When I try to understand a work of art, I focus on the details, observe the piece carefully, and imagine that I am the artist. For me, Van Gogh's art is inherently depressing; his style is gloomy, eerie, cold, and unique. Just like in his Starry Night, you can feel the loneliness and sadness emanating from his work. Cornfield with Crows is no exception. If I were Van Gogh and planning to end my life, I might choose to paint a very happy memory before departing. I believe this scene was inspired by his own memory—a final attempt to signal that his end was near. The crows, symbols of death, and the cornfield itself seem to represent his inability to continue living. There is even an old saying, "Mr. Can’t died in a cornfield," which, to me, reinforces the idea that the painting is basically a suicide note.

• How art is often thought of as separate from society

• As an architecture student after reading Salvador P. Lopez's essay "Literature and Society", I find his reflections on art to be incredibly relevant, even outside the realm of literature. Lopez pushes us to rethink the role of art—not as something isolated or purely aesthetic—but as something deeply intertwined with society and its struggles.

• How, according to Lopez, young artists typically begin with a notion of art as an expression of beauty

• From Lopez’s perspective, art that is seen as separate from society is an illusion. He criticizes how art is often treated as if it exists in a vacuum—appreciated only for its beauty or emotional resonance, detached from the real-world conditions that shape human life. In school, and especially in arts subjects, we are sometimes taught that the highest goal of art is simply to express beauty. Lopez acknowledges this is often how young artists begin: inspired by a romantic idea of creating something beautiful for beauty’s sake. But he sees this as a starting point—not the destination.

• How great artists thrive through their engagement with society

• Lopez values art that engages with society, that takes a stand and dares to be uncomfortable. He celebrates great artists not because they produced technically perfect work, but because they dared to reflect, critique, and ultimately serve their communities. According to him, the highest form of art is one that is emancipatory and altruistic—it uplifts, informs, and inspires people toward social change.

  
  

• Lopez's idea of "pure literature" or "Art for Art's sake" as a "comfortable philosophy of escape"

• Lopez opposes the notion of “Art for Art’s sake”, which he calls a “comfortable philosophy of escape.” To him, it’s a way of avoiding responsibility, a retreat into a bubble where art becomes decorative and self-indulgent rather than socially meaningful. This resonates in architecture too—buildings can look impressive, even stunning, but what value do they have if they don’t serve the people who inhabit them, or worse, if they ignore the social conditions around them?

  
  

• Lopez's idea that the highest form of art is emancipatory and altruistic

• So if I were to imagine the kind of art Lopez values, it would not be locked in a gallery or a glossy coffee table book. It would be found in murals that tell stories of resistance, in poetry that challenges injustice, and even in architecture that reflects dignity, inclusivity, and compassion. It's art that does not escape from the world—but helps change it.

1) How can art be practiced for its own sake, separate from society?

• Art can be practiced for its own sake when it is created purely for beauty, personal expression, or technical skill, without concern for social issues or real-world relevance. This kind of art exists in isolation, focusing only on aesthetics and internal meaning. According to Lopez, this approach ignores the social responsibilities and transformative power of art.

2) Why is it detrimental to believe that art is a form of escape?

• Believing that art is a form of escape can be harmful because it encourages artists to turn away from the realities and struggles of the world. It becomes a tool for comfort rather than change. Lopez argues that this mindset limits art’s potential to challenge injustice and inspire people toward progress.

3) Why is it important for art to address the "problems of [the artist's] time"?

• Addressing the problems of one’s time gives art relevance and impact. Lopez believes that the greatest works of art are those that engage with the realities of their society—whether it be poverty, oppression, or inequality. Art becomes a form of participation in shaping a better world.

4) What does Lopez mean when he said that writers and artists should be "teachers of men"?

• When Lopez says artists should be "teachers of men," he means they should guide, educate, and enlighten people through their work. Artists have the power to awaken awareness, inspire empathy, and push for social change. Their responsibility goes beyond beauty—they must help others understand and improve the human condition.

5) Why does Lopez think that the highest form of art is emancipatory?

• Lopez believes the highest form of art is emancipatory because it seeks to liberate people—from ignorance, injustice, and suffering. This kind of art uplifts humanity and challenges oppressive systems. It uses beauty and creativity not just to entertain, but to transform lives.

One foreign series that really stuck with me is Alice in Borderland, and my favorite episode is Episode 3 of Season 1, which features the Seven of Hearts game. In this game, Arisu and his three closest friends are trapped inside a building and unknowingly assigned the roles of “wolf” and “sheep.” The twist is brutal: if the timer runs out, the sheep die—only the wolf survives. To live, the wolf must tag someone else, passing the role to them and condemning them instead. What makes the episode so tragic is that Arisu’s friends choose not to betray each other, ultimately sacrificing themselves to protect him.

The dominant ideology in this episode is survival versus morality. It examines how people respond when forced into life-or-death situations that demand betrayal. The game itself promotes the idea that survival can come at the cost of loyalty and human connection. Through Arisu’s friends’ choice to die with dignity instead of saving themselves, the episode critiques systems that manipulate people into harming each other to stay alive.

Rewatching the episode with a critical lens made me realize how deeply emotional manipulation is embedded in the show’s world. It’s not just about physical survival—it’s about what kind of person you become in the process. The episode hit harder the second time knowing the outcome, especially the scene where Chota said "Arisu, live on for us" and Kurube said "Arisu, Thank You". It made me reflect on how much value we place on trust, friendship, and self-sacrifice in a society that often rewards competition and individualism. It transformed what I first saw as a shocking twist into a meaningful commentary on the cost of integrity.

After reading the poem "Letter to Pedro, US Citizen, Also Called Pete" by Rene Estrella Amper, I found out that it expresses ideologies of social inequality, disillusionment, and colonial influence. It contrasts the harsh realities of life in the poet’s hometown with the implied comfort and success of Pete’s new life in America. Also, the poem addresses class disparity, showing how the rich (like the mayor and congressman) exploit land and people while ordinary citizens suffer and turn to coping mechanisms like alcohol or prostitution. Furthermore, it critiques the effects of colonization and identity loss, hinted at by Pete’s transformation from “Pedro” to “Pete” and even Islaw’s renaming himself “Stanley” to mimic Western culture. Overall, the poem reflects a deep nostalgia, sorrow, and quiet anger toward a society that has become unjust, lost its values, and left its people behind.

• I do consider this project to be art, especially when thining about Walter Benjamin’s ideas. He talks about how reproduced art loses its original “aura,” but he also believed that reproductions open up new ways for people to connect with art. By mixing Starry Night with familiar characters like Toothless, Shrek, Donkey, and the magic bean sprout. I’ve taken something iconic and reimagined it in a way that feels more personal and fun. It’s a new kind of storytelling, using pieces from different worlds to create something unique.

How do the concepts of "originality" and piracy affect the way we receive works of art?

• When it comes to originality and piracy, I think they both really change how we experience art. Originality still matters, but in today’s world, remixing and reinterpreting can be just as powerful. Piracy is tricky, but it also makes art more accessible—more people get to see, share, and be inspired by it. In a way, it makes art less about ownership and more about connection.