"Art molds our actual life of feeling; by giving form to the world, it articulates human nature, sensibility, energy, passion and mortality."

- Suzanne Langer

Oh, dear by honeymoon fly

This poem is about the grief of a mother who brought her child upon a world filled with violence and blood. This literary piece articulates a view on humanity that was formed through a life of missiles, wars, and genocide. To many mothers, life is considered a gift, but this poem 'gives form to the world' with the messaging that the world is an evil being that kills and destroys vulnerable people like mothers and children. The alternating alignment also represents the back and forth of the awareness of the mother and of the child about the cruelty of the world.

I also resonate with another definition of art (more specifically literature) that was not emphasized in the other definitions. This definition stated that art/literature is a 'violence' on something conventional (e.g., language). This poem played with the physical structure of poems, and gave stanzas and alignments a different purpose and involvement in the piece—also projecting the thematic 'violence' on usual poetry structures.

This artwork with a hand-drawn text saying "Huwag mong damdamin ang mga bagay dahil ang mga bagay ay walang damdamin" is a conscious act of expression from the artist who, in my own interpretation, is communicating a message of 'feeling things without dwelling on it'. 'Bagay' is a Filipino word that may mean 'physical objects' or 'situations in life' in this context; the former is what comes to mind more, because it is the definition that suits better "walang damdamin."

Hence, whichever path of meaning-making we choose, the lingual message is a clear expression of stoicism. However, as we look at the rest of the piece—the amount of colors, organic shapes, directionless brush strokes—it seems that this message comes from a place where so much is felt, and it looks as annoying as a messy room full of dirty laundry and ghosts, until morphs into an unrecognizable shape of nothingness. The face of the humanly figure is stoic, and her eyes look only as worn out as the stick-drawn version of her beside her; it is a face of nothing in contrast of the 'everythings' that surround it. In a nutshell, it is in fact a purgative piece of art that understands stoicism and creates the feeling of it.

What I think the artist is fighting to express in this piece is that they were 'lightened' by the knowledge that things, may it be physical or circumstantial "objects," (i.e. brush strokes, random appearances of other things, or other people) are essentially null of feelings, and our emotions and feelings about it ^{_{(although they are valid)}} are therefore not required nor solicited.

Art as “expression.” Among the key concepts, this is likely the well-known dimension of art. You hear people say, “I paint (or dress) this way to express myself.”

_{How does ‘expression’ relate to the artistic process, in general, or the artist, in particular? How does this compare with art as representation?}

In this definition, art is meant to be a cathartic experience. In art as representation, we can still express ourselves with art as the avenue. On the other hand, art as an expression suggests that one makes art not necessarily based on decisions, but more as a way to freely communicate without the need to connect the art with something that implies significant purpose. I think this kind of definition resonates with many forms of modern or contemporary art where abstractness is much more of an expression (or maybe an intentional lacking thereof) rather than to imitate or represent something.

Dalisay strengthened and emphasized the fact that the arts is a part of living and being human, and it is even an integral part of world-building. It is necessary that we see the importance of the arts, even those that study Science, because the sciences and the arts are not isolated from each other. Instead, they (along with other fields important in world-building and the world in general) go hand-in-hand in understanding ourselves and our surroundings.

I looked up to Dalisay for how articulate his speech was, and that he explained that there should not merely be a celebration of the arts; this risks the commodification or even an underlying negligence of it. What we truly need is a genuine understanding and appreciation for the arts—one that is not superficial nor anti-intellectual.

We are not bound by our specialization. It is a humanly mission to see purpose in every corner and to become well-rounded, as it is the very essence of belonging to the world.

One key concept mentioned in the article is “representation,” and/or “imitation.” The Greek philosophers, Plato and Aristotle, offered the concept of “mimesis” in dealing with poetry and performance.

_{"How do the concepts of representation, imitation, and mimesis define art?"}

Art is defined by how it represents or imitates something in that every part that consists any art comes from the conscious or subconscious decision of the artist. Hence, each part can be interpreted as an implicit or explicit representation of their emotions, perspectives, attitudes, and behaviors. In my own personal ruminations, this is how 'life imitates art.'

Landscape II

^{_{Carlos A. Angeles}}

Sun in the knifed horizon bleeds the sky

Spilling a peacock stain upon the sands,

Across some murdered rocks refused to die.

It is your absence touches my sad hands

Blinded like flags in the wreck of air.

And catacombs of cloud enshroud the cool

And calm involvement of the darkened plains,

The stunted mourners here: and here, a full

And universal tenderness which drains

The sucked and golden breath of sky comes bare.

Now, while the dark basins the void of space,

Some sudden crickets, ambushing me near,

Discover vowels of your whispered face

And subtly cry. I touch your absence here

Remembering the speeches of your hair.

I enjoy reading and writing poetry myself, and my own interpretation of this poem has led me to a feeling of grief and longingness.

The poem quite descriptively narrates a scenery, which seems at first to be a typical sunrise, but is hued with yearning. When I read into the words a little too much (just as much as I like to), I could notice how the experience of grief and yearning were woven onto each other: the scene is beautiful—it is sunny, yet there are 'murdered rocks refusing to die' (which I understand as tombstones), 'stunted mourners' (people stuck in grief), and all of the rest of the poem talked about the experience of the "landscape" as a delicate experience of something so gut-wrenching. It is not after all just a landscape of mystical yearning where the persona is hugging themselves through their cardigan that's being blown by the wind; it is dour, and it is po-faced. It is a death of something great, and that is the very experience of it.

In my opinion, there is what Dewey refers to as an aesthetic form where I could experience from the poem, and even in my amateur piece of drawing, the active interaction of each element of the artwork being described, their cohesion (or oftentimes the lack thereof), and their desire to complete the poem, which were all quite evident.

Based on Lopez's essay, art is often seen merely as an aesthetic output, for which it has no necessitated purpose. Many truthers of "Art for Art's Sake" believe that the arts are only for leisure, pleasure, entertainment, and the like. Lopez wrote the referenced essay on Literature and Society to oppose this very sentiment. I concur with his stance, and I believe such sentiment to be an unripe understanding of what art can be, and that, although this view should not be entirely dismissed, it is nonetheless an idea that must further be developed through truly being human if one were to have this attitude towards the medium.

^{Why is it detrimental to believe that art is a form of escape?}

Any artist or consumer of art who believes art to be escapism puts themselves out of touch from their humanity and their world. It cannot be denied that it is only the nature of mankind, especially ones who actively look around the world (in this case, those who look for beauty), to be curious and by extension to care. We are all in perpetual participation with our society; to 'escape' from it, one has to be ignorant and to be blind. I believe that to be an artist is to see and—more than that—use such sight to nurture their thought in order to express and create.

^{Why is it important for art to address the “problems of [the artist’s] time”?}

It is important and substantiates the art when it addresses, acknowledges, or portrays the problems of the artist's time because art is also an immortalization of humanity. In Lopez's essay, it was discussed how the ideas of artists such as painters and writers were remembered in the current times. This is because artists are always in touch with their surroundings. In their ability to appreciate and marvel on the world's beauty comes also the nature to become aware, and eventually to empathize, criticize, and to realize the struggles of the people.

^{What does Lopez mean when he said that writers and artists should be “teachers of men”?}

I believe that what Lopez meant with that sentiment was that artists are agents of society. When we see art, we not only see brush strokes or colors; we see symbols, metaphors, juxtapositions, and the like. Therefore, it is only necessary for an artist to be seen as a 'teacher of men'. We do not just see their art, but we also learn from and through them.

^{Why does Lopez think that the highest form of art is emancipatory?}

Lopez thinks that the highest form of art is emancipatory because, if we rely on the thinking that an artist creates art because they saw (the beauty of) the world, then the more elaborate form of art is when the world is also touched, tasted, and embraced. The artist begins with sensing the world on their own, and the more they do that, the more they truly exhaust their freedom to think, and thinking with the world includes—and is substantiated through—social and political discourse.

Squid Game is a Korean dystopian film series first released in 2021, with Season 2 being released in 2024. My favorite episode would have to be the last one of Season 2 where Gi-hun proposes and executes a plan with his comrades about resisting the moderators of the game and to end it. I do not think that there is a definite dominant ideology fully portrayed and promoted in the series—only that it was leftism with an elaborate criticism on the systemic, fascist ideas portrayed through the antagonists.

When I first watched Squid Game, I was not as aware as I am now about the strong political themes of the plot. When I first watched my favorite episode, I was already aware that what Gi-hun was was an activist. However, after watching the episode, I was able to reflect on how Gi-hun was more than just a dissenter who had been radicalized after playing the games the first time, but more accurately also a socio-political defender who had revolutionary ideas of resistance. He planned with his comrades to take up arms in pursuit of getting to the Front Man, establishing to the owners of the game that the players (although not everyone was united) have realized their power and have become conscious of the systemic oppression being weighted on their shoulders. Gi-hun insisted on turning over the power to the people instead of the state (in this case, the administrators of the game), which is a clear ideology of the left and a criticism on the oppressive nature of the right, i.e. fascism in the guise of democracy (limiting the players' options between continuing the game or leaving the game, and amplifying the factions to prevent them from uniting).

Audiences of the series often do not realize the metaphors and allegories of the plot as the art of this film is that its figurative portrayals allow subliminal leveraging of political ideas without making conservative viewers flinch at the idea of siding with an 'activist', which in our country is quite the sensationalized, controversial discourse. The critique on repressive state apparatuses (i.e. the administrators of the game using illusive and oppressive systems) was portrayed in a way that the audiences would understand and relate to, because the feeling of being oppressed and exploited by the enforced system is a shared reality common among any participating human of society.

In this sense, I know upon overall understanding that Squid Game is a communication ISA that portrays and promotes leftist ideas, particularly the importance of realizing and executing our power as the people.

In the poem "Letter to Pedro, US Citizen, Also Called Pete" by Rene Estella Amper, the persona of the piece wrote a letter to Pedro (a.k.a. Pete in America) talking about the changes in their hometown, portraying how everyone and everything has succumbed to the foreign capitalist ideas/systems.

This whole poem is a portrayal of the Philippines embracing foreign policies and norms that are exploitative, discriminatory, and oppressive of our people. Foreign policies and norms, particularly economic systems like neoliberalism and crony-capitalism/capitalism, are state-enforced structures that inherently favor the ruling class.

The poem takes a personal approach on this discourse by using the perspective of someone talking to an intimate friend about how our hometowns (e.g., the land that was acquired by the mayor's son), life conditions (e.g., moving to America to earn money to send to family at home), and even our names (e.g., from Pedro to Pete) change according to or because of the standards and ideas neo-colonially and colonially passed onto us by the West.

The 'whore' became a 'whore' because a patriarchal-capitalist system pays her more as a sex object than as a woman with skills and expertise. Pedro became Peter and built a family in the U.S. because a neoliberal-colonial system pays him more in a country that improves its economy by destabilizing and exploiting third-world economies like that of Pedro's.

In totality, this poem addresses the exploitative nature of the colonial-capitalist ideology, but did not desire to simply put blame on Filipinos for adhering to such ideas. This poem was written to express and elaborate that this adherence has become a necessity in earning money and improving our living conditions, which only further substantiated the said issues of the system that Pedro and the persona lived in.

In Guillermo's Styles of Figuration, the three artistic terms were thoroughly defined and philosophized. I noticed that the distinctions of each term were based on how much an art would follow, go beyond, or violate the observable physical nature of the subjects portrayed in the piece.

Representational art seems to be an umbrella term used to refer to genres of art that portray subjects based on how they are in our physical, tangible reality. Naturalism and Realism are both under the category of Representational art.

Naturalism, as defined in Guillermo's paper, seems to be a genre of art that limits itself within the physical nature of things, although such subjects are still free to be contoured, stressed, or extremely exaggerated so long as it still has the intention to mirror the natural physics of humans/objects/places/etc. It is a term I observed was used in opposition to 'stylized' realistic art.

Realism, on the other hand, is a genre which I understood from Guillermo's paper as a more interpretative variation of Representational art. Although it remains to seek a mirroring of the physical attributes of subjects, it uses a more visually fluid aesthetic compared to naturalism. Based on what I have construed, Realism puts leverage on the style of the art rather than its literal accuracy of the appearance of its subjects. I think that the typical ancient Egyptian drawings on the walls is an example of this, as it concurs with the said definition of the term and was also used in the reading in contrast with Naturalist art.

In making this self-portrait, I wanted to convey how I feel being in the phase of early adulthood as a woman, still carrying the soul and physical features of the child I once was. Sometimes, I look in the mirror and remember how I looked before; I can see which parts of my face have morphed or grown out.

In expressing this, I made a collage of my face seemingly layering my child-like features above my current ones as this is how I see myself.

I infer that this can only be defined as Representational art under Analytical Cubism, in that my face (the main subject) has been 'fragmented into facets and planes' and uses two monochromatic color schemes—one for the main face and one for the fragmented parts of my 'younger' face.

I find this a heavily Pop-influenced take on 'Cubism' (as this is seemingly what it can only be defined as) where Pop colors are used to express the quirky, modernity of early adulthood as a teenager while the Cubism brings out the older, faded facet of my life—one that is not in the picture anymore but keeps being cut out from the past and then pasted back on to the present.

If based on Benjamin's idea of reproducing art, I would say that the fact that I merely repurposed or modified Munch's piece devalues the art that was inherent in its original form, although it still does not stray from the definition of 'art' as it is nonetheless a manmade artwork with meaning. Albeit that, I stole from the piece, reproduced it as my own, and emphasized my projected interpretation of the art without the knowledge or permission from the artist.

However, there still exist pieces that are 'renditions' or 'versions' of other people's art, which are valid so long as it does not take away from the meaning of the piece and they honor and respect the artist. In music, there are interpolations, samples, and the like. In this sense, the art is indeed repurposed, but is not necessarily diminished, and instead given a different meaning or perspective that fits the context of its time.

_{How do the concepts of “originality” and piracy affect the way we receive works of art?}

I have always had the perspective on art that it was not meant to be mass-produced. Mass production takes away the originality of art, much less its intimacy and personality with people. Originality and artisticness are compromised when one's artistic decisions are limited by the capacity of their art's manufacturer to produce the piece in large quantities and within a short time period. Because of this, we do not maximize the connection between art and people. We see art merely as a commodity with perceived value, enforced by corporations, not differing from one consumer to another. This almost entirely erases the point of art being an original, authentic facet of life. Since then, art has been devalued, misunderstood, and neglected. Laying off artist employees due to the accessibility of AI-generated images/media (AI art, as they call it) is one of the manifestations of this.

Piracy is another topic that also diminishes the intimacy of art. Although it has been practiced as a manifestation of the culture industry's ways of capitalizing art in media through paywalls, subscriptions, tickets, and more, it cannot be denied that piracy naturally takes away from the art of its original creator, especially of small-scale or independent artists is detrimental to the values of art as a culture. While we understand that piracy exists because of the exclusivization of art, smaller creators must simultaneously be supported, especially in an industry that profits off them, yet ultimately exploits them.

Ultimately, the world's solution to the problem of accessibility of original art seems to be that we capitalize and mass produce it, but it is a system inherently in favor of the institutions that sell it rather than the artists themselves.