Should Children be Exposed to Art?

Art work is an outlet of creativity, that is why children should be exposed to art as early as possible. The ability express yourself without worry of judgment is probably the most important thing that children should be able to do, especially in the age of cyber bullying and fear of being who you are. Children should learn that they are important and that what they do as well as how they feel matter. Art allows people to feel without feeling guilty. And personally that's all I want for my own children, I don't know about you.

There are some parts of the "art world" that I believe that children should be sheltered from, but to each his own. If you want your child to listen to Drake and Lil Wayne talk about how many "blunts they be blowin'" and all the "ho's they playin'" that is completely up to you. It's not easy to understand, in today's world, what real art is. But Children should have the ability to spend time at school expressing themselves the way they want to. Instead of just copying down math problems and trying to write in cursive all day at school. Art is a time when being different is okay. Children should have that opportunity to be just that, children, and enjoy the perks of not caring what others think all the time, as long as they're happy. So yes, children should definitely be exposed to art, what kinds of "art" is up to each and every parent out there.

Until I write again
Au revoir,
~Rayne

Is Photography a Real Art?

So today I was looking at art topics and I found a site that had all sorts of debates on all different kinds of art. The first topic that caught my eye was the question of if photography was a real art. I was surprised to see that it was even a debate. I understand that it doesn't take much to take a picture, but that doesn't mean that all photography is, is just snapping a shutter. I have personally taken photography classes and there is actually a lot to learn. Plus there is all the different types of photography. There is black and white, film, digital, landscape, profile, portrait, and so much more. Obviously it takes some kind of talent to be able to get paid to take peoples wedding pictures or school pictures.

There are a lot of misconceptions that photography is only beautiful when it is edited, so basically the computer does all the work. Yeah there are those people who just edit and take pictures for fun, but those who do it for their lively hood, those people do way more than just hit a few buttons to make a computer fix the picture. The fact that they have to know what every single filter and effect will do to the picture means that they have to think about what they're doing, and not just guess and check. There's a science to it. You have to be totally committed to do that day in and day out. How do you think that businesses get their logos and such? Computer graphic designers. What about those Home and Garden's magazines? They get all their pictures and layouts from people who have an eye for art, photographers.

There are some instances where photo's are not arty. That is when a someone takes a blurry picture in a bathroom with their tongue sticking out with a filter over it. I say photo- not photography- because there IS a difference. Photography comes with decisions and a meaning, so it takes heart and time. Photos don't take time at all and all you really have to do is press a button. Those kinds of pictures are the reason that people don't believe that photography should be considered a fine art. But what people don't think about is "what about those people who actually take time and put effort into their pictures?" Those are the people who deserve credit for their talent and love for showing the world in ways none of us have even thought of.

Until I write again
Au revoir,
~Rayne

http://www.debate.org/opinions/is-photography-fine-art

photo

photography