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.

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. 

“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…” 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

“ 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.

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.

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.

“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.

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.

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.

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

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.