several issue task essays

[dicapino]

In order for any work of art—for example, a film, a novel, a poem, or a song—to have merit, it must be understandable to most people.

 

 

Should the merit of an artwork be based on lucidness to its audience? While some people would argue that artworks need not be totally understandable since it is created for an intent that exceed clarity to the human mind, others argue that for it to be accepted most of the public should be able to decipher the artist's intent. I believe that artworks are the emotions and imaginations of their creators; thus, their merit should not be based on the ability of the public to understand the author's inner thought alone.

 

 

Firstly, consider classical music like Handel's Alleluia chorus, in contemporary churches when a choir give a rendition of this majestic piece of art, there is always that frenzy and excitement in the congregation and this is not because they all have degrees in music to completely understand the different changes in rhythms and notes which the choristers must replicate to produce Handel's masterpiece, but this is due to the emotions ,joy  and happiness this rendition exudes in the congregation, and its ability to mesmerize them to say ' oh, what a wonderful composition'. This in simple terms is the effect art should have on an individual.

 

 

Furthermore, consider great paintings like Davinci’s Mona Lisa and the works of Di Angelo that makes thousands of people travel great distances just to view them and also how priceless these artworks are. If their merit was based simply on how lucid they are, they surely won’t have received such acclaim. Looking at the Mona Lisa you see a lady sitting, no name and nothing fantastic. But what holds the viewers spellbound is the simplicity and sublime beauty that this renowned painting evokes. And there are many other painting and artworks that don’t give themselves to a thorough explanation. Also, to ask for clarity as a criterion for the merit of an artwork is difficult because it will require knowing the artist’s emotions and disposition at that time which in most cases is hard to decipher. Historians have searched relentlessly for Davinci’s intent and who the lady may have being, they have no clear-cut answers.

 

 

 

Proponents against my view argue that like literary works all artworks should be a bit understandable, well great writings are lucid because the public are conversant with words. Yet it cannot be said that such literary works possess only clarity, if you remain the same after reading a great work of art, then that writing was probably not creative. Writing also speaks to the emotions of its readers and in this lies the true merit of this art form.

 

 

In summary, an artwork does not need to be lucid to have or gain merit. Examples like Handel’s Alleluia chorus and Davinci’s Mona Lisa aptly illustrate this assertion. An artwork is an outward expression of an artist’s inner thoughts and it is only proper that we receive such a gift with our heart and spirits and not necessary with our intellects.

 

 

30mins

[dicapino]

The increasingly rapid pace of life today causes more problems than it solves.

Does the rapid pace of life today create more problems than it solves? While some persons would argue that technology has continued to help humanity overcome problems than do harm, others argue that the human race has more problems than before, citing family, health and social problems as  products of such modernisation. I believe that the rapid pace of life is an aftermath of technological development has done more harm than good to the human race.

 

 

 

Firstly, it creates family disruptions and issues. In contemporary times parents are so engrossed with their jobs that they forget about their families. They leave no time to be with their families, and everyone is trying to make ends meet and is always busy. This creates disruptions in many families, especially in urban centres, were parents get to their workplaces early and come back late at the night; they are not on the same page with their kids and this create discordance between parents and children, coupled with the fact that parents don't notice if their kids have picked up bad habits and made bad friends. Furthermore, divorce is brought to the table when couples feel that they are not receiving the right attention from their partner and spend less time together. A recent study revealed that divorce issues start up between couples that don’t spend enough time together.

 

 

Also, we have to consider the social problems that are engendered by a rapid pace of life. With the continuous development in technology, many kids have access to different products that this technology espouses: facebook, Skype, twitter and so on. Not saying that such avenues are not beneficial, but many kids exposed to such mediums use them for scamming, pornography and also use it to show their virulence by making hate comments online. Kids are able express and learn attitudes that are supposed to be controlled by their parents. At an earlier time when technology was not this developed, such character would surely have been controlled or at least won’t be placed on social media.

 

 

 

Although a rapid pace of life has brought many conveniences to man; telephones and automobiles make man conduct his affairs with ease. Yet some of these luxuries are misused by certain persons and this creates adverse problems; individuals driving under the influence which leads to accidents and a more egregious example is the use of phone calls and internet facilities to mulct naïve persons.

 

 

In conclusion, surely the rapid pace of life has created more problems than good.

 

30mins

[dicapino]

As we acquire more knowledge, things do not become more comprehensible, but more complex and mysterious.

 

A popular saying states that 'knowledge is power'. Knowledge gives man understanding of the environment in which he exists. While some persons would argue that technology still has many complexities, others aver that knowledge helps to disambiguate such complexities, and this is evident throughout human history, man has made many unknowns known. I believe things become comprehensible to man as he gathers more knowledge, this is shown in the forays made in the understanding of the universe and medical research.

 

 

Scientists like Newton and Galileo, who are among the pioneers in the studying of the universe, surely had the handicapped of a little knowledge base for their experiments. They studied the heavenly bodies, they wanted to know how the earth moved, they wanted to know of other bodies in the universe, but they didn't have enough knowledge to decipher these complexities completely. In contemporary times man has a better understanding of his immediate universe, man has gone to the moon, man has sent many space probes missions to various heavenly bodies and the list goes on. All this were accomplished because man has acquired more knowledge and technology. The universe that was complex to man of the Middle Ages is lucid to man of the twenty-first century.

 

 

Furthermore, the medical science has improved exponentially, during the middle and medieval age illness like small pox and fever was a scourge to many persons. Many deaths were recorded then because physicians did not have enough knowledge to tackle such diseases; but with more knowledge in modern times death rates are low, even small pox has been eradicated worldwide. Furthermore, virulent illnesses like cancer and AIDS are continually been researched by scientist and headway is been made, cancer can be treated by chemotherapy if detected early, and AIDS can be managed. This shows that as we acquire knowledge we get more understanding.

 

 

In summary, as we acquire more knowledge, things become more comprehensible not complex. Improvement in the medical sciences aptly illustrates my assertion. If man gives up due to these complexities, more inventions will not be created and this would have a deleterious effect on our humanity.