While I do understand how social practice art comes from a good place and is intended to help different communities, but I find when reading the articles there is a note of hypocrasy and condescention in this art form. The articles also bring to attention the fact that there are more useful and helpful ways that the funding can provide for the community rather than what appears to be using the community to prove a point. Nevertheless the readings left me with a few questions: Are these artists coming from a place of hypocrasy and condescention? Are there better ways to help communities in need? Are these projects art or simply activism?

Addressing the first question, Are these artists coming from a place of hypocrasy and condescention? I would say that the artists may not intend the art to be so but it certaintly comes off that way. For example, the Gramschi Monument, while providing a place for community, was based around a Marxist political theorist. The community that he was serving, most likely had no idea who Gramschi is. By making this project to help the community based off of someone they know nothing about, to me at least seems condescending, and it would have been more meaningful if the monument was based off of someone important to the community or had something to do with the project like a community activist.

The issue of whether the communities could be served better was addressed by the articles in many ways. At one point the article states "As agents of change, social-practice projects can seem wanting: the scale is often small, the works are temporary, and success may depend on the charisma of a single artist." (How the Art of Social Practice is Changing the World, One Row House at a Time). I think that this points to one of the major issues with social practice art, it usually gives temporary change and have little far reaching effects. Another issue that was brought up was “What if instead of building the Gramsci Monument, Hirschhorn had proposed building the Gramsci Charter School? . . . Far-fetched, I know, but one of the many possible projects that might have resulted in a deeper collaboration between Hirschhorn and the residents of the Forest Houses" (How the Art of Social Practice is Changing the World, One Row House at a Time). I have to agree that sometimes there are better ways to help the effected community, that involves them and provides lasting change.

One idea inadvertantly brought up by the second article inadvertantly came from this quote: "In Detroit a contemporary-art museum is completing a monument to an
influential artist that will not feature his work but will instead provide food,
haircuts, education programs and other social services to the general public​" (Outside the Citadel). Here the project while sounding helpful and impactful for the community, it does not sound like art. Rather it sounds like a project by a local group or church to help the community. What about this project was art? From the way I see it there is nothing inherently artistic or creative about this project. It is a kind action, but I would not say it is art. 

For this connect post I read “Monuments for a New Era” and “States Are Using Preservation Laws to Block the Removal of Confederate Monuments.” One major theme that both articles point out is the issue with Confederate Monuments, which they then take to a local level for public opinion. From the people interviewed and the situations brought up in the article it appears that the only people who want the monuments to stay exactly the way they are are those from the “Unite the Right” rally and conservative politicians.
In “Monuments for a New Era” even people who thought the monuments should stay up, wanted some more context added to them. I think the primary issues with these statues is that they are labelled monuments and put up on a pedestal. One of the people interviewed in this article, Kenya Robinson, made the argument that “like textbooks that rename Transatlantic human trafficking the ‘Triangular Trade,” renaming monuments would take away from the struggle for equality. However, I think it does the opposite. By calling the statues monuments it is saying that the city, state, or country holds that person and what they fought for up in high regard. Using a word like memorial to describe it, which has the connotation of death and struggle, would emphasise rather than detract from the fight for racial equality.
A major issue in this whole debate, is that even when communities come to a consensus about what to do with the monuments, in many cases replace them, they are blocked by the legislature. According to “States Are Using Preservation Laws to Block the Removal of Confederate Monuments,” in Alabama, an extremely conservative state, the community decided they wanted to replace a statue that was hit by a car. However, the state legislature, right after this decision was made, passed a law that prevented statues older than forty years from being replaced. In my opinion this lack of consideration for constituents by the politicians representing them is disheartening. I can understand a divided town leaving them up, but when the town has made the decision it goes against the public will to pass laws solely for the reason to block the decision. In all honesty if a state or district wants to preserve the public art when the public is against it they should give it to a museum that can use it as a learning tool as opposed to ignoring the people. ​

The assigned readings "The 1913 Armory Show: America's First Art War" and "the Ism that Isn't​" focus on the introduction of new forms of art to the art world. In the article pertaining to the Armory Show it discusses the introduction of new European art and its reception by the American people, while "the Ism that Isn't" ​centers around the creation of Neurotic Realism in the Saatchi Gallery. They both discuss what makes art groundbreaking and how this changes the public's perception of it. Another idea that stood out in both of the articles is the hypocrisy of the Association of American Painters and Sculptures, in the Armory Show, and that of Charles Saatchi. 

Two questions that may seem at odds with each other are: what makes art groundbreaking? and what makes art welcomed by the public? In "the Ism that Isn't" it is argued that the shock value associated with the term "ism" is often used as a way to show how much the new form of art shatters reality. Discussing the difference between isms and other movements the author wrote, "To call an art movement an ism is to imply that instead of depicting the world in a commonsense way, the artists make an argument, propose a theory. Medieval and Renaissance art never wanted to defy the past, but to be faithful to it"(2). This is an important opinion because it shows the difference between ground breaking and a movement and that a movement can be ground breaking but that this is not always true.

This leaves the question: what makes art welcomed by the public? A study done by Carlos Silva Pereira, which focusses on what makes art popular, says that familiarity makes art widely accepted and popular, not that this makes it necessarily good or successful. The poor reception at the Armory Show was caused by the fact that people were not familiar with this new art and in turn did not approve of it. However, the Armory Show did help to begin this familiarization, which was fathered by the CIA during the Cold War, to make this new art more widely accepted. In the article it states that "Nude angered people because they understood it too well, but also not enough" (5). As the understanding of what the artists that utilize Cubism grew, the art form gains popularity. In general people do not like the unknown and will always be drawn to the familiar, and one way to do this is to, instead of recreating existing art, is to make groundbreaking work that will become familiarized by how outrageous it is. 

A criticism of the articles is the hypocrisy with in them. The main source in the article "The 1913 Armory Show: America's First Art War," was the Association of American Painters and Sculptures' (AAPS) claim to want to hold up American artists. The AAPS was anti-academic art which was the popular belief of those in Europe at the time, but in America academic art still reigned supreme. To further their beliefs they created the Armory Show which did contain thought provoking art, however it was primarily European. It appears that their purpose was not to support American art, but their own agendas. 

​In "the Ism that Isn't," Saatchi makes the point that "many are questioning whether all these isms, these movements and manifestos, actually illuminate works of art, or artists just like talking big"(1). He criticizes this and claims to have created Nuerotic Realism in order to shine a light on the art world and the overuse of isms to make them less meaningful. However, he appears to be doing the same thing. He is using the title of ism in order to gain publicity for his exhibit like, in his own words, "an ad campaign." While both the AAPS and Saatchi have honest criticism and feed back that they can bring to the art world, their messages are blurred with their personal interests.

The articles being compared are "Artists v. critics, round one," which describes the legal dispute between the artist James Whistler and the critic John Ruskin and "Arab Spring: Modern Middle eastern Art Finds a New Audience in the West," which discusses the different forms of art coming out of the Middle East, specifically modern art. In both of the readings the question of what defines modern art is inherent. Where the line of where something no longer becomes modern art is blurred like most art form.

"Artists v. critics, round one" is a detailed reporting of the law suit against John Ruskin by James Whistler. Ruskin, while critiquing Whistler's work, called him a "conman", claiming that what was created should not classify as modern art. Ruskin represented the idea of "high modernism", preferring "order, in meaning, in moral form". This begs the question what is modernism and what separates the two? The Oxford dictionary definition of modern art is "Art of a style marked by a significant departure from traditional styles and values, in particular that created between the late 19th and the late 20th centuries." By this definition the work of Whistler is certainly included. He used his are to experiment and explore his ideas and possible creations, which is the purpose of art.

Another issue brought up in this article was the value that people assign to said art. Although the jury ruled that Whistler was correct, they did not grant him a large settlement. What value do people assign art, specifically the jury in this case? If the piece had been less modern and more with the status quo would they have assigned it and its artist more value. Artists value the knowledge the piece gives them in the creation, Whistler saying"I ask it for the knowledge of a lifetime" when asked about the price. However, those who did not get the experience of creating it will so easily undercut its value.

"Arab Spring: Modern Middle eastern Art Finds a New Audience in the West" discussed the modern art being created out of the Middle East. Many people when approached about the Modern Middle Eastern art proclaimed that there is no such thing "They're just copying Picasso or Braque." The art of the Middle East has been held back for a long time, and artist are just now getting the chance to truly explore their ideas through it. This delay in the creation of art could have lead to the similar works being created. The artists are getting inspired by the artists who the western world have been exposed to for years, creating a time machine almost. They are rediscovering aspects of art and infusing it with their individual culture to create incredible work.