“[Art] demands resources that, in the right hands, could have saved lives”(Southan, 3). I commented on this saying is art not also valuable in saving lives? While maybe not everyone can publish a book with extreme social repercussions, or make a movie that changes the world, how is anyone supposed to make any significant difference with art if they can’t have any experience making it? I feel that without art, much of life would be lived in a lethargic and pointless state. Many people refer to the craft or career that they choose as an art, so then is art not anything that someone puts passion into? This is where I find holes in the logic of EA’s.
With the analogy to the analogy to the shallow pond, I feel that there are many more factors involved than just those mentioned in the essay. In that situation, the problem is easily viewed and easily fixed, where poverty and lack of resources can be seen as out of sight, out of mind. Problems like poverty are also much more complex than a child drowning in a pond. For the child, you simply remove them from the harmful situation and stop them from drowning. Poverty has been a problem for many years and will continue to be a problem in the years to come.
