I thought the article was quite interesting. I don’t know if I understood a lot of the metaphors that he used which is probably due to me not being familiar with a lot of the paintings that he referenced. Overall, I thought he had some really interesting points. The part that stuck out to me the most was the point that he made in the last few sentences. In his final point, the author claims that art is like a cat. The first time that I read it, I was completely thrown off and confused as to how he could pair art and cats together. However, after I reread the section a few times, I came to the conclusion that based off the example that he provided, art can be hard to understand because unless you are the artist who painted the painting or created the sculpture, the meaning is not also so clear, This, perhaps is because there is no direct relationshipbetween the artwork and the person viewing it. The author says that in order to understand why the cat did not come to its owner after being called, one must first not only recognize that there is something directly standing in between the cat and it’s owner, but also that there is an underlying message being commuicated through the cat’s actions as well. This is very much like artwork. We aren’t always able to understand what the art is trying to communicate because there could be another object standing in our way of reciving it’s full message. Thiscould be literal, like a physical object, or something more abstract such as an untrained eye which could significantly inhibit their ability to understand more complex artwork.