I found on our web pages examples that fit with my impressions of what big A art and little A art means to me. I was surprised how many 'product' pictures were featured, and although these are certainly forms of an art or Art, it was hard for me to want to explore those examples. I went through every student page, but decided to select as big A art, Soroush's painting of the Portland skyline. For what I recognized as little 'a' art, I chose the sumptious-looking art presented by Adam, the sauteed sea scallop.
   The painting of the Portland skyline is Art to me, because there is certainly a classic medium used and the classic subject matter of scenery or landscape portrayed. The painting works for big A for me for those reasons mostly, and I recognize that it doesn't appear to be the work of a famous, or even well-practised painter, but it could be. I like the simplicity of it and the colors, and also the way the buildings are set futher back into the picture. The brush strokes on the water are also effective and seem to really make the painting and image complete to me. Some refinement or additions were likely added as the artist went along and finished his painting. 
   The 2nd article this week talks of the difficult of artists who use watercolor run into, those of the paper being saturated with intitial brushstrokes, etc..., however, it makes the point that oil painters, have a better ability to add or refine their visions on their canvas, and I think I can see that here. I don't know if there is a message here, I just like it overall. Maybe it's a statement about the jadedness of cities or architecture in general, and a concern that modern infrastructure impeeds the beauty of nature in our lives. Why are the buildings teetering? I can't know, and maybe that's the intent of the artist, as the work can be interpreted in several ways, but, like a lot of art, that's what the artist wants to achieve, quite often without being blatant about it. 
   Whether it's amateurish or simple or whatever, I like the way it blends the natural surroundings of the river with the almost-teetering, less-defined buildings in the back. It makes me wonder where the artist saw most of the 'beauty' he was trying to capture. Was he affected more by the look of the water and how the traditional bridge may have added to his enjoyment? Or was he more interested in the odd look or his buildings and the background scene. Even though the buildings don't appear to be of the greatest import to the artist, as they are loose in form, structure and definement, the artist could have really been more affected by their presence I suppose, but maybe he just elected to go subtle. I don't know. It's definitely the whole look of the piece, as I said, the nature and the city, that I appreciate. The blend of the subjects, and the pleasant use of the colors and the things that highlight my attention. Therefore, I am most convinced that this is a good example of something that would be a big A art. It may not end up in the Louvre, but it is something worthy of display, contemplation, and admiration for the work and the message.
   Another item worthy of display, contemplation, and admiration, at least to my way of thinking, is Adam's picture of the arty looking 'wolf-able' "sauteed sea scallop."  I don't even like scallops and I'm not such an expert on food or seafood presentations, etc.., but I feel drawn to this item. Frankly, at first look, I thought it was sorta crabcake type of thing, which I also no little about, but I did instantly get the attraction to it (whatever it might've been) just by seeing a quick flash of the picture. Why is it art or Art? Well, one could say that two things are at work here. The quality of the photograph and how clear and well-centered  it is, for one, but also I can just tell that the photographer didn't just do this quickly and without care. Maybe it's for a menu, book, or some kind of display, maybe he was paid to do it professionally, and thus took the approach of a trained photographer.
    Of course the second observation regarding the art of this piece, is the food itself. Man, it looks good, regardless of 
my experiences or my taste for the type of food. I think I'd risk the taste without knowing anything about what it is to begin
with. Whoever made the food and displayed it this way, was certainly taking art and creativity into mind during his work.
An argument could be made that this is also big A art. The photograph itself, or the design, look, and appeal of the food
could be defined as a big A artwork, but for my own sensibilities and comparisons about art stuff, it falls into the little 'a' 
art catagory. Maybe because I know it will be consumed or obliterated by lucky eater, or maybe because in that same 
sense it's kind of a disposable item captured for the purposes of sales or interest, but ultimately intended to be eaten. 
We will preserve this art in our tummies, appreciating those few private moments with it, but not too affected by the
 knowing that we are meant to destroy this art for our own eating enjoyment