The first thing that resonated with me was the importance of conversation in the context of art. Often, people ignore the impact a simple conversation can have in politics and turn away from uncomfortable situations, thus becoming a recurring habit to be ignorant in society. Art, however, works in the opposite of this; it forces the uncomfortable in front of our faces and prevents us from ignoring it. What makes art especially successful in engaging a community in a conversation is its ability to be subjective and allowing them to feel safe when discussing a range of different ideas and perspectives.
Through these conversations initiated by art, evolution takes part in the next set of actions. The scientific theory for evolution describes the modification of a species through means of natural selection. However, when describing evolution in the context of modern-day humans, the definition becomes less concrete. The evolution of human beings today does not rely on fitness but a more complex mixture of altruism, intelligence, socialism, etc. Ultimately, humanity progresses through a forward-thinking community. Art plays a huge role in this aspect as it presents ideas and perspectives that are not a part of typical conversations. And as these topics become a part of normal conversation, people are more inclined to act accordingly.
Although art has been heavily associated with society and politics, there is a question that arises when critiquing these art forms: do we judge the art purely based on art or do we consider the social context the art arose from? I feel as though this question has gained more popularity in recent years as art pieces have deviated from that traditional standard of beauty and romanticism and began tackling the provocative and new. For example, Fountain by Marcel Duchamp came about as a highly controversial piece that challenged traditional aesthetics. It has since been regarded as one of the most influential pieces of art in the 20th century. However, when we think of it in purely artistic standards, it is hard to say that it fits those standards.
1. In what ways does art initiate a topic into a conversation when the audience themselves have no prior knowledge of it?
2. If art is used to advance society, how can it be used to do the opposite? And in what ways has that been manipulated by higher figures of society?
3. Where will the definition of art go in the next hundred years? Will it still include social context or will it reject it? Will there be another factor that arises when judging art?
Through these conversations initiated by art, evolution takes part in the next set of actions. The scientific theory for evolution describes the modification of a species through means of natural selection. However, when describing evolution in the context of modern-day humans, the definition becomes less concrete. The evolution of human beings today does not rely on fitness but a more complex mixture of altruism, intelligence, socialism, etc. Ultimately, humanity progresses through a forward-thinking community. Art plays a huge role in this aspect as it presents ideas and perspectives that are not a part of typical conversations. And as these topics become a part of normal conversation, people are more inclined to act accordingly.
Although art has been heavily associated with society and politics, there is a question that arises when critiquing these art forms: do we judge the art purely based on art or do we consider the social context the art arose from? I feel as though this question has gained more popularity in recent years as art pieces have deviated from that traditional standard of beauty and romanticism and began tackling the provocative and new. For example, Fountain by Marcel Duchamp came about as a highly controversial piece that challenged traditional aesthetics. It has since been regarded as one of the most influential pieces of art in the 20th century. However, when we think of it in purely artistic standards, it is hard to say that it fits those standards.
1. In what ways does art initiate a topic into a conversation when the audience themselves have no prior knowledge of it?
2. If art is used to advance society, how can it be used to do the opposite? And in what ways has that been manipulated by higher figures of society?
3. Where will the definition of art go in the next hundred years? Will it still include social context or will it reject it? Will there be another factor that arises when judging art?
Comments
Post a Comment