It is extremely difficult to believe that a neutral question exists. Neutral means objective, and being neutral means asking questions without being swayed by personal opinion or emotion. Simply asking a question implies bias, that is, a preference for certain ideas over others, because everyone has different interpretations of knowledge. This makes most questions the opposite of neutral, which is subjective or influenced by personal opinion and emotion. We generally ask a question out of curiosity with a supposed answer in mind that corresponds to pre-established beliefs. There's even an ironic and biased assumption in the title; because the speaker claims there is no neutral question in an attempt to be as unbiased as possible to get his point across. Art and religion are two areas of knowledge where neutral questions rarely appear. Because art, imagination and emotion are modes of knowing that are interpreted differently for each individual, thus making neutrality difficult. Religion is mainly based on two modes of knowledge: memory and faith. Memories are used differently for everyone, and faith is complete emotional trust in someone or something, making both ways of knowing very subjective. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essayArt evokes a great way of knowing, which is imagination. Imagination is being able to create new ideas without really understanding how or why. As I was studying Marcel Duchamp, the creator of the Readymade sculptures, he piqued my curiosity: how could a man go from painting like Picasso to turning shovels into art? I didn't understand it. I assumed his sculptures were only famous because he was. However, I realized that our imaginations were both different and learned that Duchamp did not deliberately explain the reasoning behind his Readymades, so that his audience could create their own meaning. Duchamp gave his audience carte blanche to ask their own questions about his art, and all of them were subjective in 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 bring up biased questions? If I see a shovel in the store, I just think, “That’s a shovel.” It remains neutral in my mind, like a simple shovel, but when I saw Duchamp's shovel, I started asking myself questions like: "Why a shovel and why a snow shovel?" Is this an extension of Duchamp? Is it an extension of the arm and all its capabilities? I make underlying assumptions about the shovel, which are subjective. Perhaps art brings up subjective questions because without art, objects would not even be questioned, especially since personal and public questions are very different. Alone I would ask imaginative questions, perhaps inventing meanings about the purpose of a shovel, but with other people I would not look for meaning beyond just the purpose of the shovel, because my imagination is very personal to me and the questions to ask. I ask myself these questions which are subjective in relation to my state of mind. Art also evokes another great way of knowing, emotion, particularly during the rise of the Fluxus movement in the 1960s. Emotions being a first response to a situation, they can raise very subjective questions. Fluxus is an artistic movement composedof all forms of artists, disagreeing with the idea that art is more than a simple enjoyment of the material. Ben Vautier, a Swiss painter and major Fluxus participant, wanted society to “feel the truth about art. [Society] will understand beauty afterwards. Vautier believed that art should not be limited to pure technical skills, as he believed that everyone deserved the opportunity to expand their minds to see the world in a new and unique way by improving their conceptual skills. Fluxus meant asking questions like: Why should what I feel is beauty be used for something fancier and bigger? Even these artists were very subjective: they believed that people had to delve into their emotions to fully understand everything. Others believed that what was already taught was sufficient to make sound judgment. Since these artists were so committed to “free art,” this led to an influx of new ideas about what art is and how to make it more personal, and therefore more subjective. Neutrality in art does not contribute to the progress of art, because feelings would not be used for creation. British philosopher Dennis Dutton countered Vautier's assertion by believing that art is only the objective use of human skills. Dutton rejected the idea that art is a social construct, but simply a way "for humans to hone their technical skills and develop their power of concentration." Dutton would ask, “How can one improve one’s ability to draw?” while Vautier would ask: “What does this drawing say about me?” For Dutton, art is only an established appearance in human nature, without the influence of personal opinion. Art did not arise before humans and only exists because humans are able to hold art utensils, not because their imagination and emotions need to be shown through visual representation. The way to know which is stronger for me is memory. I grew up in a small town in Oklahoma as a Southern Baptist. They are a strict religious group, which lacks tolerance towards others. One week I was going to Sunday school to learn how I should love everyone, because God is love. Next week I would learn how premarital sex is a sin and I should not befriend those who have it because they will poison my mind. Teaching me about intolerance went against the fundamental tenet of Christianity: contentment should be a mark of belief in God. There is a paradox in the discontent of those who always talk about security. With these two contrasting lessons in my mind, I had to ask myself, “What is virtuous?” This seems like a rather neutral question, because virtue is about having high moral standards. This couldn't have too many variations. However, the answer to this question leads to a pre-established response from the Church: to love others as long as they are like us. For me, it is obvious that tolerance must take precedence over intolerance. As someone who has chosen to rely more on memories of love, acceptance, and hymns of helping others, I can use my memory to console and comfort others in the hope that when they come to ask themselves: “what should my moral standards be?” they can use their memory of me to make what I believe is a good choice of tolerance. Memory is coupled with reason, or what is considered right and wrong. “Was the murder a mistake?” » One can almost always respond neutrally, whether one is religious or not, because everything.