The role of the arts is one that has been in question lately. What is the role of the artist? What is art? Is it safe to say that there are expectations of artists? The question comes in who puts those expectations into place?
We have read many novels, poems, and plays this year. We have discussed the purpose behind the art, and we have discussed the overall meaning. What we have not discussed is the role of the artist. Does art exist for art's sake, or do we as a society expect artists to have a social responsibility?
This week, explain the role of the artist. What responsibilities, expectations, and/or hope do you put in the hands of artists? Think about the texts we have read and pull one of them to use as your springboard. Do you think there was a responsibility put on that artist to say, do, or think a certain way?
I believe that the beauty behind “art” is that anyone can be an artist. Whether you are an athlete, a musician, a painter, a designer, etc etc you are an artist for your own passion, or your “art.” I think that artists begin their careers because they want to. For example, instead of majoring in Nursing, I could become a painter. I have made the choice to chose my passion and art in painting; not anywhere else. Art allows different people to express what they love in life; it comes in all shapes and sizes. Although I know that artists create themselves, I also know that once they have made a name for themselves, people of our society expect them to keep up their art. We as a society expect RG3 to throw the football for the browns because he himself chose that as his art; once Vincent Van Gogh started painting, people did not want him to stop. And so, the artist decides what their art may be, but we as a society create expectations of how they must do/maintain the art.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I did not read The Picture of Dorian Gray, I immediately think of it in this context. While Basil chose to paint Dorian, it was Dorian’s decision to turn that painting bad. Lord Henry pushed him to become evil and Dorian allowed it; even though Basil never wanted the painting to turn that way. Sometimes, art is interpreted in ways that the artist did not mean it to, just as in this example. Society depicts it the way they want to, creating multiple forms of the single art piece.
From music to movies to poems to paintings to sculpting to dance to novels, we can look around us and characterize anything as art. Art is a way of expressing one’s deepest thoughts in a tangible way. As an audience, we look for a way to relate to a piece, hoping to find answers to our questions within the work of art. In addition, art is a part of history. It represents society and the various events and movements going on at a certain time. This is where the role of an artist comes in. Artists try and encompass as much of the outside world as they can within their art. They combine their own thoughts and views with current events happening in the world. Their goal is to provide entertainment to society, but more importantly, share what they are thinking or feeling, in hopes of connecting with an audience member to help answer their questions.
ReplyDeleteI thought of The Things They Carried as I wrote this blog. Tim O’Brien, the artist, had many motives for writing The Things They Carried. First, he used it as a therapy mechanism for himself after the Vietnam War. Writing was his way of sorting through his emotions and putting his complex thoughts down on paper. Second, he created this piece of art to help some of his fellow soldiers cope. He wanted his buddies to know their stories are being heard and shared. Most people do not fully understand war and what truly goes on, and O’Brien was there to picture this for us and possibly answer the questions his audience has about war. Finally, O’Brien had the job of making a contribution to history.He incorporated his own personal experience with the events going on in that time. The Things They Carried is now a historical novel (although fiction) and being used in schools all over the country.
An artist has multiple roles, and O’Brien in The Things They Carried took on all of them. One must input their own views, try to connect with others, and ultimately provide a symbol for history.
I think that it is an artist responsibility to tell a story and give meaning to the things that they create. When I look at art, I expect to be intrigued by it and enjoy it (although taste vary and not everyone likes the same thing). But I also expect to learn something from it. I want to be able to discuss the piece, whether it be a painting, book, or play, and find a deeper meaning to it that I overlooked. It's important for the artist to comment on society and the things around them.
ReplyDeleteOne piece of art that we look at was A Brave New World. In the novel Huxley commented on the materialistic side of society and what people value. He demonstrated how easy it would be to control people through sex and drugs. I think that he was making a statement by doing this, especially given the time period. In the 1930s when this was published, the things that he spoke of were more taboo than they are now. However, Huxley had a duty to reveal the errors of society. He thought of a way that would make a lasting impact in the minds of the readers. This is part of his duty as an artist. To create a message, it has to be memorable and you can't be afraid to make the statement. He understood the issues that he commented on, and wrote a novel that was ahead of its time, and has lasting implications. That is another responsibility to the artist if they want to create something truly great. The message that they put into should have meaning that can carry over to future generations. Huxley was able to accomplish this, because the ideals that he was commented on are human nature.
Overall, the artist needs to be able to think of a way to comment on social issues if they wish to make an impactful piece. It also needs to be something that is memorable. It could be something that is aesthetically pleasing or something outlandish, the audience needs to remember it so that they can understand the meaning. I think that is the duty to the artist. They have to add depth to their work that goes beyond the canvas, pages, or stage.
I think the best part about art is that unless you are a professional being paid to create something specific, there really are no rules. However, bands, actors, artists, etc. do have fans that have expectations for them. People expect Beyonce to be releasing new music on a somewhat regular basis, maybe once a year or so. However, it is mostly up to Beyonce to decide what kind of content she is going to release for her fans. She and many other famous artists have somewhat of a mold set for the kind of content they are expected to come out with, whereas a young musician just starting out and hardly known by anyone has more freedom to choose what they want to be and what kind of music they want to put into the world.
ReplyDeleteIn my choice book, The Picture of Dorian Gray, the author Oscar Wilde’s message is that the purpose of art is to have no purpose. Of course, it is fine if the artist has an intended meaning behind their work, but without knowing the reason it is somewhat open to the interpretation of the observer. This goes for paintings, songs, movies- pretty much anything. If you go to see a movie with friends, often you will find yourself discussing how you interpreted different parts of the movie, or what they meant to you. A song may have a big place in my heart and mean a lot to me, and mean nothing at all to a friend of mine. Art can be pretty much anything you do or create, and that’s the beauty of it. Social expectations are definitely created overtime for the more well known artists, but no matter what they put out, it is still art, and still their own.
The artist may have an initial meaning that they intended but in the end the spectators are the ones that choose to interpret it in a different manner. There always must me some reason for the artist to create a piece of art, however that reason could be interpreted differently amongst other people. The beauty behind art is that any is capable of being an artist. I was talking to my mom who is an artist herself, an Indian classical dancer, about how her dance is different from her teacher’s, the creator of the dance form. My mother’s dance teacher composed many pieces of dance, whether it was pure dance or an interpretation of a hindu mythology story. Although my mother learned these pieces from her teacher, she always has her own way of interpreting and presenting it to the audience. I have even compared her to her colleagues and noticed that even when it is a pure dance piece, a pallavi, she uses much more abhinaya, expression, to build a story around the piece. She is more unique in that aspect, because the audience is able to connect with her even better. However, the audience who repeatedly see her sometimes expect her to always show that kind of expression. Anyways, she will continue to interpret the dance in her own manner with expression, but the society wants her to keep on doing it.
ReplyDeleteIt reminded me very much of “The Picture of Dorian Gray” because although it may be a cautionary tale that supports aestheticism, many of things are related to the artist and the art having a purpose. Basil even commented that he had put too much of himself in the portrait so he didn’t want to display it in a gallery. Basil intended the painting to depict his adoration for Dorian’s innocence and flawless beauty. However, once Dorian was corrupted by the evil thoughts of Lord Henry, the portrait took on a form of Dorian’s interpretation. By having the portrait reflect Dorian’s deterioration of his soul, it shows that people can have many interpretations of a piece of art no matter the original meaning from the artist.
Artists, especially writers and musicians (because that's what I'm most familiar with) are expected to have meaning in their work, to contribute to a social message or goal of their choosing. Pop artists can often come under fire for making music that is shallow in meaning and many bands that do not choose to have a message beyond the surface or contribute to educating and bettering society are considered sell outs or no good.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion artists should not be held to such high standards. As we have discussed with almost every single book we have read, the writer often is made aware of entirely new interpretations and philosophies within their text after others have read it. I am reminded of this when I think back to Friday when we discussed Svidrigailov and how his life and development could be interpreted with a positive connotation or a negative one. Dostoyevsky undoubtedly had a vision when he wrote Svidrigailov into the story but he most likely only had one interpretation on his mind concerning what Svidrigailov meant for the morals and the other characters of the book.
The beauty in art is fully realised when an artist creates an authentic piece from their heart, with a firm message that they want to share. True, good art is created when the artist stops creating for the fans and the fanatics but instead just creates for themselves. That is what art is, an expression of an individuals message and feelings. The way that that message becomes hyper-influential and "viral" is when others share their interpretation and the art takes on a deeper form and meaning as it is related to other peoples' lives. That relatability is what propels an artwork beyond the power and dreams of the artist and into the praise of the admirers.
Well, here it is. The question of “What is an artist, and what is their role?” has always intrigued me because I myself question the whether or not I am an artist. To look further into this, it will be easiest to break art into two categories: Commercial and Fine.
ReplyDeleteAs we learned in Digital Art and Photography, the main difference between commercial and fine art is the way and the reason they are produced. Commercial art is priced before it is created, where a business or other entity creates a monetary value for the piece that they would like, and then the artist creates the said piece for what they feel is worth the money. Well, you may be thinking, “How can a person create a piece based on money?” It’s really simple, actually, because time is money for a commercial artist. If I received a contract for $2000, I would put x amount of time into a piece, but if the contract were $20,000, then I would spend much more time. The money for a commercial artist fuels the quality of their work. We see the use of commercial art in Brave New World with the use of the “feelies,” which are movies that physically and visually stimulate an audience. While this art is not created for the sake of “art,” it still elicits a response from the viewers which is what art is intended to do. Huxley writes, “There's a love scene on a bearskin rug; they say it's marvelous. Every hair of the bear reproduced. The most amazing tactual effects,” (3.42). As you can see, the characters in the novel experience a feeling when they go to the feelies (hence the name), so it can be considered an art, in my opinion.
Looking at fine art in Brave New World, however, has a different view. Fine art, while arguably more “prestigious,” places an intended feeling on the audience and in addition, urges the introspection of one’s self. Fine art, such as paintings or even Shakespeare, requires that the viewer relates the piece to their own life and to question their surroundings, which is why it is not allowed in the “new world.” Mustapha Mond says when confronting Bernard, “civilization has absolutely no need of nobility or heroism,” which signifies the danger that fine art can bring (Huxley 17.47). Because fine art does not have a price until after it is created, the artist is free to do whatever they want with their piece, allowing their own ideology to seep through the roots. In the novel, the government is the contractor for the creation of commercial art and thus is able to control what is put into it. In this new world, individuality and free thinking have no place, which is why fine art is not allowed.
Now, does commercial art have a lesser purity than that of fine art because it is “scripted” and does not come from the heart? That’s debatable, but from personal experience, I think it is just as respectable. Some of my greatest work has come from the expectations that have been put on my by teachers. Though I am not being “paid,” my contract is the letter grade that I receive, and so I must accommodate for how my audience will react to the piece. This has forced me to think outside the box and to really dive deep into what I think would illicit a response from the audience.
While I could go on for hours about the context of the artist and art, I think as a general rule of thumb, commercial art is just as “high“ of an art form as fine art, but it requires a different path to create. When creating commercial art, the artist is more so studying the psychology behind other people, rather than digging inside for inspiration like fine art does. For the commercial artist, it is their responsibility to make the audience happy, but for the fine artist, there is no responsibility.
Ooh, I love this prompt! In my personal opinion, art can be created for a variety of reasons, but the idea that encapsulates all of the motives is to stimulate the viewer. Art is incredibly diverse and not all of it will have the same meaning; the paintings I hang in my bedroom are clearly made for aesthetic reasons as opposed to sparking a revolutionary epiphany, and Marcel Duchamp poses philosophical questions with his dark, cubist, Dada paintings and his most famous urinal. Both do their job of implanting a thought in my mind: the floral paintings create a sense of calmness, and Duchamp’s works make me question if life is really as we interpret and allow me to be open-minded about something I don’t see as “beautiful.” And sometimes, art is even made for the purpose of just bringing enjoyment to the artist! I perform music, my favorite form of art, solely for myself and for my entertainment; those who listen just so happen to be overhearing my means of expression (with the exception of recitals, during which I am put on display as a testament to both my progress and my teacher’s competency). As an individual, the only expectation I have for the artist is to create something that has meaning. That is all. Interpretation is completely subjective and bestowing a specific responsibility upon an artist would damper the most beautiful part of the art itself - the meaning and lack thereof. Art can exist for both its own sake, and to inspire (questions, emotions, motivation, etc.).
ReplyDeleteI think The Things They Carried is a wonderful example of my philosophy. In O’Brien’s novel, it does not matter whether or not the story was true, but that the listener learned something and that they are open-minded enough to understand that their meaning may not be the correct, nor only meaning in a text. I do believe that O’Brien is implying that both ideals are true. War stories do have a specific meaning - they are told to spread the message of what combat was truly like. At the same time, they inspire us to see the story not only for what it really is, but how we interpret it. The baby buffalo anecdote is a prime example. The woman failed to see the story for purely what it was, and the only importance she gave it was how it made *her* feel and neglected to think about the actual content. Yet, it still had meaning to her.
Sometimes I think, as humans, we analyze things too in depth and try so hard to force art/events/ideas, etc. to fit a certain mold. We *want* things to have a deeper meaning, but sometimes, they just… don’t. For example, in the Harry Potter fandom, there are a multitude of theories, my favorite being that the characters Severus Snape, Harry Potter, and Albus Dumbledore represent the three Deathly Hallows. Rowling has said on her Twitter that, even though she did not intentionally write the theory into her novels, it fits beautifully within the text. She did not write this deeper meaning, yet people still found it. Her characters exist (at least in this respect) simply because she created them, not to imply some sort of life-changing metaphor. Ms. Rowling’s response is what I think is so wonderful about art: beauty is in the eye of the beholder. You cannot force an ideal onto the artist and expect so much out of one person, but art is so versatile that it can have a different meaning to every single person. Art is both what unifies us and makes us unique.
I think that the role of the artist is to create a piece that hold significance to them and can be interpreted in a variety of ways by the people viewing it, reading it or listing to it. The amazing thing about art is that everyone may have a different interpretation of it but there is a deeper meaning created by the artist. Through their work an artist has the ability open the minds of others and share a message, story or idea. In Tim O’Brien’s novel The Things They Carried, he creates a story to help the audience understand his experiences in Vietnam. His novel allowed him to remember and reflect on his time in the war. Only O’Brien and other soldiers will truly know what it is like to be in Vietnam. It is up to the reader to decide which parts of his story they will believe and what message they will take from it. As an artist, O’Brien had a responsibility to accurately depict his experiences to the audience. Although much of the novel is not true, it enhanced the reader's understanding of the message O’Brien was trying to rely. I believe that O’Brien was trying to display how the misconception and lack of experience can hinder society from seeing what war actually is. Everyone may have a different interpretation about the importance of O’Brien’s stories and his intent for writing the novel but he accomplished the goal of an artist by creating a piece that allows people to create their own meaning for.
ReplyDeleteTo me, art is an expression of life. Art is used to convey ideas and the emotions of the author. Artists create in order to reflect on themselves and the world they live in. The role of any good artist is to relay their ideas and messages to the audience. This audience can be both from the population and the artist themself. When I read a novel, see a play or movie, or other art, I expect to learn something that reflects on the artist's view on life. If I feel as if I don’t see life in a different way, I don’t think the artist was successful. When reading “Waiting for Godot,” I not only felt entertained (and confused), but I also was made aware of what it means to live my life and not spend it waiting. Being able to hold great conversations about the play and its commentary on humanity allowed me to form opinions that now carry into how I live my own life. I believe that in writing the play, Beckett had a responsibility to engage the reader in thought, this thought could be many things and even ideas that were never intended, but nevertheless, the artist must make the reader think. Too many things, especially today, allow people to mindlessly go about life, without asking “why.” Here is where the artist must step in. They must share their own experiences, others’ experiences, and most importantly, emotions in whatever they create. Art is so important in my life, because it has shaped who I am as a person and as long as humans continue to progress, artists will stand at the heart of man.
ReplyDeleteI think artists have a responsibility to simply express themselves, whether it be through poetry, painting, photographing, etc. In my opinion artists create things because they love what they are doing or want to portray a feeling they may have. When I look at art I always try not to put responsibilities or expectations on the artist because what they may have been thinking while creating the piece may be completely different than what I take away from the piece. My personal experiences are unique to me, and because of that I see things differently than others might, so even if the artist wanted to make an idea obvious it may not be the moral I take away from it. I think this idea is portrayed well in The Picture of Dorian Grey because when Basil first completed his painting of Dorian he was worried it would reveal too much about his own personality, but by the end of the novel he came to the realization that people are going to look at his work and not see Basil the artist and his thoughts, but they will see what they want to see in the picture. I think many people in society may try to tell artists to do things a certain way and put the responsibility of making the artist’s piece a social commentary on them, but I believe the only responsibility an artist should have is to make their work their own and express themselves freely without being bounded by society.
ReplyDeleteThe question, with regards to role of an artist, will be answered in many ways. In my mind, the artist uncannily penetrates into something profoundly innate in humans. The artist may entertain, may repulse, may exalt, may depress, may liberate, may oppress. The artist grasps what many humans may only occasionally reach at, may only dream abashedly of, may only think abstractly of. The artist finds a moral battleground, in realms of myth,the unconscious, and the commonplace.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe the artist indebted to society, nor a solitary entity whose greatness is based solely upon the pleasures evoked by virtuosity. The artist can not rely solely upon the one, nor the other. Swinburne’s words roll finely off the tongue, yet it is a bit cold, no? Eisenstein’s films may serve for propaganda, yet the effectiveness is heavily in his aesthetic brilliance. The politics have, if anything, dated the film in a remarkable way. Then there is a man like Dante, a fine union of the temporary and the eternal. Soulful and political. Pleasing to the senses, yet it seizes upon the reasoning in man, and the spiritual in man. An artist of the highest tier.
Commercial and Fine? Over the course of the past few days, many have been arguing in our class over the worth of the two. The typical worn idea that somehow there is high art and low art, is enough to nauseate me. Much of the so-called "high" art, canonized works such as Balzac, Shakespeare, Griffith, and many others, would not exist if the artist had no need of money, or no interest in entertaining common folk. The elitist strain in so many youthful intellectuals is a great leap in the wrong direction. One great step for man, with a greater tumble and crash afterwards. Art is blind to caste, and the muse may come whichever way she pleases. Hunger will bring much out of a man. So what if a man writes a book for money? What is important,the cause or the content? Why must art be reserved for the pampered intellectuals? Rather than occupying our critical instincts with why the artist came out of his shell, think only of the work itself. Time, motivation, personal background: what do these matter to the spectator? Hollywood had fine artists such as Hitchcock and Ford, two men of much greater achievement than some of the so called independents and highbrow artists.
Crime and Punishment, and the work of Dostoyevsky over all, shall serve as a fine example of my ideal of the artist. Not a fanciful player with words, not a Chesterton, nor a Wilde. Yet his use of the inner monologue to develop not only the character thinking, but the ideas, the very essence of the novel itself: in appreciating these we appreciate the brilliancy of Dostoyevsky the writer. Many appreciate the philosopher inherent in Dostoyevsky’s work, the nihilist in his work, the Christian apologist in his work, yet few will appreciate the writer that is Dostoyevsky. He is rough-hewn, unpolished, and more a writer of dialogues than of novels, some will argue. Yet in Dostoyevsky is life, a moral battleground populated and fertile with Dostoyevsky’s imagination and reason. We may find contradictions in him, but we will feel alive with dislike for him, or alive with admiration for him. We may repudiate his thought, we may join him in agreement, or we may wonder what he thinks. He served the world wonderfully as an artist, to be taken or left, to cultivate the understanding and the intuition, to inspire good or evil (and he has inspired good and evil), to enrich the world for better or worse.
That is the sole duty of the artist. To enrich our perspectives for better or worse. Many factors may inspire the creation, may bring him to create, yet little would I want to know of such factors.The books he wrote; that is why Dostoyevsky matters, not why he wrote. Why he wrote: the answer to that question lies in what he wrote.
I believe art can be made both for a deeper purpose and for just being beautiful. Art is open to many interpretations, but often artists do explain the inspiration and reason for their art. I feel like many people tend to expect the artist to have a deep, abstract meaning that supports their art, but sometimes it can be a simple single object that inspired said artist. I also think that artists make their art to be open to multiple interpretations, so there may not be one “right” answer as to why it was created. That is the most beautiful thing about art in any form, it can be made sense of in many different ways. When I think of the interpretation of art, I think of our class conversation of The Picture of Dorian Gray, where we discussed who Wilde envisioned himself as; Dorian or Basil. His writing is his own piece of art, and who he actually wrote himself as is an unanswered question but is still up for debate. He could have been written as Dorian because he is impulsive and got in trouble, or he could be written as Basil because that is who he desired to become. This question and how it is answered, can change how the reader understands that novel because of how they believe the author would react if he was placed in similar situations as the characters. Also to support my belief about art being made for just being beautiful, the idea of aestheticism is evident throughout this same novel. Some pieces of art are made strictly because of beauty.
ReplyDeleteI have mentioned Duchamp in class before, and I will continue to mention him over and over. His artwork, "Fountain," is that of confusion and genius. He has proven that if a sideways urinal with an unknown tag can be art, anything can be art. We have a wall in Mrs. Scheutzow's where we have our "modern art" which contains a piece of tin foil, a cartoon pineapple, a paper towel with oil paint cleanings, and a piece of printer paper with only the word "must" printed very tiny in the corner. I believe that art is any physical representation of meaning, value, and a sense of inherit beauty. Art should not be dictated nor shall it be tied down by rules.
ReplyDeleteAs for the artist I believe that they hold a certain social responsibility, but it is subconscious. When art is created history and society at that point of time is recorded. I have learned this in art history as each painting, sculpture and even architecture holds so much from the culture it was created in. The style, values, and every shape of the artwork connects to a point of history, it documents the morals, thoughts, likes and dislikes of the people at a certain time. So subconsciously this is purpose of the artist, to document history simply by living it.
"The Picture of Dorian Gray" by Oscar Wilde is an intricate, beautiful, but frustrating book. The concept of aestheticism does not still well with me, as a lover and creator of art. I can appreciate art for its beauty and the craft of its creation but the idea that art should be baseless, and without meaning is simply a waste potential. Art should move, not satisfy.
I have always seen art as an expression of self. Thus, the only expectation I have for an artist is that they portray their own opinion through their works. That opinion doesn’t have to be about some pressing social or political issue, it doesn’t even have to be about something important at all. Art can simply be about whatever the artist is feeling at that moment. When an incredible artist creates a work that impacts the rest of our society, that artist did not create with the idea in their head that ‘I’m going to change the world with this’. They simply thought ‘this is something that I feel strongly about’. For example, Aldous Huxley got his inspiration for his most famous novel, Brave New World, when he visited California. Huxley was disgusted by the promiscuity and consumerism that plagued San Francisco, and wrote about a society where these lack of morals reigned. When Huxley changed the world with his book, he wasn’t looking through society for the issue; he was looking through his own conscious. Huxley found the idea for Brave New World through his own experiences and thoughts. The best art comes from passion. If an artist truly wants to change the world and make a difference, they should first look inside themselves to find something for which they have passion.
ReplyDeleteThe role of the artist is unlike any other. A carpenter could build a house, and we would understand its elements and its intent. We would know to enter through the door, or to climb up and down the stairs. However, a painter could throw a square on a canvas and we'd be stumped, forced to think and consider. Art is, in the most annoyingly poetic words I can muster up, a blank canvas. The receiver will get out of art what they make themselves, or allow themselves to get out of it. That is not to say that the artist has no control over the message being received. In the case of Invisible Man, for example, Ralph Ellison uses his novel to explore the workings of racism and its effects. While there are a number of meanings and conclusions a reader may draw from this book, they will most likely remain relevant to the issues presented in the piece. That leads to the question of the artist's social responsibility. Ellison, and others of his sort who use their art to make social commentary on the world they live in, should be credited with their ability to give art the power to catalyze social discussion and change. However, that does not mean that there is a present "responsibility" to which every artist must adhere. Some art is art for the world's sake, but some art really can be art for art's sake.
ReplyDeleteThe artist has many roles and purposes. At times, the artist's job is to make us think and evaluate, as political cartoons do, and at times, the artist's job is to encapsulate us with beauty, as many painters do. As those who read "The Picture of Dorian Grey" pointed out, the painting of Dorian aged while Dorian himself did not, and in the end, this became his downfall. Dorian believed he was destroying the painting but in reality destroyed himself, and perhaps that makes a comment on how heavily we rely on art in our lives without knowing. Depending on your definition of art, art could be everything you come into contact with on a daily basis. Books, the way our classrooms are decorated, the designs on the front of our textbooks, all of it is art. When we destroy art, do we destroy humanity and ourselves with it? Are we defined by art, and molded by it? If so, the job of the artist becomes much more bold - and yet, almost everyone becomes an artist. If the doodle I drew in speech class becomes art that impacts someone, even if it is just me, I am responsible for the response of that person and the impact it had on them, and I am an artist. At the same time, not all artists have a responsibility to make anyone feel a certain way - they are just responsible for the response of the person if there happens to be one. Using my doodle example, I do not expect my doodle to change the world, or even affect one person. Art is whatever it wants to be, and the magnificent thing about it is that it has no expectations, yet it changes our lives daily.
ReplyDeleteArt is the manifestation of life. Whether it be centered around ideas or emotions, art is incessantly used as a symbol of something. Some people, such as Oscar Wilde, hold the philosophy that art is simply a capture of beauty and nothing more, but I could not disagree more because in my eyes, art is a reflection of our world and our cultures. When I look into a piece of art, I expect to extract some sort of meaning from it. When I listen to music, I expect the musician I listen to to help me feel understood about this crazy world that we live in. When I listen to poetry, I desire to know more about the poet and their interpretations about life. When I look at fine art, I expect to think about things in a new light. In this way, I believe that art and the artist who creates it holds the responsibility of sharing something with me. I want to hold a metaphorical conversation with the artist who created the art I am looking at and learn something more about myself and the world; that, I believe, is the purpose of art and the responsibility of the artist. As an artist myself (both in fine arts and in music), I couldn’t imagine taking a pencil to paper or a bow to my viola and not desiring to implement some meaning behind what I create. Art is not only self-expression, but is a conversation between the spectator and the artist. In Ralph Ellison’s “Invisible Man”, there was a tremendous amount of responsibility put on Ellison. Throughout this book, I felt that Ellison held the responsibility of helping individuals who suffer from some sort of invisibility of their own feel understood. Although he took the lens of racially-oriented invisibility, not everyone could relate to that; therefore, he had to convey what he had to say in such a way that people could relate to this idea of “invisibility” and, as I have done, act on that realization of their invisibility.
ReplyDelete