One of the central questions Gibson raises involves the definition of
art. In the novel, what is art? which one of these passages do u think explains what is or is not art: paragraph spanning pp. 17-18, the description of Judy on the top of
p. 129, Voytek’s art on the bottom two paragraphs of p. 215, or Nora’s
activities in the top paragraph p. 289. i have to choose one for a paper and im not sure which best illustrates art.

Oh, c'mon, Bella7, are we to do your entire assignment for you? Make your own choice and justify it, or your teacher will hear from us...

Hey, as long as we take pains to disagree with each other, it's research.

Not knowing what passages are being referred to, and I sure as heck ain't looking them up myself (as editions will differ anyway), I couldn't say. I think there's a good case for saying what Nora does is NOT art, but I suspect the author would disagree.

Discuss.

Oh im sorry its just very hard for me to understand this book. i have never read anything like it before and i just wanted to get some opinions on it. And i do believe what Nora does is art.the footage she puts together is a form of art but i dont think i can write a whole paper on it I dont believe what they do with Judy is art because it is fake and deceitful.

Art can be fake.
Think about how you would define it. And deceitful? Does that mean trying to trick you into believing something that isn't true? So Picasso is a very deceitful artist then, right?

To write a whole paper on Nora you'd need to think about why the footage affects people the way it does. Is the way it is presented something to do with how it is received? You know, questions like that.

thanks...i acutally wrote it on Nora and how the footage is art. that question you posed really helped me discuss it more though.

something else i was thinking about...do you think there is a connection between taki's t, violence and Nora's art. i could be totally off. im not sure im understanding everything the way gibson means it to be understood.

i need to point out that Gibson is an artist too. In my opinion he leaves plenty of room for interpretation...Its just like what Sentinel said, i think, the way its presented may not have anything to do with how it is received... Don't bother trying to get the meaning WG put in it, it is what you get out of it that matters...

What he said. Any kind of interpretation means you have to drag this stuff into a location relevant to you and see what resonates. And then work out why it does. Of course we've been doing that here for some time now... If you want to get more out of the book you should really just read it again. Because once you aren't so focused on what's going to happen next you will notice all kinds of other subtle observations that you flew past last time.
There's plenty of good thinking around the art issue in this thread . And then you could read it again and see if that's true for you. Whatever it is you see, then you can tell us about it!