Answer:
Combined.
Explanation:
It would be weird to have "She walked over to the table. She grabbed a drink. She enjoyed it." Instead, say "She walked over to the table, grabbed a drink, and enjoyed it."
Answer: No, it wouldn’t be a work of art.
Explanation: It wouldn’t be a work of Art because the artistic value is lost since the art loses its subjectivity. When the Artist work was allowed to hang in a public space, it had boundaries and was defined by no rules. It was a beautiful fusion of art and design viewed by all. Design and Art is objective; it’s primary function is to express the imagination in non grammatical ways. Those ways are determined by the artists and those that view it.
If this piece of work belonged to a corporation, it would lose its power of reflection and instead the corporation it belonged to would be in charge of allowing the art piece to reflect or convey a new form of visual rhetoric. This new framework would allow the corporation to communicate their own message, idea, or point of view. Which no longer makes it subjective.
Pertinant traits such as peacefulness can be used in a defendant’s trial if they are being accused of an aggressive act. This also includes any past behavioural tendencies such as shyness, carefulness, working with animals, or even past charitable acts. Hope this helps :)
