I do not think we should eliminate everything but the 100 "best" because something that one person might consider the best another person might not like it. Each person has there own taste of style, so we need a larger variety to accommodate to each persons style.
We should not eliminate all but the best works because different people have different points of views. Society may think it's the best work, yet another group think it's awful work. Everyone is different and shouldn't be controlled or limited to what society 'thinks is right', when in reality it's all wrong
No we should not. There are things that we think are terrible, but in some people's eyes it is the best. Look at Vincent Van Gogh, he was a failure in life. People of his time hated his artwork and thought it was horrible, but now he's one of the most famous painters in history. Our history and legacy would be reduced to just a few things that a group of people think is the best. We would lose countless art works that other people like. Losing a sense of individuality.
I disagree with the idea of eliminating all but the best works of art, with the simple argument that everyone's idea of the "best" differs and there are a lot of factors that would have to be considered. Who decides what the best of the best is? What all is classified under our "culture"? The idea is one that makes you think, however it is not a good one for society.
I do not think that these things are not lost, or gotten rid of. I believe that there are things that are more popular than others and the ones less popular are looked over as 'inferior' when they really are not. This is like name brands and off brands; the name brands are looked at as better even though they are the same
I do not think we should just pick 100 of certain things, and eliminate the rest. because EVERYONE has a different taste, we all may enjoy some similar things but we can not all fully decide the best 100 songs, or stories, or paintings, and so on. no one can fully agree that they like each and everyone of those 100 picks because everyone has their own opinion, so not every single person could agree on one thing. so no I do not think it is a very good idea.
I disagree with this idea because just because something isn't the best doesn't mean it should disappear. That is similar to saying only the most successful people should be allowed to live. It is a crazy and irrelevant idea. This would leave out many other great art because it isn't considered "good enough." Then, we wouldn't have much left to appreciate. Therefore, eliminating art would not be necessary or a good idea.
I disagree strongly with this idea because it limits the human culture that distinguishes everyone. Art is about each person's own expression and how they choose to represent that expression. This would lead to limitations on who we actually are. Then there is the aspect that who decides which pieces of art are the best. Every single person has their own taste on how are should be shown. So it would be impossible to choose the very best pieces of art from the entire world, and have everyone be happy about the choices.
I think that we should eliminate some works of art because society cluttered. The works of art today do not even look like art to me. It is really weird and some of them should not be considered art. We should only keep the real art and not all the other stuff that is considered art nowadays.
I don't agree with this idea or concept. Simply because think about each and every individual. We have our own opinions and mindset. Someone might think that this painting is better than one that another thinks is much better. This could create and off balance of society. There could be feuds for people are unique. Not every single person is going to like the very same things. Everyone is different. Also, we shouldn't just eliminate these works of art because culture is too cluttered. Throughout history culture has developed more fully and changed. Not to mention throughout culture has shaped society including today. Think of a life where you could only listen to 100 songs. What if you didn't like these songs? Then how would you feel or what would you do. Our culture may seem cluttered now but it is continuing to grow as we speak.
No we should not eliminate the worst works because we are to clutter it describes how we live and how we become from good to bad or bad to good, it shows the upsides it shows the downsides of every story and everyone the planet. If just keep a 100 of good works and eliminate the remaining ones why won't we do that humans and animals as well that is over cluttered like everything else because it causes everything else to be cluttered
No, I do not think we should eliminate aspects of our culture just because it is "overcrowded". If we were to do so, we would lose a piece of us. By saying this I mean, we would lose valuable, meaningful, aspects of our lives just to make our culture uncluttered. We would feel as if we weren't our true selves because we would have important things stolen from our daily lives.
No because if we eliminated all but 100 of everything then we would get tired of seeing the same old stuff. I could easily read through 100 books in 5 years and I love reading; I don't want to read the same books over and over throughout my entire life. Looking at the same 100 paints or movies would be really boring too because there would be nothing new to inspire us. Plus, if we only kept 100 of everything than people would loss jobs, like artist or movie directors. Life would get really boring.
I do not agree with this idea at all. If this idea was actually put in motion Rebecca Black wouldn't have a music career. It would be impossible to do this anyway because opinions are different for everyone. That's why nothing is truly perfect in the world. Someone's best may not be as good as another's. In the end though, it's the not so great things that make the beautiful shine so bright.
NO! That's a terrible idea, eliminating all but one hundred of something. There are so many more interesting and important documents, stories, and songs than can be narrowed down to one hundred.What good would it do anyway, people are always making new paintings and stories everyday, it would be useless to try to try to contain all of them.
Eliminating all other artistic works means that no one will ever be able to appreciate the great ideas of other people. Not to mention these one hundred greatest works would eventually be heard over and over by the people causing their original meaning to be diluted and leaving people to once again not truly appreciate the true works of art left for them. A modern example of this dwindling would be the songs you hear on the radio. What once were great songs are over heard to the point that the listener no longer feels the meaning in the song.
I don't think we should eliminate all but the best works of art because culture is too cluttered. If we had a 100 of the 'best' works they might not be the best for everyone. Each person is a diverse individual and has their own taste, choice, and freedom to pick what they want to enjoy. Besides, 100 of the best things would get boring. Would we really consider them the best pieces of art after awhile? Creativity would be lost in this process and the world would become a dull and have no color. Having a variety of literature, art, music, and stories is what makes the world an interesting place.
I don't think we should elimminate all but the best works of art because culture is to cluttered. I believe culture is never completely full. We can always grow and improve art. This book only keeps the top 100 of everything; art, poems, paintings, songs, stories. So just picture a world were you can only read 100 songs and having them be picked for you. Our culture will never be too cluttered. We can always expanded culture.
I think this is a stupid idea. If you get rid of all but the best works of art we wouldn't have anything to compare it to for it to be the best because the rest would be gone so we would have to get rid of some of the best art because we would constantly compare the other best pieces of art and we would eventually get rid of it all until there was one piece of art left making it the worst piece of art as well and defeating the point of this idea
no, i don't think that we should eliminate all best works of art because everyone has different opinions. Society may think its the best work but others may not. It shouldn't be limited to a certain number, we should have a larger amount.
I don't think we should eliminate all but the best works of at because culture cannot be too cluttered. Culture is like a way of expressing yourself. It's a way of life. If you eliminated everything but the best works of art, then you can't see the bad works of art and be inspired by how people developed overtime with their art skills or see the difference between good and bad. Besides, the best works of art is just a matter of opinion. You can't really say what art was better than the other. For example, one painting to you may be outstanding, but to me it could be junk. You can't exactly pick the BEST works of art because to other people, it may not be the best. Then you're stuck living a life where you have to look at, listen to, or read things that you don't like. So, no. We shouldn't eliminate all but the best works of art.
If society only allowed people to eliminate 100 things from our culture it would be boring. People all have different taste and don't always agree so who would decide what is the best 100. If we had only 100 culture elements then society would be restricting peoples creativity because what someone might think is beautiful may look like trash to the next person.
The stress to be the same as everyone else would grow, which is expressed through the Matched series. There are many people in the world who like alternate works of art, music, literary works, and other interests. In today's society it isn't strange to like something different from everyone else; it just makes you your own person entitled to your own opinions. If the "best" of our culture was picked, it would only be an opinion of majority, not necessarily the best. Who are we to decided what is the best for everyone? Opinion is a right that would be fought against if we were to eliminate all but the top hundred of everything.
We should not eliminate art but instead choose the things that we appreciate. For even in this book, which I have read, they rebel and began to make art again because they felt it was unfair to be unable to express themselves. Also when they began making art again everyone appreciates it and goes to see it even though there is a lot of it. This in itself shows that as humans even though the world is filled with many things that are beautiful we can still appreciate the small details of art and the way it is composed. To conclude I don't believe we should do away with art because even if the culture is cluttered we are still able to look at the smallest detail of art and appreciate it to some extent.
My opinion in this idea is that it seems ridiculous. Why would we get rid of every piece of literature, but the best? There are way more than 100, that are the best. I don't believe that culture is tom cluttered; but rich. Even though there are millions of books, songs, paintings, and poems, different people like different things.
To only allow the best of everything in society would enable human nature to fully comprehend the value of life and to appreciate everything in their own life with its own uniqueness, creativity, and heart.
This is a terrible idea. Although citizens may think that our culture is "cluttered" I prefer the term profound. There are millions beyond millions of pieces of art in the world whether it be music, poems, paintings, stories, etc, and each of them are special and do not need to be eliminated. Each one of those pieces of art add to our culture's uniqueness. Culture does not need to be constructed or organized. It helps define who we are as individuals, and who we are as a society. Why judge each piece of art to determine whether it's "worthy" or not to keep? Each one is important and special in its own way. Our culture does not need to be chosen or decided among many art pieces into a selected few. Our culture is not an audition, but an enormous description of who we are.
The most unavoidable question I can see here is how do we know which are best? Art is not of academic perspective, but of 'the eye of the beholder', as one might say. A young woman may see Monet as the true master of art, an elderly man may see Picasso as best. And in music, who holds the authority to say which is best and which is not? With all the different genres and wide variety of fan bases, how could 100 songs possibly be seen as best, and the rest forgotten. 100 songs by just a single artists may be the world to one listener. This could never be the way to unclutter our culture. Its unimaginable to think that we would be forced to live in a world without variety, that music and art would be defined by numbers. Its insurmountable and utterly horrifying. Music and art is not clutter, and therefore so tightly interwoven in our culture, and cannot be removed.
I believe we should not eliminate everything except for the one hundred 'best works' created. everybody has a different point of view that is why we are unique. people should not be controlled by society, If they are the world will be plain and dull, everyone would have the same preferences.
We shouldn't pick the 100 best of a certain thing. Everyone has a different style, one person may say that something is fine while someone else may say its not. We can not fully enjoy something if there's so few of it.
I think we shouldn't eliminate some art work, because honestly how could you tell what is best and what isnt because everyone likes different things, and everyone has their own point of view on certain types of art work, and with eliminating certain art work you may be eliminating someones story that not everyone sees. I think art work is a way for people to tell a story that they couldn't tell with words.
I don't agree with this idea at all! If you eliminated all but the 10 best works of everything, that would eliminate so many wonderful works. Wouldn't it get boring only studying those 10 works for each? Plus, who are they to say what IS a good work, and what ISN'T a good work? People's opinions vary! Sounds like a plot by the government to limit what the public does and doesn't know. Almost as if they're trying to limit people's opinions and abilities. Something definitely smells fishy here.
We shouldn't have 100 best things because some people might not like those things. Every person has different opinions and ideas about things. When choosing 100 best things it would probably cause a lot of chaos.
We should not eliminate all but the best works of art because what is best to one person might not be the best to others. If we don't get to experience all types of art we won't truly know if the ones picked out are the best. Everyone has different opinions so this would not be pleasing to everyone. Nobody would appreciate or enjoy art as much if there was only a limited amount.
I do not agree with the idea of eliminating all but the best works of art, simply because what truly is the "best"? Everyone's idea of the "Best" is different so how could you really choose only the best. I mean who would decide what is the best? How would they decide this? Even though it is a reasonable idea to eliminate only the "best" there are to many differences between people and to many different points of views to do so in a society.
Only keeping the best hundred of everything would be great! The people whose work got chosen would be filled with so much pride and those whose work was demolished would surly understand. Not everything is a work of art like some people say. That's just ridiculous! I mean come on. Get real. When I was little and made a drawing in art I would never bring it home to disgrace the front of our refrigerator. I would never want to do that to my family. It would be so rude to make them look at any piece of work that wasn't perfection. We should totally destroy all other works of art and literature that aren't considered the best by someone who has a completely different opinion than us. It's really the only practical thing to do.
There isn't the "best 100" of anything. Our culture isn't to cluttered. We always need new ideas and things to keep our knowledge growing. If there was only 100 of everything, there wouldn't be an diversity and everyone would think the same. People need to have their own opinions.
We shouldn't eliminate things that are not considered the best. Everyone has different views and opinions of what they think is great. Different opinions and views creates tension and eventually choosing sides. Maybe even a war if people feel very strongly. Picking 100 best things is a terrible idea.
I think that we shouldn't eliminate art work, because some people could write about what they did. But they couldn't if you eliminate there piece that they spent so hard on. But also some people can express how they feel in a picture instead of trying to tell you. If you did eliminate some peoples art works then you would be eliminating so many amazing art pieces that so many people spent there hard work doing it.
I feel as though doing something like this would be completely impossible. Everyone has their own opinions and thoughts on everything in today's society. Some people may think that a certain book series should be saved while another person may think that the book series should be completely forgotten about and destroyed. It would be impossible to do this task because there would be a lot of conflict about what and who should be remembered and forgotten. At first glance, this seems like a good idea because of the simple fact that it would make everything more simple. However, the cons outweigh the pros on this issue. There would be tons of controversy over who gets to choose what items stay and go and then people would just outrage over who gets authority. This would not be a good idea unless there was some possible way for everyone to get a say in making the decision of what stays and if there would be something in each category that appealed to everyone. Only if everyone were satisfied would this then be fair and a good idea.
This is not a good idea. We should not pick the best 100 best. Everyone has there own opinion and so I don't think you could pick the 100 best pieces because the judges would have different opinions on which ones are the best. Also, there are more than 100 'best pieces' of art. I believe that art can never be too cluttered there are different varieties and without all of the art in the world it would be like nothing.
Of course not. Culture wouldn't even exist without clutter and different ideas, it's all from a variety of ideas and sides, people have to see more. New cultures and ways could never exist without people seeing other sides, and time could never advance without this. Totally just a 'no' for me. If people were to see only one hundred of something, it'd be like reading a paper without a rebuttal, you'd be left like "ablhablakhablakhbah. I'm totally right." The world has to see evil, or they could never understand and completely appreciate and respect the best of arts. To keep the world balanced, or any other thing that could possibly be thought up, all sides should be open.
I believe the reasoning behind their actions was for a good purpose. The government didn't want citizens to become spoiled but such a wide variety of culture and they wanted to control what people were reading in order to indirectly monitor their knowledge and thoughts. Personally, I hate this idea. Everyone has a favorite book, poem, song, etc. There are many too many to only choose 100 and throw out the rest. If you want to get technical about it: I think at this point, it would be impossible to get rid of a bunch of media like that. People have books in their homes, CDs, iTunes, stories, poems, and memories. It would be near impossible to eliminate and isolate that much media in just a few short generations.
I am going to agree with this prompt to a certain extent. I think if we could each choose our 100 songs, books, etc., that our minds could expand. Maybe not, I can't really decide whether or not this would be okay. I do think cultures are cluttered, but it is kind of a good thing because we can learn something new everyday. So I retract my earlier argument. I like how cluttered cultures are because it shows diversity and after a while, the 100 songs would get old. Then we would all go insane.
I don't think eliminating the apparently 'not so good' things, considering what does the best mean? How can anyone know what truly is the best when we all have different sets of interests? Besides, being 'cluttered' comes with the population, to which there is a wide variety of things you can chose from. Being unique comes with the many different things, interests, skills, and tastes from the wide variety of the such things that make us considered 'cluttered.'
The first question that pops in my head from this is who decides what is best? Everyone has different taste and what is “best” is completely opinion aided. There are so many different songs, artists, and genres that it would be almost impossible to limit it down it down to the top 100 and still please everyone. The same concept is present with art. “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder”, in other words what I think is beautiful and majestic someone else might see as completely ugly. By limiting everything to the top 100 everyone's opinion’s would be created for them and that is a terrible idea.
Society picking the "one hundred best" of everything is terrible! First of all, everyone's opinion is different... what one might say is incredible, another might say is awful. Picking certain items for everyone and thinking that's okay is just delusional; that's prohibiting people from making their own decisions and going after their own interests. You can't make decisions for people, even if the world is "cluttered." Besides, doesn't limiting everything down to 100 make the world look empty? There are so many breathtaking sights to see- you can't just limit those based on worthiness and what you want people to know!
Culture is never too cluttered. No one should be able to say that someone else's artwork is not good enough for other people. Everyone has their own opinion of art and no one has the right to say that the art is "too cluttered." There may be a piece of artwork out there that the majority of people don't like, but someone DOES. The artist created the artwork for some purpose whether it be for expression or an art project. No one should ever be able to take away their artwork and tell them that it is not good enough. One person may think that one artwork is the best in the world and another person may think it is the worst thing they have ever seen. Opinions differ and no artwork should ever be eliminated. Everyone has the right to express themselves through art. Culture is and never will be "too cluttered." There may be a lot going on in the culture, but it will never be too much. That's what culture is all about: clutter, self expression, customs, beliefs, craziness.. It's meant to be that way and it should stay that way.
I do not think that we should eliminate everything but our top 100 "best" because every one is different and have different opinions on what the best really is. We each see things differently in our own eyes. And that's the way it should mainly because we all cant just pick 100 of the best, maybe its not the best to someone else.
No, we definitely should not just pick the 100 best of everything and then destroy everything that didn't make the cut. The things that the listed (songs, paintings, stories, and poems) are all forms of art. Who are we to judge what piece is better than another? Art is suppose to be a form of creative freedom.
We shouldn't have 100 best things because some people might not like those things. Every person has different opinions and ideas about things. When choosing 100 best things it would probably cause a lot of chaos.
I believe we should not eliminate everything, because, yes some things aren't the best in our society, but if everything was to be good, no one would face their problems, or even mistakes in life. People need some ways to face their problems or mistakes somehow. Then again, a lot of people do have different points. Not everyone is the same, but eliminating everything except for the "best works" would be bad because the world would be so much different and it wouldn't be fair to live in a society that we are forced to live in.
Its impossible to choose the best of 100 things for an entire society. Everyone has different taste, opinions, and thought processes. What appeals to one may not appeal to another you cannot simply decide what it is people want and need to hear as a whole. Also how can you truly appreciate something that is good with nothing to compare it to? If you read a sonnet from a Shakespeare and a story from Edgar Allen Poe how can you decide who is greater? Both are equally amazing writers with similar story genres but they go about their stories in completely different ways so how could you decide who is truly greater and deserves a spot in the top 100 things? You can't so its better to leave things as they are and people make their own decisions on what is and isn't great.
I do not think we should eliminate everything but the 100 "best" because something that one person might consider the best another person might not like it. Each person has there own taste of style, so we need a larger variety to accommodate to each persons style.
ReplyDeleteWe should not eliminate all but the best works because different people have different points of views. Society may think it's the best work, yet another group think it's awful work. Everyone is different and shouldn't be controlled or limited to what society 'thinks is right', when in reality it's all wrong
ReplyDeleteNo we should not. There are things that we think are terrible, but in some people's eyes it is the best. Look at Vincent Van Gogh, he was a failure in life. People of his time hated his artwork and thought it was horrible, but now he's one of the most famous painters in history. Our history and legacy would be reduced to just a few things that a group of people think is the best. We would lose countless art works that other people like. Losing a sense of individuality.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with the idea of eliminating all but the best works of art, with the simple argument that everyone's idea of the "best" differs and there are a lot of factors that would have to be considered. Who decides what the best of the best is? What all is classified under our "culture"? The idea is one that makes you think, however it is not a good one for society.
ReplyDeleteI do not think that these things are not lost, or gotten rid of. I believe that there are things that are more popular than others and the ones less popular are looked over as 'inferior' when they really are not. This is like name brands and off brands; the name brands are looked at as better even though they are the same
ReplyDeleteI do not think we should just pick 100 of certain things, and eliminate the rest. because EVERYONE has a different taste, we all may enjoy some similar things but we can not all fully decide the best 100 songs, or stories, or paintings, and so on. no one can fully agree that they like each and everyone of those 100 picks because everyone has their own opinion, so not every single person could agree on one thing. so no I do not think it is a very good idea.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with this idea because just because something isn't the best doesn't mean it should disappear. That is similar to saying only the most successful people should be allowed to live. It is a crazy and irrelevant idea. This would leave out many other great art because it isn't considered "good enough." Then, we wouldn't have much left to appreciate. Therefore, eliminating art would not be necessary or a good idea.
ReplyDeleteI disagree strongly with this idea because it limits the human culture that distinguishes everyone. Art is about each person's own expression and how they choose to represent that expression. This would lead to limitations on who we actually are. Then there is the aspect that who decides which pieces of art are the best. Every single person has their own taste on how are should be shown. So it would be impossible to choose the very best pieces of art from the entire world, and have everyone be happy about the choices.
ReplyDeleteI think that we should eliminate some works of art because society cluttered. The works of art today do not even look like art to me. It is really weird and some of them should not be considered art. We should only keep the real art and not all the other stuff that is considered art nowadays.
ReplyDeleteI don't agree with this idea or concept. Simply because think about each and every individual. We have our own opinions and mindset. Someone might think that this painting is better than one that another thinks is much better. This could create and off balance of society. There could be feuds for people are unique. Not every single person is going to like the very same things. Everyone is different. Also, we shouldn't just eliminate these works of art because culture is too cluttered. Throughout history culture has developed more fully and changed. Not to mention throughout culture has shaped society including today. Think of a life where you could only listen to 100 songs. What if you didn't like these songs? Then how would you feel or what would you do. Our culture may seem cluttered now but it is continuing to grow as we speak.
ReplyDeleteNo we should not eliminate the worst works because we are to clutter it describes how we live and how we become from good to bad or bad to good, it shows the upsides it shows the downsides of every story and everyone the planet. If just keep a 100 of good works and eliminate the remaining ones why won't we do that humans and animals as well that is over cluttered like everything else because it causes everything else to be cluttered
ReplyDeleteNo, I do not think we should eliminate aspects of our culture just because it is "overcrowded". If we were to do so, we would lose a piece of us. By saying this I mean, we would lose valuable, meaningful, aspects of our lives just to make our culture uncluttered. We would feel as if we weren't our true selves because we would have important things stolen from our daily lives.
ReplyDeleteNo because if we eliminated all but 100 of everything then we would get tired of seeing the same old stuff. I could easily read through 100 books in 5 years and I love reading; I don't want to read the same books over and over throughout my entire life. Looking at the same 100 paints or movies would be really boring too because there would be nothing new to inspire us. Plus, if we only kept 100 of everything than people would loss jobs, like artist or movie directors. Life would get really boring.
ReplyDeleteI do not agree with this idea at all. If this idea was actually put in motion Rebecca Black wouldn't have a music career. It would be impossible to do this anyway because opinions are different for everyone. That's why nothing is truly perfect in the world. Someone's best may not be as good as another's. In the end though, it's the not so great things that make the beautiful shine so bright.
ReplyDeleteNO! That's a terrible idea, eliminating all but one hundred of something. There are so many more interesting and important documents, stories, and songs than can be narrowed down to one hundred.What good would it do anyway, people are always making new paintings and stories everyday, it would be useless to try to try to contain all of them.
ReplyDeleteEliminating all other artistic works means that no one will ever be able to appreciate the great ideas of other people. Not to mention these one hundred greatest works would eventually be heard over and over by the people causing their original meaning to be diluted and leaving people to once again not truly appreciate the true works of art left for them. A modern example of this dwindling would be the songs you hear on the radio. What once were great songs are over heard to the point that the listener no longer feels the meaning in the song.
ReplyDeleteI don't think we should eliminate all but the best works of art because culture is too cluttered. If we had a 100 of the 'best' works they might not be the best for everyone. Each person is a diverse individual and has their own taste, choice, and freedom to pick what they want to enjoy. Besides, 100 of the best things would get boring. Would we really consider them the best pieces of art after awhile? Creativity would be lost in this process and the world would become a dull and have no color. Having a variety of literature, art, music, and stories is what makes the world an interesting place.
ReplyDeleteI don't think we should elimminate all but the best works of art because culture is to cluttered. I believe culture is never completely full. We can always grow and improve art. This book only keeps the top 100 of everything; art, poems, paintings, songs, stories. So just picture a world were you can only read 100 songs and having them be picked for you. Our culture will never be too cluttered. We can always expanded culture.
ReplyDeleteI think this is a stupid idea. If you get rid of all but the best works of art we wouldn't have anything to compare it to for it to be the best because the rest would be gone so we would have to get rid of some of the best art because we would constantly compare the other best pieces of art and we would eventually get rid of it all until there was one piece of art left making it the worst piece of art as well and defeating the point of this idea
ReplyDeleteno, i don't think that we should eliminate all best works of art because everyone has different opinions. Society may think its the best work but others may not. It shouldn't be limited to a certain number, we should have a larger amount.
ReplyDeleteI don't think we should eliminate all but the best works of at because culture cannot be too cluttered. Culture is like a way of expressing yourself. It's a way of life. If you eliminated everything but the best works of art, then you can't see the bad works of art and be inspired by how people developed overtime with their art skills or see the difference between good and bad. Besides, the best works of art is just a matter of opinion. You can't really say what art was better than the other. For example, one painting to you may be outstanding, but to me it could be junk. You can't exactly pick the BEST works of art because to other people, it may not be the best. Then you're stuck living a life where you have to look at, listen to, or read things that you don't like. So, no. We shouldn't eliminate all but the best works of art.
ReplyDeleteIf society only allowed people to eliminate 100 things from our culture it would be boring. People all have different taste and don't always agree so who would decide what is the best 100. If we had only 100 culture elements then society would be restricting peoples creativity because what someone might think is beautiful may look like trash to the next person.
ReplyDeleteThe stress to be the same as everyone else would grow, which is expressed through the Matched series. There are many people in the world who like alternate works of art, music, literary works, and other interests. In today's society it isn't strange to like something different from everyone else; it just makes you your own person entitled to your own opinions. If the "best" of our culture was picked, it would only be an opinion of majority, not necessarily the best. Who are we to decided what is the best for everyone? Opinion is a right that would be fought against if we were to eliminate all but the top hundred of everything.
ReplyDeleteWe should not eliminate art but instead choose the things that we appreciate. For even in this book, which I have read, they rebel and began to make art again because they felt it was unfair to be unable to express themselves. Also when they began making art again everyone appreciates it and goes to see it even though there is a lot of it. This in itself shows that as humans even though the world is filled with many things that are beautiful we can still appreciate the small details of art and the way it is composed. To conclude I don't believe we should do away with art because even if the culture is cluttered we are still able to look at the smallest detail of art and appreciate it to some extent.
ReplyDeleteMy opinion in this idea is that it seems ridiculous. Why would we get rid of every piece of literature, but the best? There are way more than 100, that are the best. I don't believe that culture is tom cluttered; but rich. Even though there are millions of books, songs, paintings, and poems, different people like different things.
ReplyDeleteTo only allow the best of everything in society would enable human nature to fully comprehend the value of life and to appreciate everything in their own life with its own uniqueness, creativity, and heart.
ReplyDeleteThis is a terrible idea. Although citizens may think that our culture is "cluttered" I prefer the term profound. There are millions beyond millions of pieces of art in the world whether it be music, poems, paintings, stories, etc, and each of them are special and do not need to be eliminated. Each one of those pieces of art add to our culture's uniqueness. Culture does not need to be constructed or organized. It helps define who we are as individuals, and who we are as a society. Why judge each piece of art to determine whether it's "worthy" or not to keep? Each one is important and special in its own way. Our culture does not need to be chosen or decided among many art pieces into a selected few. Our culture is not an audition, but an enormous description of who we are.
ReplyDeleteThe most unavoidable question I can see here is how do we know which are best? Art is not of academic perspective, but of 'the eye of the beholder', as one might say. A young woman may see Monet as the true master of art, an elderly man may see Picasso as best. And in music, who holds the authority to say which is best and which is not? With all the different genres and wide variety of fan bases, how could 100 songs possibly be seen as best, and the rest forgotten. 100 songs by just a single artists may be the world to one listener. This could never be the way to unclutter our culture. Its unimaginable to think that we would be forced to live in a world without variety, that music and art would be defined by numbers. Its insurmountable and utterly horrifying. Music and art is not clutter, and therefore so tightly interwoven in our culture, and cannot be removed.
ReplyDeleteI believe we should not eliminate everything except for the one hundred 'best works' created. everybody has a different point of view that is why we are unique. people should not be controlled by society, If they are the world will be plain and dull, everyone would have the same preferences.
ReplyDeleteWe shouldn't pick the 100 best of a certain thing. Everyone has a different style, one person may say that something is fine while someone else may say its not. We can not fully enjoy something if there's so few of it.
ReplyDeleteI think we shouldn't eliminate some art work, because honestly how could you tell what is best and what isnt because everyone likes different things, and everyone has their own point of view on certain types of art work, and with eliminating certain art work you may be eliminating someones story that not everyone sees. I think art work is a way for people to tell a story that they couldn't tell with words.
ReplyDeleteI don't agree with this idea at all! If you eliminated all but the 10 best works of everything, that would eliminate so many wonderful works. Wouldn't it get boring only studying those 10 works for each? Plus, who are they to say what IS a good work, and what ISN'T a good work? People's opinions vary! Sounds like a plot by the government to limit what the public does and doesn't know. Almost as if they're trying to limit people's opinions and abilities. Something definitely smells fishy here.
ReplyDeleteWe shouldn't have 100 best things because some people might not like those things. Every person has different opinions and ideas about things. When choosing 100 best things it would probably cause a lot of chaos.
ReplyDeleteWe should not eliminate all but the best works of art because what is best to one person might not be the best to others. If we don't get to experience all types of art we won't truly know if the ones picked out are the best. Everyone has different opinions so this would not be pleasing to everyone. Nobody would appreciate or enjoy art as much if there was only a limited amount.
ReplyDeleteI do not agree with the idea of eliminating all but the best works of art, simply because what truly is the "best"? Everyone's idea of the "Best" is different so how could you really choose only the best. I mean who would decide what is the best? How would they decide this? Even though it is a reasonable idea to eliminate only the "best" there are to many differences between people and to many different points of views to do so in a society.
ReplyDeleteOnly keeping the best hundred of everything would be great! The people whose work got chosen would be filled with so much pride and those whose work was demolished would surly understand. Not everything is a work of art like some people say. That's just ridiculous! I mean come on. Get real. When I was little and made a drawing in art I would never bring it home to disgrace the front of our refrigerator. I would never want to do that to my family. It would be so rude to make them look at any piece of work that wasn't perfection. We should totally destroy all other works of art and literature that aren't considered the best by someone who has a completely different opinion than us. It's really the only practical thing to do.
ReplyDeleteThere isn't the "best 100" of anything. Our culture isn't to cluttered. We always need new ideas and things to keep our knowledge growing. If there was only 100 of everything, there wouldn't be an diversity and everyone would think the same. People need to have their own opinions.
ReplyDeleteWe shouldn't eliminate things that are not considered the best. Everyone has different views and opinions of what they think is great. Different opinions and views creates tension and eventually choosing sides. Maybe even a war if people feel very strongly. Picking 100 best things is a terrible idea.
ReplyDeleteI think that we shouldn't eliminate art work, because some people could write about what they did. But they couldn't if you eliminate there piece that they spent so hard on. But also some people can express how they feel in a picture instead of trying to tell you. If you did eliminate some peoples art works then you would be eliminating so many amazing art pieces that so many people spent there hard work doing it.
ReplyDeleteI feel as though doing something like this would be completely impossible. Everyone has their own opinions and thoughts on everything in today's society. Some people may think that a certain book series should be saved while another person may think that the book series should be completely forgotten about and destroyed. It would be impossible to do this task because there would be a lot of conflict about what and who should be remembered and forgotten. At first glance, this seems like a good idea because of the simple fact that it would make everything more simple. However, the cons outweigh the pros on this issue. There would be tons of controversy over who gets to choose what items stay and go and then people would just outrage over who gets authority. This would not be a good idea unless there was some possible way for everyone to get a say in making the decision of what stays and if there would be something in each category that appealed to everyone. Only if everyone were satisfied would this then be fair and a good idea.
ReplyDeleteThis is not a good idea. We should not pick the best 100 best. Everyone has there own opinion and so I don't think you could pick the 100 best pieces because the judges would have different opinions on which ones are the best. Also, there are more than 100 'best pieces' of art. I believe that art can never be too cluttered there are different varieties and without all of the art in the world it would be like nothing.
ReplyDeleteOf course not. Culture wouldn't even exist without clutter and different ideas, it's all from a variety of ideas and sides, people have to see more. New cultures and ways could never exist without people seeing other sides, and time could never advance without this. Totally just a 'no' for me. If people were to see only one hundred of something, it'd be like reading a paper without a rebuttal, you'd be left like "ablhablakhablakhbah. I'm totally right." The world has to see evil, or they could never understand and completely appreciate and respect the best of arts. To keep the world balanced, or any other thing that could possibly be thought up, all sides should be open.
ReplyDeleteI believe the reasoning behind their actions was for a good purpose. The government didn't want citizens to become spoiled but such a wide variety of culture and they wanted to control what people were reading in order to indirectly monitor their knowledge and thoughts. Personally, I hate this idea. Everyone has a favorite book, poem, song, etc. There are many too many to only choose 100 and throw out the rest. If you want to get technical about it: I think at this point, it would be impossible to get rid of a bunch of media like that. People have books in their homes, CDs, iTunes, stories, poems, and memories. It would be near impossible to eliminate and isolate that much media in just a few short generations.
ReplyDeleteI am going to agree with this prompt to a certain extent. I think if we could each choose our 100 songs, books, etc., that our minds could expand. Maybe not, I can't really decide whether or not this would be okay. I do think cultures are cluttered, but it is kind of a good thing because we can learn something new everyday. So I retract my earlier argument. I like how cluttered cultures are because it shows diversity and after a while, the 100 songs would get old. Then we would all go insane.
ReplyDeleteI don't think eliminating the apparently 'not so good' things, considering what does the best mean? How can anyone know what truly is the best when we all have different sets of interests? Besides, being 'cluttered' comes with the population, to which there is a wide variety of things you can chose from. Being unique comes with the many different things, interests, skills, and tastes from the wide variety of the such things that make us considered 'cluttered.'
ReplyDeleteThe first question that pops in my head from this is who decides what is best? Everyone has different taste and what is “best” is completely opinion aided. There are so many different songs, artists, and genres that it would be almost impossible to limit it down it down to the top 100 and still please everyone. The same concept is present with art. “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder”, in other words what I think is beautiful and majestic someone else might see as completely ugly. By limiting everything to the top 100 everyone's opinion’s would be created for them and that is a terrible idea.
ReplyDeleteSociety picking the "one hundred best" of everything is terrible! First of all, everyone's opinion is different... what one might say is incredible, another might say is awful. Picking certain items for everyone and thinking that's okay is just delusional; that's prohibiting people from making their own decisions and going after their own interests. You can't make decisions for people, even if the world is "cluttered." Besides, doesn't limiting everything down to 100 make the world look empty? There are so many breathtaking sights to see- you can't just limit those based on worthiness and what you want people to know!
ReplyDeleteCulture is never too cluttered. No one should be able to say that someone else's artwork is not good enough for other people. Everyone has their own opinion of art and no one has the right to say that the art is "too cluttered." There may be a piece of artwork out there that the majority of people don't like, but someone DOES. The artist created the artwork for some purpose whether it be for expression or an art project. No one should ever be able to take away their artwork and tell them that it is not good enough. One person may think that one artwork is the best in the world and another person may think it is the worst thing they have ever seen. Opinions differ and no artwork should ever be eliminated. Everyone has the right to express themselves through art. Culture is and never will be "too cluttered." There may be a lot going on in the culture, but it will never be too much. That's what culture is all about: clutter, self expression, customs, beliefs, craziness.. It's meant to be that way and it should stay that way.
ReplyDeleteI do not think that we should eliminate everything but our top 100 "best" because every one is different and have different opinions on what the best really is. We each see things differently in our own eyes. And that's the way it should mainly because we all cant just pick 100 of the best, maybe its not the best to someone else.
ReplyDeleteNo, we definitely should not just pick the 100 best of everything and then destroy everything that didn't make the cut. The things that the listed (songs, paintings, stories, and poems) are all forms of art. Who are we to judge what piece is better than another? Art is suppose to be a form of creative freedom.
ReplyDeleteWe shouldn't have 100 best things because some people might not like those things. Every person has different opinions and ideas about things. When choosing 100 best things it would probably cause a lot of chaos.
ReplyDeleteI believe we should not eliminate everything, because, yes some things aren't the best in our society, but if everything was to be good, no one would face their problems, or even mistakes in life. People need some ways to face their problems or mistakes somehow. Then again, a lot of people do have different points. Not everyone is the same, but eliminating everything except for the "best works" would be bad because the world would be so much different and it wouldn't be fair to live in a society that we are forced to live in.
ReplyDeleteIts impossible to choose the best of 100 things for an entire society. Everyone has different taste, opinions, and thought processes. What appeals to one may not appeal to another you cannot simply decide what it is people want and need to hear as a whole. Also how can you truly appreciate something that is good with nothing to compare it to? If you read a sonnet from a Shakespeare and a story from Edgar Allen Poe how can you decide who is greater? Both are equally amazing writers with similar story genres but they go about their stories in completely different ways so how could you decide who is truly greater and deserves a spot in the top 100 things? You can't so its better to leave things as they are and people make their own decisions on what is and isn't great.
ReplyDelete