EC = -4.88
SOC = -4.46
Some specifics that bothered me:
Abstract art that doesn't represent anything shouldn't be considered art at all. [Agree]
Art by definition always represents some kind of feeling, otherwise it's just a craft. Abstract Art contains many of the same elements as any other style: composition, forms, choice of colors.
With that in mind, for me something like Marcel Duchamp's "Fountain" should not be considered Art, but a statement / illustration. The same with Kazimir Malevich's "Black Square" - it's a statement, a title page to the exhibition. Considering it as art on it's own, is like taking one word out of the poem.
"He created a suprematist 'grammar' based on fundamental geometric forms; in particular, the square and the circle."
The titles of Shakespeare's plays aren't works of art on their own - the art is the text of the plays, with each play being the complete picture (even famous quotes are often misunderstood, and are robbed of their depth, outside their context).
I completely disagree with the concept of the "Fountain", that anything is art if the Artist defines it as such. I see the reason for the wide acceptance of this claim as purely economical - if anything can be Art, then the only thing that matters is how well you sell it. This allowed various corruption schemes where reviews and explanations of works defined their value, which often didn't match the merit of the work itself.
It's telling that the pioneers of Abstract Art and Suprematism were all highly educated Artists with deep understanding of the basic elements of Art - composition, color, shape - and perception of weight, balance and motion. This understanding is evident in their work - which translated directly to advances in Architecture and Design. Those following in their footsteps were often less talented and less educated, and I see their works as far less interesting.
2. There are no savage and civilized peoples; there are only different cultures. [Strongly Disagree]
I think this is a central fallacy in many of the conflicts in the world - especially when societies in transition to a non-religious humanist approach are under siege by degenerates who demand a return to religious fundamentalism of the middle ages.
Performing a tribal dance in traditional garb is an example of acceptable cultural diversity - while customs resulting in the oppression of women are an example of something that is unacceptable.
There are universal humanist values and morality that should encompass the entire human race - and continue to evolve alongside it. This does not mean abandoning cultural variety, but learning and extracting the best ideas, sustaining the traditional arts, while abandoning the flaws.
Even though historically the perception of Cultural Superiority was often an excuse and justification for crimes against Humanity, it does not mean that there aren't actual cases where one Culture is superior to another. It does not mean that the inferior Culture has nothing to offer to Humanity, it just means that it must adapt and evolve faster to match the advancement, and be ready for compromise and abandoning flawed customs.
3. The prime function of schooling should be to equip the future generation to find jobs. [was really on the fence...]
There is more then one prime function - preparing a future generation to find jobs is important, but so is ensuring that this generation matches the cultural level, appreciates the arts, and contributes to the civilization's advancement.
Cultural poverty is just as dangerous as the financial.
"The questions are kinda TOO obvious though... " Agree...nothing is as black and white as the questions made it seem. The anti-corporate slant was very evident and cheapened the complexity of those questions. My answers were reactionary, relative to the current power grab of monopolies and old-money entrenchment. The concept of a Corporation must evolve, but cannot be abolished.