Analyzing Context

In this blog post, we will be examining the "big picture" of my controversy, and will be looking at the perspectives and context of my school of thought.

Hallye Becker, "Screenshot from my computer" , October 17th 2015

1) For Art History, there are quite a few schools of thought. Almost every period of art has it's own more specific set of conventions, thoughts, processes, and steps of analysis. There is an overruling arch of the focus on the importance of art. Artists are the clearest reflection on how the intellectuals of a culture thought and felt. This debate focuses primarily on how to take care of this art and how important it is.

2) There is actually very little push-back against conserving art, and few openly oppose it. The issue more lies with it's relevancy to the "common" person. They may visit a museum or historical site every once in a while, but since it's not a primarily relevant issue in their daily life they may not place a specific importance on spending the necessary money to conserve art.  

3) Many people who agree that art is important, if only for aesthetic's sake.  It tells a story about the the past that is easily grasped, and art has been used as a way to communicate with the "uneducated masses" for thousands of years. Saving it is a good way to teach and interest people in the past, and it'c connection to historical eras helps historians glean further insight into the past. 

4) Again, it circles back to just how important people feel art is. 

5) There is not much specific actions that either party requests. However, those who are fighting for the conservation of art absolutely encourage readers to go out and visit these museums and sites.They stress the importance of tourism-based funding for areas like Pompeii, and often have an underlying message that warns of the collapse of the site if they cannot help it financially. There is a push to encourage readers to see the art for themselves, but it is not always specifically stated. On the other side of the coin, readers have demanded sites be improved for their visit. In a research paper I read, many tourists complained of poor facilities and inaccurate visual and audio guides. Each side needs the other to "step up".

6) Interestingly, both of the above arguments could support my argument. I argue that Italy has failed Pompeii in it's conservation, and continues to put the site at risk despite all progress that has been made the past few years. Tourism is poorly handled, and the site itself still lacks all the maintenance it needs on a daily level. Arguing that the site itself is important and that it needs to be improved on a tourism-level as well both will serve to show how Italy has mismanaged Pompeii. 

7) The greatest threat to my argument are the "so what?" people. Pompeii is old and Italy is in a financial struggle right now. Why waste the money on a site that's collapsing by itself? Who cares? Finding an argument that emphasizes the importance of the art and this site without looking biased may prove to be difficult.


Reflection:
I read both Victoria's and Chloe's posts about context. Both Chloe and Victoria did a good job balancing the arguments on either side. I feel as though I maybe didn't do a good job balancing my arguments, but I also have a hard time finding opposing arguments. They also had external links, which made me feel like I should maybe go back and add a couple just to strengthen this post.  My argument looks a little weak compared to these other posts, so I'm going to need to dig around more to find the best way to balance out my argument in this controversy.