The second article, “Heresy of Zone Defense” by Hickey somehow miraculously construes the game of basketball to be more rebellious and more culturally sound than fine art.  Hickey states that the rules evolve in basketball to liberate the game- to make it more “joyful, various, and articulate.” While on the other hand, fine art is supposed to be an expression of oneself without rules, ends up being governed by rules.  I really appreciate Hickey’s observation of the vitality of basketball.  The rules are changed not to benefit the coach or the sponsors, but to keep the game alive.  I also liked his comparison of the rules of basketball to the rules of life as a freelance writer.  I thought that the last paragraph was extremely well said and tied the entire article together.

 What I did not like about the article was the Jackson Pollock comparison.  I found it to be confusing and irrelevant to the rest of the article.  I did not understand it no matter how many times I read it. 

The third article, “Why is this Man Smiling,” by Lawrence Weschler provided an interesting perspective on animation.  I think imitating life will always look slightly off or creepy because it will always be just an imitation.  What these animators are trying to achieve is commendable, and I have never put much thought into what it would take to create a face.  However, I appreciate the theory that the face cannot be exactly replicated due to the lack of soul.  The article mentions that the animators’ goal is not to simulate the face but to merely fool everyone.  The rate they are improving characters is astounding.  Even the movies I grew up with- the difference between Aladdin and Shrek is awe-inspring.

The only issue I had with this article was I kept asking myself why bother? What is the point of replicating a face? Then again that could also pose the question of “why bother doing anything then?”  

The first article I found to be extremely puzzling.  I did not understand what context it was written in.  The first paragraph mentions an enemy, however I have to ask who is the enemy and who is the writer- and why are they “at war?” Also, the logic that everything is left to right is a cultural component of the Western World, but how is it “a given in this class,” and how are we to “use it.” I find it also confusing that top to bottom, left to right, and big and small are seen as universal truths, but in front of and in back of are lies.

 I liked the authors thought that top to bottom is how we read and write but that at the same time it is un-American.  The American dream is built upon starting from the bottom and reaching the top.