It is extremely difficult to believe that a neutral question exists. Neutral is synonymous with objective, and being neutral means asking questions without being influenced by personal opinions or emotions. Even just asking a question implies a prejudice, that is, the favoring of some ideas over others, because everyone has different interpretations of knowledge. This makes most questions the exact opposite of neutrality, which is subjective or influenced by personal opinion and emotions. A question is usually asked out of curiosity with a presumed answer in mind that fits pre-established beliefs. There is also an ironic and partial hypothesis in the title; because the speaker argues that there is no such thing as a neutral question in an attempt to be as impartial as possible to get his point across. Art and religion are two areas of knowledge in which neutral questions rarely appear. For art, imagination and emotion are ways of knowing that are interpreted differently for each individual, thus making neutrality difficult. Religion is mainly based on two ways of knowing: memory and faith. Memories are used differently for everyone, and faith is complete emotional trust in someone or something, making both ways of knowing highly subjective. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Art evokes a great way of knowing, which is imagination. Imagination is the ability to create new ideas without truly understanding how or why. While studying Marcel Duchamp, the creator of Readymade sculptures, he piqued my curiosity: how could a man go from painting like Picasso to turning altarpieces into art? I didn't understand it. I assumed his sculptures were only famous because he was. However, I realized that our imaginations are both different and learned that Duchamp purposely did not explain the reasoning behind his Readymades, so that his audience could create their own meaning. Duchamp was giving his audience carte blanche to formulate their own questions about his art, and everyone was subjective to their imagination and opinions. However, since his Readymades are just utilitarian objects with (almost always) nothing else done to each object, then why do they evoke distorted questions? If I see a shovel in the store, I just think "that's a shovel." It remains in my mind neutrally, simply as a shovel, but when I saw Duchamp's shovel I started asking questions like, “Why a shovel and why a snow shovel? Is it an extension of Duchamp? Is it an extension of the arm and all its capabilities?” I'm making some basic assumptions about the shovel, which are subjective. Perhaps art evokes subjective issues because without art objects would not even be questioned, especially since personal and public issues are very different. Alone, I would ask imaginative questions, perhaps making up meanings about the purpose of a shovel, but with other people, I would not look for further meanings beyond the sole purpose of the shovel, because my imagination is very personal to me, and the questions to ask myself , I ask, are subjective to my mood. Art also evokes another great way of knowing, emotion, especially during the rise of the Fluxus movement in the 1960s. Because emotions are an initial response to a situation, they can raise very subjective questions. Fluxus is an artistic movement made up of all forms of artists, disagreeing with the idea that art is more than the pure enjoyment of matter. Ben Vautier, a Swiss painter and major participant in Fluxus, wanted society to “feel the truth about art. [Society] will understand beauty later.”Vautier believed that art should not be limited to pure technical skills, because he believed that everyone deserved the chance to broaden their mind to see the world in a new and unique way by enhancing their conceptual abilities. Fluxus was going to ask questions like: Why is what I feel? nice, do you need to use it for something fancier and bigger? These artists were also highly subjective: they believed that people needed to delve into their emotions to fully understand everything. Others believed that what had already been taught was sufficient to make valid judgments. Because these artists felt so strongly connected to "free art", there was an influx of new ideas about what art is and how it can be made more personal, therefore more subjective. Neutrality in art does not help to advance it, because feelings would not be used for creation. British philosopher Dennis Dutton countered Vautier's statement by believing that art is only the objective use of human skill. Dutton rejected the idea that art was a social construct, but simply a way “for humans to hone technical skills and develop powers of concentration.” Dutton would ask, “How can you improve your drawing ability?” while Vautier would ask, "What does this drawing say about me?" For Dutton, art is simply an appearance consolidated in human nature, without influence from personal opinion. Art did not appear before humans, and it exists only because humans are able to hold artistic utensils, not because their imagination and emotions need to be shown through visual representation. The strongest way of knowing for me is memory. I grew up in a small town in Oklahoma as a Southern Baptist. This is a strict religious group, which lacks tolerance towards others. One week I went to Sunday school to learn how I should love everyone, because God is love. The next week I would learn that premarital sex is a sin and that I shouldn't make friends with those who have it, because they would poison my mind. Teaching me about intolerance went against the fundamental principle of Christianity: contentment should be a hallmark of faith in God. There is a paradox of discontent on the part of those who always talk about security. With these two contrasting lessons in my memory, I had to ask myself, “What is virtuous?” This seems like a rather neutral question, because virtue means having high moral standards. This couldn't have too many variations. However, the answer to this question leads to a pre-established response on the part of the Church: loving others as long as they are like us. For me it is obvious that tolerance must prevail over intolerance. As someone who has chosen to rely more on memories of love, acceptance, and hymns of help for another, I can use my memory to console and comfort others in the hope that when they come to ask, "what should my moral standards be ?" they can use their memory of me to make what I believe is a right choice of tolerance. Memory is combined with reason, or what is considered right and wrong. “Is murder wrong?” you can almost always answer neutrally, regardless of whether you are religious or not, because we have all been taught that lawlessness is wrong. Emotion does not play a large role in this question, because the law dictates reason, not emotion, making this question mostly neutral. However, “is killing wrong?” can have two different answers. Christians will say yes, because life is God's will. Some say no, because they remember how assisted death brought peace to a terminally ill patient. It's a lot.