Sandow: That art — the artistic impulse, artistic creation — thrives in our world as never before. But that much of it, maybe most of it, happens outside the industry we call the arts. We now find art in film, TV, graphic design, fashion, cuisine, children’s books, and of course in pop music. And in other places, too, more than I can list.
When we realize what that means, it’s a shock, especially for those of us who work in the arts. It means that the arts aren’t any longer necessary. They don’t represent art in our society. They of course include some art, including some important art, but they don’t include everything.
2 comments:
I'd love to read more by this author on this topic. I think often we do get into this box where we think that "Art" is confined to things like museums and theaters and great literature. We absolutely need these things (and we have to keep telling ourselves this, because otherwise we have no justification for our jobs), but we should also recognize how important and artistic other things are. Earlier today a group of us were talking about the shows that we watched when we were kids, and I realized that those shows are absolutely essential to our society. If you bring a kid to a museum once a month, they'll learn some cool things and maybe gain a real appreciation for classical art, but when it comes down to it it's the episodes of Spongebob and Pokemon they watch every day that really affects how they see the world and how they interact with our society. The writers of these silly shows have permanent effects on millions of kids, and what they do isn't so different from what we do. This isn't even a bad thing, it's just the way it is. Rather than sit in our cathedrals of Art, looking down at all the peasants who enjoy watching Vampire Diaries, while bemoaning the fact that we have low ticket sales to our 5th production of Romeo and Juliet, we could open our minds and recognize the artistic and cultural value of almost everything around us.
Well I disagree with most of this article, I like the conclusion. Where I stand against (or at least confused) is what the author is defining as art. From the sound of it, he is talking about museums and art galleries as what we are missing. But if that's the case he is trying to make he is contradicting himself in the conclusion. He says that artists need to stop trying to get people to come to them (which I wholeheartedly agree with) and artists should start trying to get their art to people. I like the sentiment but isn't that what TV is? He agrees that a lot of whats on TV and in the world is art. But he still wants people to go to museums to stare at pictures, while somehow bringing the museums to the people. I think we already have and he just hasn't realized it yet. Website like deviantart.com as a great example. Lots of people make and look at art on deviantart (and even purchase it). How is that not what the author is requesting?
Post a Comment