Upon reading The Futurist manifesto I felt a wide array of emotions towards much of what was being said. I initially seemed to be able to understand Marinetti's position on the museums and various institutes of academia, or at least where he was coming from. It seemed like this was a man calling for a change in focus. The concept of living in the past seems rather pointless to me personally. What has happened cannot be changed so the only use any recollection of the past is to modify and help alleviate the present. I agree with the ideology of always looking forward. Marinetti I felt uses such inflammatory language in his manifesto in order to incite a certain disdain for these past laurels that are so heralded in these places of academia in order to motivate the reader to snap out of their infatuation with what was and focus on what can be.

Where I feel Marinetti lost me in particular was when he coined the term futurist. There are 3 aspects to time. The future, past, and present. Living in the future is just as futile as living in the past because the future is directly correlated to action in the present. If you constantly dream about what could be or hope for something to come from your future, you wont be able to actually modify the one thing that is accessible for us to change, the present. Thus in my opinion this should actually be titled the Presentist Manifesto. 

Art is raw inspiration, but inspiration dissipates when you give it a timeline or direction. Some of the best art ever created was purely spontaneous. If the people Marinetti was hoping to reach took on all the tenants he laid forth for them in his manifesto these self-proclaimed futurists would be too attached to what could be and lose the valuable opportunity to change the present. As he continues you see that although he described this thought process as being futuristic, he misinterprets what the future is, in my opinion confusing it with the present;