Has artistic expression ever changed the world?
Consider the cases of the 1913 Armory Show of modern art in New York, the music of Elvis Presley, or any others you wish to discuss.
Art Always Has an Impact on Society
The work that an artist produces always has an effect on the people who receive that art. That is at heart the problem with the deliberate ugliness, cynicism, controversy and contemptuous disrespect which many artists in 20th century America have built into their art in a shallow attempt to grab the attention of an un-cultural public: The ugliness, cynicism, contempt and disrespect leach further into the society. Art should bring beauty into the world; it should improve the world and society's ills by bringing before the public's eye, ear, mind and thought, visions of beauty and harmony. Many artists nowadays say that that is somehow "dishonest," that that is not _how the world is_. Well, there were death, disease, war, injustice and horror in the world long before the 20th century. What these "artists" are really saying is, they don't have the talent or the discipline that artists of the past had -- so that _this stuff_ which they _can_ do, that must be art. _That_ is artistically dishonest.
Perhaps the more pertinent question is how much of an impact society has on art. Thus the long used: "Art imitates life." (Although that doesn't really explain the gargoyles of the French cathedrals. How ugly were those models?!) How the world is is how artists portray it. If that is offensive, then set about to fix the world not the arts. Art is but a mirror, and often we discover that we aren't the fairest in the land and hate the mirror for daring to tell us so.
Through the centuries art has had the power to move the emotions in people. Therefore it has to have an effect on society, if it is not moving to he seat of the emotions then what would be the point. Unless an artist was trying to better his/her skills, why would an artist attempt to make something that was merely mediocre? Let us consider an artist which created a work that reflects a crime in society. When others view the work then they have been subjected to the crime. Whether the media is done in song, paint, literature, video, etc. The people which were exposed to the event through media are now aware of not only that there was an event, these people potentially know how it happened, where it happened, who it happened to, what the circumstances were, why it happened, what went wrong, etc. Ideally the people who were enlightened by the event through the artistic depiction would shun the idea of letting this happen again. Unfortunately not everyone is a stable part of the community, and we have given an idea to a person who is possibly angry, confused, depressed, etc. This angry, confused, depressed, etc. person has been looking for away to "fix" the problem that they believe is the "cause" of their anger, confusion, depression, etc. The enlightened artistic experience has given them a possible means to an end of their dilemma.
In effect, this person not only has a new idea which he/she did not have before, this person might know what went wrong and how to make a better crime because: "they will not make the same mistake of the previous criminal." The now enlightened angry, confused, depressed, etc. person re-creates the crime, and once again another artist feels the need to depict the event through media. The answer to my question is: Yes, Society effects art, and art effects society. It is an unfortunate vicious cycle.
Pete Grey - 03:30pm Jan 26, 2000
Art vs. Society
azjudyann - 07:44pm Jan 28, 2000
Does Society Affect Art or Vice versa
John Zofko - 05:23pm Feb 10, 2000
Does Society Affect Art or Vice versa (continued)
John Zofko - 05:37pm Feb 10, 2000