope that Marc would actually care about him enough. Marc could have been a little less aggressive about it, but overall, he was just trying to help. Deep down Marc knows that this is about more than just the painting. The play in general represents their friendship and how conflict can arise when people have different views. It shows the nature of friendship, the striving for a better relationship, and the caring between friends. The play does represent the modern art world, but hidden between the lines are the conflicts of friendship.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Pov: when you realize how much 200,000 was worth  then and how much it is now.

# data[].attributes.body
Personally, I believe that there was a purpose to the painting and that it is real art, as it evoked emotion in everyone who saw it in the play. The artist creates the subjective value, and the audience decides if that subjective value is worth the objective value. Unfortunately, it's more about the objective value and less about the subjective value. But also with a painting so basic as the Antrios, it diminishes the value of art's objective value, as I believe it is art becuase of its evocation of emotional thoughts and feelings. But its Objective value shouldn't be as high as it is becuase it's not as subjectively strong. Personally, I believe art should be entirely subjective as the art isn't created for the objective value but for the subjective value, as it is what makes art, art. The entire understanding of the creation of objective value of art is from a society's point of view; most believe that something without objective value has no value. The play suggests that Serge sees the Subjective value as Marc only sees the objective value of the painting, as he believes that the subjective and objective value of the painting is worthless.

# data[].attributes.body
I side with Serge and strongly disagree with Marc. I personally think the painting wasn’t worth buying, but I think that if he really was focused on preserving friendships, he would find a much better way to respond. There is a difference between sharing your opinion and being flat-out rude. Serge invited Marc into his home to show him a piece of his passion, and was met with a disrespectful response. Marc is characterized as someone who hates what he doesn’t even take the time to understand. I think this is well described in the quote, “You have no interest whatsoever in contemporary painting. This field about which you know absolutely nothing, so how can you assert that any given object, which conforms to laws you don’t understand, is shit?” Rather than trying to take the time to listen to his friend's perspective or address it respectfully, he shuts it down immediately. Marc is not “opinionated,” he's just narrow-minded. Rather than the argument really being centered around the painting, it is centered around Marc's inability to understand others and their complex interests. He additionally goes behind Serge's back to attempt to badmouth him to their mutual friend. I support Serge, not in buying the painting but in being reasonably upset with Marc's reaction.

# data[].attributes.body
In the play "Art," I think that Marc was somewhat correct because he and Serge are good friends, and Serge just showed Marc his painting and got completely offended by Marc's reaction. I agree that Serge has a right to be upset, but Marc was only giving his opinion, and a huge conflict did not need to unfold this way. Serge had asked Marc what he thought, then got upset when Marc told him the truth. I do not agree with Serge, and I think that Marc was not wrong for sharing his opinion on the painting. He thought Serge was being unreasonable about his purchase, and I agree. Marc was trying to tell Serge that it was a waste of money. I am on Marc's side. "I give a f*** about you buying that painting. I give a f*** about you spending two hundred grand on that piece of sh*t." - Marc. I think Marc has every reason to say this because he later says he loves Serge and that his spending $200,000 on the painting is very stupid.

# data[].attributes.body
I think that the humor overall made the themes easier to deal with, because while the themes were still prominent they were brought to light in a less serious manner. For example the theme of friendship, in a way the painting can represent their friendship every single one of them views it differently Marc sees the painting as a white canvas with not much to offer, yet continues to over analyze his feelings about it, similar to how he is overinvested in his friends lives through their friendship. Serge sees the painting as a representation of his tastes values, he is not afraid to show his taste and values in art and this goes hand and hand with his friendships as well as he views Marc’s opinion on the painting as a personal attack against his tastes.  Yvan sees the painting and doesn’t share his honest opinion rather playing into the opinions of both Marc and Serge, just as he does in their friendship he remains in the middle Yvan is the mediator preferring peace in his friendships over his own honesty.

# data[].attributes.body
I relate and side with Yvan the most. Often times when I am in the middle of an argument I tend to take the middle ground as to not upset either side of the problem. I understand where he is coming from trying to settle the issue, especially something like this where neither person, Marc or Serge, is technically correct. "You know, Marc, this complacency, you want to watch out for it. You're getting bitter, it's not very attractive." This quote is from Yvan, as he is trying to reason with Marc and tell him what others view from his behavior. I overall believe the play is not about the painting but about finding peace in a friendship and working through rough patches within a relationship. Serge and Marc's relationship had be strained and Marc thought it was because of Serge's sudden interest in art as they started to believe different things and the idea that losing his friendship with Serge scared him. So he took his anger out on Serge through the painting instead of bringing up the issue itself. This is where the major conflict was rooted from, not the painting.

# data[].attributes.body
I would side with Marc because he is honest about what he thinks. He doesn't just go along with Serges new painting to be nice, he says what's really on his mind. Even though Marc comes off a little harsh, he is scared of losing his friend and is trying to protect their friendship by speaking up. When Serge buys the expensive white painting, Marc cant understand how someone he is so close with would make a choice like that. To him, it feels like Serge is changing and moving in a different direction, and Marc doesn't want to lose the connection they had. At one point, Marc asks Serge, "If I'm your friends, how could you buy that painting?" This shows the fight isn't just about art, but about their relationship. the play uses the painting as a spark, but the deeper theme is about how friendships can shift and how people struggle with pride, and whether bonds can survive those changes.

# data[].attributes.body
The painting, a five-foot by four blank white painting that cost $200K franks. Serge and Marc both have different views on the painting, and Yvan doesn't really care for it. Serge is a fan of modern art and cares for the deeper meaning in art, then just the paint on the canvas. Marc likes traditional art and believes that if an artist wanted to express deeper meaning, they would have through the art. When I was reading the play, I tried to reason with myself on why someone would spend $200K on a blank painting with a "Deeper meaning," but I couldn't. There is a lot to do with $200K, like buying a house or a car, or any luxury, but not a painting. Towards the end of the play, Serge allows Marc to draw on the blank canvas a man skiing down a hill, "It represents a man who moves across a space and disappears." (58).

# data[].attributes.body
I do not think that serge's painting is art. If i were to look at a white canvas. I would absolutely have no emotional connection to it. If you are basically using your entire imagination to try to make a purpose or a meaning to a painting, then it is not art. When you see paintings like "the swing" you can interpret it as her thriving alone or you can see it as a painting focused on love. when i found out that serge payed 200,000 francs for a white canvas that someone could make, i think it also took the meaning out of it. When i look at a work of art with colors and lines, i can build an emotional connection to it that makes me want to keep looking at the piece of art. if i am being shown a blank canvas i am going to get bored of it.

# data[].attributes.body
While I think Serge spending 200K francs on a painting wasn't a good financial decision, I don't agree that it isn't art. Serge’s painting is an example of modern art, an artwork that gets bashed on frequently. Before I joined this class, I was a modern art hater, and I couldn't understand how people felt sentimental about a red line on a canvas. But during all our classes, I have gained a new understanding of art. I have learned that modern art just isn't for me. However, bashing an art piece because I believe it holds no value contradicts the whole purpose of art, which is a shared feeling between the creator and viewer. Art is subjective, and it isn't meant to appease everyone, only the people who understand. So, while I don’t agree with spending 200k on a painting, I understand that Serge felt the emotions the creator of the painting meant to transmit.

# data[].attributes.body
In my opinion I viewed Serge's painting as not art. I thought this especially after they revealed how much Surge spent on the piece. I think that art needs to be able to tell a story and have meaning to it. The play on the other hand, thought that art is subjective and that neither Marc or Surge was in the wrong or right. I do partially agree with this because everyone has their own opinion and views things differently. For example, Yvan states, “If it makes him happy . . . he can afford it . . .”(10). This clearly shows that the play is trying to point out that art is subjective and everyone is entitled to their own opinion and should not fight over it. Overall, I think that the art shown in this play is not "art" I think it is materialistic. While the play is stating that art is entirely subjective.

# data[].attributes.body
A moment in the play 'Art' that I found funny is when Serge proudly shows off his all white painting, and Marc and Yvan have completely different reactions. I think Reza used comedy here to lighten the tensions because the argument is mainly just about friendship and personal values, which could feel heavy without humor.

If one of my friends spent a fortune on serges painting, I would probably judge them and ask them "why would you buy that for that much money", because they could have bought so many other things that are more important than that with that kind of money. Although I would never do that, I would still respect if that's something they really wanted and thought was very special, then I would be fine with it because its their money and not mine.

Humor makes serious themes easier to handle because it lets us laugh at the characters' exaggerations and disagreements, but it also highlights how fragile friendships can be when money, taste, or pride get involved.

# data[].attributes.body
I would definitely side with Marc because in the story Marc just gives his opinion to Serge, who takes it an extreme way, I think that if Serge was to really have a strong opinion on the painting and wasn't insecure about if he made the right decision he would have just said "Ok Marc I understand you don't like the painting but I do and we will leave at that" and would have just laughed with Marc like Marc was his friend and not someone who insulted his life they would have just not had a conflict, the main reason Marc went to Yvan wasn't because he wanted to convince Yvan to make fun of him and make him return the painting it was just to talk to him and see his view on the matter because of how Serge reacted. I think the breakdown for their friendship really began when Serge got mad at Marc for saying the art was shit "What do you mean, ‘This Shit’?

# data[].attributes.body
I definitely sided with Yvan the most during the play. He was the most patient during the play and tried to de-escalate the situation as much as possible. He was also very neutral on the painting, saying that he didn't like it as much as Serge, but he also mentioned that the painting has a deeper meaning within it, which is why Serge is defensive over it. Even so, Yvan listened to both sides and understood his friends, maintaining a stable friendship despite their outbursts.

“My friend Serge, who’s one of my oldest friends, has bought a painting. It’s a canvas about five feet by four. It represents a man who moves across a space and disappears…"

I believe that this play was not only about the painting, but how easily friendships can crumble when questioning loyalty, their values, and their egos. Throughout the play, they were questioning their own loyalty to each other just because they were expressing their different views, which shows that their bond isn't as strong and is kinda toxic in a way. This play shows the importance of understanding different views in a friendship, but also shows that we don't always have to have the same one to build our bond and trust in each other, stronger to maintain a healthy relationship.

# data[].attributes.body
When they first introduced what Segre bought, I was confused, but then they revealed the price of how much it had been, and I was completely confused and could never imagine spending that much on a white painting. Like the image, which conveys confusion, I struggle with Segre’s choice. The stark contrasts in the artwork reflect my feelings of disconnect. To me, Segre's minimalist painting lacks the emotional depth I value in art. There is white all around us, and he felt like buying a white painting, and because it was so expensive, for him, it created value. Marc is trying to comprehend why someone would ever spend 200,000 francs on something so simple. No amount of money can add value to something with no meaning. This image captures my reaction, highlighting the complexities of personal taste in art.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
POV: Me when Serge spent $250,000 USD on a WHITE CANVAS, and I can barely afford gas for my car. 

# data[].attributes.body
In my opinion, Serge’s painting is not “art.” That does not mean people cannot enjoy it or appreciate the feelings it evokes, but to me, the work seems empty. From its description, it appears the artist invested minimal effort in its creation. There is no clear expression, message, or humanity within the canvas, only starkness. Some people may admire that blankness and interpret it as ironic or profound, but I do not. What truly frustrates me is the cost. Spending $250,000 on a piece I find meaningless and ugly feels wasteful. Of course, art is subjective, and some would pay even more. The play itself highlights this subjectivity: Serge and Yvan both find the painting hypnotic, enjoying the subtle colors and the search for meaning. Yet for me, if a viewer must dig for meaning rather than instinctively feeling it upon first glance, the work loses much of its artistic power. Ultimately, I see Serge’s painting not as art but as a satirical representation of modern art’s flaws, how “higher intellectual thinking” around such works often benefits only those wealthy enough to purchase dull, empty pieces.

# data[].attributes.body
I would side with Yvan the most since he is the most reasonable and level-headed person. Marc is very spontaneous and is the original starter of the argument. Serge is prone to making unusual decisions, such as how he bought the painting, even though it is a decision that is most questionable. Yvan was the one trying to mediate between Marc and Serger until Yvan crashed out about the wedding, and Marc crashed out on Yvan about how he isn’t taking any sides. I think the painting is just a way to provoke the arguments between the three, and there is a deeper meaning than just how the painting is a very questionable purchase. I think that the story is showing how easily it is to damage your friendship, depending on how you approach your friends’ decisions. If you approach with hostility and intense criticism, but if you approach good-naturedly and can listen and let others make their own decisions, you can upgrade your friendship.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Marc and Yvan when Serge told them how much he bought the painting for.

# data[].attributes.body
In my opinion, Serge's painting is not actually art. Yes anything can be art if you look at it, but for it to be art there needs to be deeper value behind it which means something to the artist as well as the viewer. The painting Serge bought just being white with lines does not portray art. Art is a way of being able to express thought, emotions, opinions, etc., and that painting does not spark up any values. That just shows an example of modern art and buying things just because it is materialistic. The painting was not worth anywhere near 200,000 francs. The play on the other hand suggests that art is entirely subjective. Seeing how passionate Serge was towards the painting and Marc completely disliking it shows that people have different views when it comes to how they identify art. Yvan obviously does not think buying that painting was reasonable but he respects the differences between him and Serge and they both laugh together at it. I believe that Serge should not have spent that much on a meaningless painting, but I also respect that everyone views art differently.

# data[].attributes.body
In my opinion, I do not think that Serge's painting is actually art, and it was too expensive. Though some may connect to this piece due to its modernism and the fact that they can add their own meaning to it, I do not see any significance in a blank canvas, as it does not display any level of skill. The play connects this as it displays that art is subjective. Serge saw value in the painting. He believed that the amount of money he spent was justified, as he thought the painting symbolized modernism. Marc, on the other hand, believed the painting had no value and was a cash grab. Ultimately, the decision of whether something is art or not lies in individual interpretations and experiences.

# data[].attributes.body
I think that the humor made the serious themes of friendship and betrayal easier to deal with because it provides comedic relief. When things begin to tense up, there’s a comedic moment that makes the situation seem lighter. It’s much better to have that comedic moment between arguments because the actors and the audience do not want to sit and argue for too long without a slight “break” between them. It makes it easier to pay attention to because you don't know when they can slip up and be silly.

# data[].attributes.body
I side the most with Serge because he is the most open to new experiences. Yvon is too much of a pushover, and he only increases the conflict in the play. Marc is too belligerent and selfish. Serge just likes what he likes and does not like to be told off. He is pretty relatable because he is just living his own life. Serge does not like when Marc criticizes his painting, causing tension in their friend group. “He doesn’t like the painting. Fine . . . But there was no warmth in the way he reacted. No Attempt. No warmth when he dismissed it out of hand. Just that vile, pretentious laugh. A real know –all laugh. I hated that laugh.” This quote shows that the real tension of the play is not about the art itself, but it is instead about the deeper nature of friendship. Marc does not really dislike the painting, he just dislikes Serge having a different opinion than him.

# data[].attributes.body
Out of the three characters, I side with Yvan the most. Yvan was the most patient and essentially the mediator between the argument between Marc and Sege. He wasn't being harsh and judgmental, like Marc could be seen doing at times during the play, when he referred to the painting repeatedly as “shit”. I feel like out of all the characters, Yvan was the only one to really look at both sides and attempt to hear everyone out. Yvan didnt see a problem with the painting as long as it “makes Serge happy” and “isn't doing harm to anyone else” (pg 10-11).

I would say Marc's quote, “I’m too thin-skinned, I’m too highly strung, I over-react...You could say, I lack judgment” would be considered a part of an attempt to rebuilf the friendship. Marc is trying to apologize for how harsh he came off and put it aside for his friend, although Serge doesn't really let that happen, but this is a point of turning that shows Marc at least cares about trying not to lose Serge as a friend.

Although the argument revolves around the painting, I believe it has a deeper meaning at the core, revolving around how Marc is scared of falling behind and believes that his friends have passed him intellectually, which is one of his fears.

# data[].attributes.body
The character I side with the most is Marc. Even though Marc is very critical of Serge and slightly rude, I think his heart is in the right place and it is only because he cares. I think I would react in a similar way if I thought my friend spent that much money on something that insignificant. In the play, Yvan states, “Over dinner, Serge and Marc took the decision to try to rebuild a relationship destroyed by word and deed.” This quote shows that even after arguing and disagreeing, Serge and Marc are willing to fix their friendship. I think this proves my thoughts on Marc, that his criticism comes from love and that he only cared about the painting so much because he cared about his friend that much. I think this play is about something much deeper than just the painting and is about how friendships can be tested by differing opinions and values, but you can survive disagreements when people recognize each other’s good intentions and that is what a true friendship is all about.

# data[].attributes.body
I side the most with Yvan throughout the play. This is mainly because he acknowledges his character flaw of being too people pleasing more so than Marc or Serge acknowledge their vices. Throughout the play, Yvan causes conflict through acting as the foil to Marc’s temper with Serge through his refusal to engage with the arguments that Marc and Serge have for fear of compromising his role as the mediator within the group. However, towards the tail end of the play, he starts appealing to Marc and Serges’ emotions. When he speaks of their friendship, he actively opens up about the motivations behind his complacency, and I feel that while Marc and Serge acknowledge their wrongs, they often refuse to confront and convey the underlying reasons behind their behavior. Instead, they primarily apologize for their immediate behavior. It is through this acknowledgement that Yvan is able to live up to the same expectations he subjects onto Marc and Serge, and he steps fully into his role as a mediator. To summarise, I side the most with Yvan because of his open discussion of the motivations behind his issues as a person.

# data[].attributes.body
“ Marc leans towards the painting. Under Yvan’s horrified gaze, he draws the felt-tip along one of the diagonal scars. Serge remains impassive. Then, carefully, on this slope, Marc draws a little skier with a woolly hat. When he’s finished, he straightens up and contemplates his work. Serge remains adamantine. Yvan is as if turned to stone. Silence. Serge : Well, I’m starving. Shall we eat? “ I think that this quote shows them rebuilding their friendship because the aftermath of their huge fight was Marc drawing on the Antrios because Serge gave him the green light to do so. In the end Serge picked their friendship over the painting and tried to show them that they meant more to him than the painting ever did and once Marc ruins the painting they go on to eat. I think this was very sweet of Serge to do, almost as a reassurance to his friends so they know a painting cannot come between them any longer.

# data[].attributes.body
Serge’s painting is not a piece of art. It is merely a white drawing with white lines on it. No matter how much “meaning” the painting has, there was no talent put into the piece, only baseless meaning. I believe true art is a bundle of talent, hard work, and meaning. On the other hand, Serge’s art only has meaning that is put up to the interpreter. The play in its entirety suggests that art is subjective. The way that Marc is portrayed as the antagonist suggests that his view, that art is objective, is wrong. And that the one being antagonized, Serge, believes his beliefs are the truth. The play itself is skewed toward favoring the subjective interpretation of modern art forms. It leaves an idea of an objective viewpoint as wrong and unadaptive. It even forces Marc at the end to conform to Serge’s beliefs and give up his own.

# data[].attributes.body
The character I agree with more in the play is Serge becuase if the painting makes Serge happy, then why is everybody else's problem? Marc has no business getting into a friend's financial issues; it is not a friend's place to attack something that makes him happy becuase of his having a different view on modern art. Srege states, " Do you have one of your famous flet-tips"? The moment when Serge lets Marc draw on his painting is symbolic of him putting his friendship with Marc over the painting and trying to fix the friendship over the stupid painting. The painting is definitely about something deeper; it is about friendship and the strength of friendships. This is seen becuase a simple object and different opinions caused an almost crash of a long-term friend because they did not agree on art it is definitely about friendships should not end over disagreements.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Me when I saw that Serge bought a blank piece of canvas

# data[].attributes.body
I do not believe Serge's painting is art because it's a blank piece of canvas with a line. Art is not only supposed to be an expression of feelings for the author and those that view the art, but it's also a way to hold cultural and historical value that interconnects people. That blank canvas did the complete opposite of what art stood for: it created conflict between two friends. However, that is what I believe. Serge, on the other hand, found value in it, even when Marc did not. In a symbolic way for Serge, the painting was a representation of independence away from Marc's influence. And that independence sparked conflict. The blank canvas was a way to convey his own individualistic tastes and opinions that weren't the same as Marc's, who believed the painting was an irrational purchase of nothingness. With that, the play represents that art doesn't have an objective value, but is subjective to the holder.

# data[].attributes.body
The character I side with the most is Yvan. I side with him the most because he is the most understanding of the whole ordeal with the painting. He understands why Serge bought the painting, but also understands why Marc disagrees with Serge's purchase.  I also feel like he is the most calm about the whole situation. When Serge and Marc are fighting, he just stays out of it and doesn’t engage with the fight. Being the calmer and more neutral one, he is also able to keep the friendship still together and doesn’t let it fall apart. For example, Yvan states, “Why don’t you make up? And let’s spend an enjoyable evening, all this is ludicrous!” This quote shows how he doesn’t want them to keep fighting, knowing that it won’t end in a good way. He can also keep the argument in a civil manner and keep Marc and Serge from saying anything that would truly cost their friendship. He knows that if Marc and Serge ruin their friendship, they would regret it, so having Yvan there, he can keep them from doing that.

# data[].attributes.body
In part, yes, Art is about the painting, but more so, it is about the behavior of each individual friend and how the painting shows the friends how they act and what they actually believe and think about each other. As Marc later reveals, he does not care for the painting in particular, but how it represents how much Serge has changed and how their relationship has to change. The painting and the disagreement it causes between Marc and Serge allows Yvan to step in as a mediator in an attempt to please both of them which instead frustrates the two and shows them how frustrating Yvan's tendency to please can be. The entire conflict emerges from the painting, but at its core, it is about the group's friendship as well as their individual behaviors and how they all act towards each other and contribute to the dynamic of the group.

# data[].attributes.body
Although I believe anything can be considered art, I disagree that this painting itself is art. Art should be something that is made with meaning and shows an expression of emotion, which the painting does not have. For something that can be made easily, the price for it was ridiculous. The painting held no meaning, no emotion, and cost a lot of money, all for something basic and plain white. I also think that Serge's idea to buy the painting is unreasonable as well. To buy something so expensive just because it was made by someone famous is not the sharpest thing to do. The play suggests that Art is subjective because the friends have a huge argument on whether the painting is “just white” or has something on it to make it beautiful. Personal feelings and interpretations guide this story and give us a better understanding of the characters.

# data[].attributes.body
The comedy in the play brings a contrast to the intense conflict that occurs in the play. When Serge was talking to Marc about Yvan liking his painting, Serge jabs at Marc about his lost sense of humor. During this, he uses his own sense of humor to bring a different tone to the scene. He says, “It’s the wedding, eating away at them” (23). This quote was the start of the turn in the conversation from argument to more comedic dialogue. Reza uses this comedy to show that these characters are not taking these arguments seriously, especially earlier in the play. They believe they can joke around as friends and ignore the real problem at hand by covering it up. This contrast between comedy and uncontrollable argumentation exclaims to the reader that these characters are being irresponsible and scared to face their problems head on. This contrast also highlights the conflicts in the play by hinting at future events to occur and bolding the current conflicts. They are joking about Yvan losing weight over his future wedding and then later on Yvan is ranting about how stressful it is planning a wedding that is bound to fail.

# data[].attributes.body
Personally, I feel that I side with Serge the most out of the three characters. I believe that Yvan was meant to be the logical voice of reason, however despite that being said, I feel that Serge is still closer to the truth. Looking past the painting, the real argument is whether friendship can continue despite differing views, and I believe that Marc is stuck in the past, Yvan is too busy trying to compromise, and Serge is the only one open to new ideas, while trying to understand other people's views. This is exemplified in the arguments between Serge and Marc while Serge is trying to help Marc understand his point of view, and get him to calm down, but Marc is too hot headed and single minded. Yvan also is too busy bothering about other people's opinions, to take his values into consideration, and what is actually correct. To tie it all together, while Yvan was meant to be the voice of reason to the character foil between Marc and Serge, Serge still holds the values closest to the truth, and tries to understand and help others.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
POV: Trying to see the gray in an all white painting.

# data[].attributes.body
I think the painting is art because, no matter how bland and unappealing it may be, some people, like Serge, find it aesthetically pleasing and are willing to spend thousands of dollars on it. A painting may be bad or have no meaning to some people, but there are plenty of other people who may admire the painting, and for them it can be art. Serge sees the painting as admiring and telling a story. Marc sees the painting as an eyesore and a waste of money. Serge may see it as art, but Marc might not. It is only fair to accept it as art and let people interpret it as good or bad art rather than art or not art. The play suggests that art is subjective because Marc sees it one way, whereas Serge sees it another way. I personally think art is objective and needs certain classifications to be called art.

# data[].attributes.body
The humor can have both the effect of lightening the mood and increasing the tension, depending on where it is used. The first argument we see between Serge and Marc about Serge's purchasing of the painting can seem very comical to the audience. With their continued banter and use of foul language, it seems rather unserious. But as the play progresses and we realize the severity of the tension between the characters, the humor only worsens the situation. Yvan's, for example, inability to take the situation seriously until it's too late, and Serge and Marc resort to violence to take out their anger on each other. At points, the humor is literally unbearable for the audience. Yvan's unserious nature is actually deeply consequential to the friendship. Where he is supposed to be the mediator, he is rather blind to the actual problem. The problem isn't the painting, it's each other. The humor masks their inability to recognize the true strain on their friendship and their own flaws. They are all so strong in their ways that it ends up causing their own downfalls.

# data[].attributes.body
I found Yvan getting punched and crying on the floor about his ear was pretty funny, as they were having an intense argument, and he just started yelling in the middle of it. It helped counteract all the drama and arguing between them all. I think that if my friend spent that much on a painting, I would ask some questions and think about it, but overall we would have a laugh over it, and how I do not enjoy art that much, and how I would never truly understand it. While I enjoy the comedic parts of the play, I think it does make it harder to understand, as sometimes it felt off or difficult to know if certain parts were genuine or not. I still think it should have had this aspect, but I believe it could have been done well, and maybe just be a bit more serious at times.

# data[].attributes.body
My opinion on Serge's painting is not "art" because it does not have any significance. It holds no emotion or connections because it is just a blank white canvas with lines. Serge sees a meaning behind it because he decides to buy it for 200,000 francs. The painting should not cost that much, even from a well-known artist. This undermines the true value and meaning of art, as anyone can create such a painting. This also proves that name and fame play a significant role in modern-day art. Serge only buys this painting because it is from the Antrios. If there were no such person as Antrios in the play, Serge would not have bought the painting for an absurd price. I agree with Marc's view a lot in the play because I share the same view of art as him. Overall, I don't consider Serge's painting to be art.

# data[].attributes.body
I side with Yvan the most out of the three. In my opinion, he is the only one who is not inherently wrong in what he is doing. Marc and Serge are both incredibly egotistical; Marc took pride in his former role sort of as Serge's mentor in artistic taste, but finds excessively great issue in Serge's branching off from Marc's ideals to develop his own, and Serge took too much pride in his new personality to get over his new ego that was developed alongside it. Yvan's whole personality throughout the play is almost entirely the opposite, not being egotistical but instead a pushover, not being an self-proclaimed artistic "connoisseur" but instead indifferent in artistic taste. The only reason he is even involved in the conflict is because Serge's and Marc's egos both spilled over and got him involved for trying to see the point of both sides. Yvan is thus only one throughout the play who is actually seeking the best resolution for everyone, and because of that he is the main character I support.

# data[].attributes.body
I side with Yvan since he is the peacemaker trying to stop this conflict between Marc and Serge. He still invites them to the wedding while they both argue with each other. Throughout the story Yvan has been used as a friend to complain about each other too. The first instance of this is when Marc goes to Yvan to talk about Serge buying a 200,000 franc painting and how that is foolish. Yvan agrees to avoid conflict at first but says that it is Serge's decision so Marc really shouldn't care as long as Serge is happy. Marc disagrees then argued with Yvan. Serge then visits Yvan, Serge complains about Marc, and they agree Marc shouldn't talk down to Serge. This process repeats with all three of them. Yvan has to sit there and listen to his 2 friends argue with each other nonstop. On top of that he is dealing with his own family problems that is making his wedding very stressful. Yvan tells them to stop arguing. "I don’t understand what’s going on. Can’t we just calm down? There’s no

reason to insult each other, especially over a painting." This quote represents that the play really isn't about the painting rather it is about the friendship of the group that is slowly breaking down.

# data[].attributes.body
I see how it may be considered art due to the fact that it aligns with modernism, but there is no meaning behind the art itself, I believe. I think that the art could have created its meaning since being bought, since it unleashed so much within their friendship, and that could be the meaning of it and their friendship. Other than the meaning of their friendship with the art, I think that the piece itself isn’t meaningful or can be considered art if it's just a white canvas.

# data[].attributes.body
During the entire play, it was funny to me how much Marc cared; all of the conflict could've been avoided if he had just questioned why Serge bought the painting and moved on. He may have been just looking out for a friend, but it was hilarious to me that he cared so much that he just kept going and going. I don't think Reza meant to have this part be funny, but to me, I laughed a good bit. Humor does try to make tense situations less tense and easier to deal with, but in a real, serious moment, it could have the opposite effect and make the other person think you're not taking them seriously. If my friend spent that ridiculous amount on a painting, I'd laugh at them, question why, and move on with my life. Yeah, it's ridiculous, but it's their money, they get to decide what to do with it.

# data[].attributes.body
I think that humor makes serious themes, like friendship, values, and betrayal, much easier to deal with. I think very commonly in the play and throughout life, the characters and humans in general tend to make light of serious situations. People are oftentimes told to “think of the good times” rather than the bad ones in order to deal with situations better. This is also used throughout tons of other plays and musicals throughout history. For example, the Broadway musical “Cabaret.” The musical takes place in Nazi Germany, when the persecution of Jewish people took place. The musical disguises a Jewish woman as a gorilla and has the character prance around the stage. While the audience laughs at the jumping gorilla on stage, it truly symbolizes the way society viewed Jewish people at the time. This is an example of the way plays use comedy to mask the true meaning/symbols of things. It shows that people “digest” things more easily when they are presented in a better manner.

# data[].attributes.body
I definitely do not think that the play is really just about the painting. At its core, the play is simply about friends with conflicting emotions and opinions about an event, and the painting happens to be the center of that event. The painting is just a device to show each character's true colors, for example, Serge's passion for art, Marc's fear of abandonment, and Yvan's tendency to people-please. Without the painting, Marc would never have expressed his feelings of being left behind by Serge and Yvan. Serge would never reveal how hurt he feels about Marc’s attitude towards his interests. Marc and Serge would never properly criticize Yvan’s handling of his family situation. The play is meant to showcase how personalities, insecurities, intellects, and interests can clash in disastrous ways, even among friends. The lesson one must take from it is not necessarily a new appreciation for modern art, but instead simply an understanding that friends, no matter how different in taste, must clearly communicate their feelings in order to maintain the friendship.

# data[].attributes.body
During the play, I found the moment when Yvan visits Serge's house and, after Serge is asked by Yvan if he has visited anywhere recently, Serge gleefully replies that he has been financially "ruined." Reza could easily have made this part a somber and upsetting moment, but they instead make the moment funny to show that Serge still has a sense of humor when around his friends. However, the script is not entirely full of comedy. There are definitely more truly meaningful skits than there are comedic ones. The comedy presented during the play makes the serious themes a little easier to deal with. This playful energy makes the story more meaningful because the viewer is able to see the characters as friends who only want the best for each other, rather than just people who know each other and are trying to persuade the others to see their side. After this small comedic relief, Serge then shows Yvan the painting and the mood changes as Yvan is a little unsure of the painting at first. Yvan clearly wants to be respectful by not hurting Surge's feelings and being too aggressive, like Marc, but does see how the painting may have been a huge waste of money as Marc had told him previously. Personally, if it was my friend who spent probably half their yearly salary on a canvas that looks blank on the first glance, I really do not know how I would react. I would not be mad at them, but I would definitely tell them that this was not the smartest purchase and to maybe consider the thought process a little deeper next time.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
POV: Marc when he finds out the price of Serge's painting

# data[].attributes.body
I do not believe Serge's painting is "art" because it does not portray any passion or significance. It is a blank canvas and contains lines; however, it does not reflect any connection or emotion behind the painting. Despite the painting's plain look, Serge buys the painting for an absurd price of 200,000 Francs. I would understand the value of the painting had it been an actual painting, but it is not. It is just a blank canvas, which Serge believes has a significant meaning behind it. I understand and believe that art is subjective, and everyone should be able to interpret in their own ways; however, I also believe that there is a limit to it. Many paintings that are labeled as subjective have some sort of meaning and emotion behind the creation, which Serge's painting lacks. Due to this, as well as the unreasonable price of 200,000 Francs, I do not believe Serge's painting should be considered "art."

# data[].attributes.body
A moment in the play I found funny was when Marc was looking at Serge's painting that he purchased and blatantly disrespecting the painting and Serge's decision by using profanity. I think Reza uses comedy in such a tense situation to help the readers better understand the viewpoints of each character through comedic dialogue. The comedic dialogue makes the serious theme easier to deal with because using comedy and using jokes from time to time lessens the seriousness of the overall play. It allows for a humour view of the play which helps the audience better understand the plot.

# data[].attributes.body
Personally, I don't think that Serge's painting is art because I feel like anyone can make his painting, and there is nothing special about it, but just because it does not mean anything to me, it does not mean it's not art to someone else, and it will have meaning for other people, like Serge. This means a lot to him and he really likes it, and thats what matters. This painting is definitely subjective because Marc sees nothing in this painting and keeps going back and forth with Serge, while Marc does not think this painting is good. Serge has his personal interpretation of this piece, but just because I do not find this art, or Marc does not think this is art, does not mean someone else will not think this is art and love this painting and style of art, where you can interpret your own meaning behind it.

# data[].attributes.body
I do think that Serge’s painting could be art depending on the audience point of view of it when they see the painting but however I do not think that the price of painting is reasonable as there is not much work put into it and it is just a simple white painting. I also believe that the play suggests that art is entirely subjective because of the differences in reaction between Yvan and Marc. For example, Yvan simply says that the painting is an art piece as he does not want to take any side of the argument but wants to stay neutral, while Marc criticizes that it is not art and a waste of money. The painting mainly depends on the perspective of how the audience takes it but as for me, I do not think that the painting is art as I have not seen how the painting looks like and it does not scream any messages when I think of the a simple plain white painting.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
POV: Finding out how much 200,000 francs is in U.S dollars 

# data[].attributes.body
Post your opinion: Is Serge’s painting actually “art”? Why or why not?

In my opinion, I do not think that I would be able to consider Serge’s painting as art as it does not hold true deeper emotions created by the artist. The artist’s painting did not share any emotions or stories, making it just a canvas which diminishes the value of art. It is a blank white canvas with some texture to it and priced at an absurd amount of money. Although I am not an artist or an art critic myself, I would never pay 200,000 francs, or 250,492 U.S dollars for something that looks like a kindergarten could have made in an arts and crafts class. I believe that true art holds value and should invoke something out of the viewer and does not need to be listed for a crazy amount of money for it to be considered art. Art can be interpreted in many different ways, but there is nothing to even intercept on a canvas, with lines that are hardly visible.

# data[].attributes.body
In my opinion, Serge’s painting can still be considered “art,” even though some people find it simple and meaningless. The play demonstrates that art is not always about technical skill or beauty; often, it is about provoking thought, conversation, and emotion. Serge values the painting, which shows that art is not just the object but also the meaning and feeling attached to it. On the other hand, Marc finds the painting absurd and even insulting, while Yvan remains unsure. This disagreement highlights the subjectivity of art, which feels profound to one person may feel empty to another. For my meme, I chose the image of a confused man surrounded by question marks because it represents how Marc, and likely many audience members, feel when they first see Serge’s all-white painting. It seems confusing and even silly at first, but as the play progresses, you realize that the real “art” may be the conversations and conflicts it sparks.

# data[].attributes.body
During the play, the character I side with most would be Yvan due to his understanding of the situation. Yvan is not very judgemental, is very understanding, patient, and tends to look at both sides of the argument. It's not as if Yvan listened to Marc's side of the argument first and decided to follow and agree with Marc's argument and reasoning. Yvan looked at both sides of the argument, maintained patience, and was understanding of the situation which helped him play peace keeper.

"There was a time you were proud to be my friend. I was your alibi. But... eventually, I suppose, that sort of affection dries up" Although during this quote, Marc is talking to Serge about how their friendship is crumbling, I'd say that this shows the rebuilding of their friendship. This is because starting off by addressing the negatives and what's affecting the friendship further helps rebuild the friendship by getting the problems and bad energy out of the way, to start fresh, and most importantly start on good terms.

I think that this play is not only about the painting but about how friendships face challenges including differences in opinions, thoughts, and feelings of certain beliefs and decisions. Yes, the play was about the painting and it clearly shows that because the whole conflict rose because Serge decided to purchase the painting in which Marc believed was a terrible decision. However, I think this play more importantly displays the challenges and importance of accepting differences in a friendship and building off on those differences. It teaches the audience of how, although friendships will certainly have different opinions on decisions, and disagreements from time to time, maintaining patience and acknowledging each others thoughts and beliefs is key to building and maintaining a bonded friendship.

# data[].attributes.body
I side the most with Yvan, as he is neutral and mostly peaceful. But, he serves a greater purpose, he is able to keep the friendship alive, as he is able to moderate and keep the disclosure mostly civil. This is shown within the play when Yvan says; "Go on, that’s right, I’ve told you, it’s water off a duck’s back". This shows his laid back nature, and willingness to ease tensions. I also think that the play does not have much do to about the art, and its deeper meaning is found in how friendships and bonds are tested when people are unable to resolve conflicts. Art is a play about three men who have to overcome pride and taste. The art in question has substance, but it is the dialog between the men that creates meaning. All of which is seen within the play, but shines through the lense of Yvan, more than the other men.

# data[].attributes.body
The painting is not the main issue in the play. It is more of a friendship built on tension that erupted over something way smaller. It is obvious by the way the men talk that they had other issues with each other beyond the painting. Marc already had insecurities about losing his friends through their loss of intelligence and maturity, and Serge buying the painting added on to Marc’s overthinking. Marc’s comments towards the painting then triggered Serge into an angrier state leading to the fight. They already had issues which allowed their anger to build up faster over non-issues. Marc then began to build up more frustration after learning that his two best friends went off and talked about Marc’s personality, or lack thereof. Then, the three men, all worked up over previous fights, decided to go to dinner together. With the tension still lingering, the men blew up on each other spewing every insulting comment they had about one another’s life. So, the play focuses on the apprehension of a friendship, but it is disguised by an overpriced bland painting.

# data[].attributes.body
Serge's painting is 100 percent art, this is because as we discovered earlier in the year, art should be defined as something that unifies the creator and the viewer and it must be made with intention or purpose. Although this art is seen by Marc as pointless and Serge degradation of common sense, The intention and feeling this painting provides to Serge allows for this to be considered art , since there are emotions being provoked and there is an intent to provoke emotions it will be considered art. Serge sees this art as modern and he can derive color and meaning, showing that the art affects him differently than Marc. Finally, Yvan provides the middle ground, he says he seems some color and meaning yet struggles to see the full picture such as Serge, yet still all 3 develop emotions from this painting which further and finally solidify it as a piece of art.

# data[].attributes.body
I don't think Serge's painting is actually art. First, I think art needs effort, not just idea. For art to be art you can't just have a banana taped to a wall. To me something is art when it has effort. If a famous person paints a plack dot on a white canvas, then it is considered art, but if a regular person does the exact same thing, nobody would buy it. I think the play represents art with a subjective value, as there is not a lot you could interperate off of a white canvas with some lines. It is supposed to go off of opinions instead of facts. I do not agree with this in art but it is what it is represents. The play could also represent a objective meaning as in the end it talks about the three friends relationship and how is was fractured and almost nothing in the end, like the painting.

# data[].attributes.body
I side with Serge the most out of all three characters. His personality is the least conflicting in the problem of the white painting. I think Marc’s controlling behavior causes him to blow the problem out of proportion. Yvan stated that Serge was not even hurting anyone by buying the painting, which logically is true. I do not think he was in the wrong in the conflict and did not mean to hurt Marc’s feelings. I think Marc lacked empathy towards Serge in this situation and attacked him out of fear of losing a friend. All of the characters value their friendship, but as stated in the story, the main problem was not the white painting but a multitude of issues leading up to the painting. In the aspect of Marc being a good frien,d I think his values of friendship do not coincide with Serge’s, as Marc is more controlling and Serge is not.

# data[].attributes.body
I believe in a sense that it is art but to me it really isn't. I feel that the meaning behind it is a true meaning and deep but the looks just do not appeal to all. To me art needs to have some sort of appeal. The view of the piece could mean something deep to someone but not deep to another person. It is honestly just based on your view and feelings toward the piece. I feel that the play suggests that art has a subjective value. In the story Serge likes the painting but Marc does not like it at all. Serge is able to see a deeper meaning in the art rather than Marc seeing it as a useless piece of white canvas. Yvan was able to see a bit of both sides knowing that Serge was seeing something deeper but Marc saw it as useless.

# data[].attributes.body
Prompt: Which character do you side with most—Marc, Serge, or Yvan? Why?

I feel that I would side the most with Yvan because, although I kind of think buying a painting for that much is crazy, it obviously made Serge happy, and it was his decision. I also think that Marc should just mind his business and shouldn’t have gotten that upset over something that didn’t directly affect him. I feel that the situation was made bigger than it should have been, so in this situation, I would’ve tried to mediate and give a solution to the problem that was arising. I also feel like, although Yvan wasn’t “loyal” to one side, he was dragged into the situation and did the right thing by not getting very involved and making the problem bigger than it was. When problems like this happen in real life with my friends, most of the time I try to see both sides of the situation and try to find a solution so that bigger things like not being friends anymore won’t happen over something not relevant.

# data[].attributes.body
Yes, I believe that Serge’s painting is actually “art”. Although it may not be appealing to some and is seen as “bland,” it still ties into the definition of a piece of art that an artist creates, evoking feelings for both the artist and the viewer. Just because people like Marc didn't enjoy the piece doesn't take away from the fact that it is still considered art by people like Serge. The play suggests that art has an entirely subjective value by showing us how each character interprets the art piece. Yvan, Serge, and Marc all view the art piece in various ways and don't share a set view on it. I personally don’t find the painting all that special, and I share the same views as Marc. I do consider it to be “art”, but not the type of art that I enjoy or find appealing. I also don’t think it’s worth 200,000 francs and find it ridiculous that Serge would spend that much money on something so simple.

# data[].attributes.body
I think that Sergei's art is not art because I do not feel anything when thinking about it. As we learned from one of the TED talks on how to interpret modern art, I tried using the techniques to interpret the painting. However, I do not feel anything, and I do not think it is visually appealing. The art does not make me think; it is not a different medium, it does not convey an idea through the medium, etc. My meme displays how I feel about the painting, as I see the value it might have, but I do not get it. I do see that the painting is subjective and Sergei likes it, but I do not. People like Sergei show why each art piece has value, while people like me and Marc do not see this as a work of art, for it is dull and uninteresting, and a waste of 200k dollars.

# data[].attributes.body
Create a short post imagining how you would respond if a friend spent a fortune on Serge’s painting.

If a friend of mine spent 200,000 francs, which is equivalent to 250,540 US dollars, on Serge’s painting, I would react very cautiously. I would definitely try to understand their motives behind the purchase, as art is subjective. However, I would also give a bit of my own input, explaining to my friend that spending that amount of money on a painting is a dangerous financial move. It also depends on how wealthy my friend is, as they could have money to “burn.” In that case, it would not matter to me, as they would still have money to cater to their everyday needs. I would support my friend no matter their financial situation, but it’s important to give realistic advice. In my personal views about modern art, I appreciate it and do consider it art. I do not feel that spending over $200,000 is reasonable, but some people do, and I believe it is not my place to bash a friend for their purchases.

# data[].attributes.body
The growing question in the story is whether Serge's art is really art. I believe it possesses artistic value. Even though it may seem simple— which it very well is —there is a meaning to it. When Segre sees it, he feels something. To him, he feels emotion, which feelings and meanings can be subjective to the person. For example, when Marc looks at the painting, he finds nothing but practically a blank canvas. On the contrary, Serge sees something; he feels the comedy of the painting. When Yvan comes over to see the painting for himself, Serge and Yvan both laugh together at the fact that he bought this. So, to answer the question, is the art truly art? I believe that it is, the comedy and laughter were emotions that were felt while looking at the painting. Emotions and feelings are the main part of art that make it art; the expression of feeling.

# data[].attributes.body
Which character do you side with most—Marc, Serge, or Yvan? Why?

Yvan seems the most reasonable when looking at the situation objectively, as he primarily acts as a deescalating mediator. He's presented in a sympathetic light in regards to how wedding debacle burdens, and appears to be making an effort work on himself in therapy. But, he is not entirely blameless. Even if Serge and Marc are being overly harsh offloading blame onto him, their criticism aren't unfounded. His attempts to avoid conflict over the years only succeeded in bottling the core issues and gaining his friends' contempt, both manifesting in the final scene fallout. Yvan was acting in what he thought was the group's best interest, and even if he was mainly placating Serge by complimenting the painting, I believe it was his right to do so. His heart was in the right place, but he just could not properly navigate/untangle the years of discontentment and bitterness between Marc and Serge. (Especially considering his good will resulted in being decked in the face. Which, the fist fight is somewhat of a microcosm of the whole dynamic)

# data[].attributes.body
I side most with Marc. I couldn't agree more with him that that piece of "Art" was a waste of money. Even Serge said it himself, while in perspective factoring the value of the painting its not that expensive but overall that is an extremely expensive purchase and that is how I look at things. Too often I see people taking deals or buying more because they think they are getting a discount. I feel Serge did the same thing with this purchase. Just because the painting is valued at 200,000 franc doesn't make it any better, you are still wasting 200,000 franc on a piece of white canvas. "You see, if we’d only managed to have a normal discussion, that is, if I’d have been able to put my point of view without losing my temper..."- Marc. This is a turning point where Marc realizes he might have been in the wrong for at least his temper. I think the play has a way deeper meaning and is more about the conflict between friends than the art. It shows how they changed and values changed and despite this they were able to make it work, it wasn't pretty but they did.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
The debate about if the painting is actually art can be very complex and varies person by person, so the image represents confusion.

# data[].attributes.body
Is Serge’s painting actually “art”? Why or why not?

No, I do not consider Serge's painting "art" initially, although, at some point it does become "art". Through my lens, the artwork that's inside a piece of artwork is only given value through the author. The painting has no inherit value outside of what Serge believes to be an act of his own "golden tongue". We, as the audience, are brought through this journey as a result of the painting, and an important question is asked as a result: Would the artwork mean anything if the argument over it never happened? I don't believe so. Instead, I believe it becomes art at the end, where Marc draws a man skiing, a man that glides across and fades. Not because something had actually been drawn on the painting, but because it had finally symbolized something other than to fulfill Serge's own ego. It became more than just an item of Serge's taste, it symbolized the growth and distance of friendship, how relationships may evolve, about subjectivity, and how someone you may come to know so well, may fade out.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
I would use this meme to add to my point on the subjectivity of the Antrios. Some people describe LeBron James as the greatest basketball player to touch the game while others believe he is just an NBA marketing scheme.

# data[].attributes.body
The question regarding whether or not Serge's painting is actually art is subjective. I cannot state whether or not it is art because I have not seen the painting nor have I been able to feel something from it. Based solely on the choice words that Marc uses to depict the Antrios, I could argue that it is not art; however, I would argue that the Antrios is in fact art because of the impulsive feeling that Serge had regarding the painting.

# data[].attributes.body
I think that, in the context of this play, Serge's painting was art because it invoked so much emotion for Marc and Serge. Marc's negative feelings toward it are feelings nonetheless, and that is what art should bring. Serge feels a connection to the piece and admires it for its boldness, and connection and admiration are obvious characteristics of art. In addition, the fact that Serge paid 200,000 francs for the painting is ridiculous, but that is art in and of itself.

At the end of the play, Marc is narrating what the art piece means to him after everything; the play is arguing that art is entirely subjective. Everything depends on life experiences. Marc didn't see anything when the play first started, possibly because his life was dull and flavourless. Whereas, by the end, he had gotten some type of experience that let him see another perspective of the painting- a perspective that is likley different from Serge and Yvans's.

# data[].attributes.body
Although I do think that Serge's decision on purchasing such an art piece with not much visual value behind it was not the brightest idea, I believe that Serge's painting is still considered art. My opinion on his decision of buying such a painting is mutual, I acknowledge the fact that a painting, regardless of it's lack in visual representation, can have sentimental value and meaning behind it. Art can be interpreted in numerous different ways, through emotions, creativity, thoughts, and feelings, so yes I do believe that Serge's painting is art. The play suggests that art can have both a subjective and objective value because as shown in the play, Serge believes that his purchase of the painting was a good decision since for him, its not just a white painting its the way you interpret the art and how it makes you feel. Meanwhile, Marc shows that art can be objective because he believes that Serge's decision was terrible and that the art piece was a complete waste of money and value. Marc believes that the painting means nothing and that it is just a simple bland painting which shows his side of the argument.

# data[].attributes.body
Post a quote from the play that shows the breakdown (or rebuilding) of their friendship.

“Under the white clouds, the snow is falling.

You can’t see the white clouds, or the snow.

Or the cold, or the white glow of the earth.

A solitary man glides downhill on his skis.

The snow is falling.

It falls until the man disappears back into the landscape.

My friend Serge, who’s one of my oldest friends, has bought a painting. It’s a canvas

about five foot by four. It represents a man who moves across a space and

Disappears…”

# data[].attributes.body
The character I side with the most is Serge, not because of his taste in modern art, but because of the way he views relationships. I love how Serge attacks Marc when he asks him if he had ever thought about the fact that Serge truly loves the painting even though he does not. The majority of humans have no consideration or empathy for others. They refuse to see another side of a story other than their own, and this is how arguments escalate into an unreasonable feud. This is explained even further when Serge says, "Aha! When it’s something that concerns you personally, I see words can bite

a little deeper!..." People like Marc have a hard time seeing situations through other people's perspectives. But when something indecent happens to him, it is different. He does not have any empathy for anyone else and is the main reason why this whole argument started.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
My reaction when Serge started talking about modern art sophistication.

# data[].attributes.body
ANSWER TO BOTH WRITTEN PROMPTS

In my opinion, this is not art. As Roger Scruton says, “If anything can count as art, then art ceases to have a point.” Serge’s painting reminds me of the famous “artwork” where an artist left a blank canvas behind a door for three years. When they took it out it had a dent, they called it “a reflection on procrastination and artist’s block” and displayed it in a gallery. That’s not art, it’s an excuse. According to Tolstoy, true art should bring on genuine emotion or joy. While Serge sees value in the white painting he buys, believing its "worth" lies in its modern take he is also anxious about the amount of money he spent on it. To Marc, it’s meaningless, a big canvas of nonsense. Yvan doesn’t even care enough to form an opinion, which speaks volumes he just wants to appease both parties. If two of them don’t see real value in it, how can it be art? Without clear emotional or intellectual connection, the work fails to fulfill any real definition of art.The play suggests that art is subjective, though it explores this idea through bickering and different perspectives. Each character, Serge, Marc, and Yvan, represents a different idea toward art, which highlights how personal experiences, beliefs, and relationships shape our interpretation of what is valuable. The painting, a white canvas with white lines, is vague. The audience is never told what to think but rather subconsciously made to pick a character's narrative. This ambiguity reinforces the idea that art’s value isn’t objective, but created through personal meaning and definition.

# data[].attributes.body
This play suggests that art has a subjective value. Serge thought that the Antrios painting was beautiful it its own way- and Yvan somewhat thought the same thing. It is not up to others to choose how you view things and why you should view things in a positive or a negative light. Would I think that Serge's painting is art? No, most likely not- however, it is not up to me to decide what should or should not be considered art in another person's perspective. I do believe that Marc had an awful reaction to Serges piece and that he should be at fault for the argument that took place. However, I can also understand why Marc would have such a reaction to the painting and its value. Marc overall should have never reacted like that, if the painting brought that amount of joy to Serge, then it shouldn't have been up to Marc to judge him for his choice in buying the painting.

# data[].attributes.body
Serge when he bought the painting, proved a point, and strengthened friendships (a.k.a got Marc with the pen)

Post your opinion: Is Serge’s painting actually “art”? Why or why not?

I believe that Serge’s purchase was actually art because it shows the speciality of his opinion on what art is. While Marc did not think that it was art, considering that it was just a blank canvas, he criticized Serge for buying something he thought was worthless. By allowing Marc to damage his expensive and beloved painting, Serge presents the ultimate test. The gesture shows that he values their friendship more than the art and forces them to confront their escalating conflict. Honestly, it was Serge’s money in the end so even if he thought it was not art, he still chose to buy it. I believe that anything that people deem as art, is art. However, that may be different for someone who may not have understood the thought process behind said art. Marc and Serge both display two different opinions of what art could be and it reels the readers in, also forming their own opinion of what art should be also.

# data[].attributes.body
READ THE DIRECTIONS BEFORE YOU POST AND COMMENT!