I believe the word "art" is becoming a broader term as time goes on. "Art" no longer solely refers to paintings and sculptures. Art has expanded to include photography, graffiti, abstract sketches, and more. But now it's 2018, and digital media, the evolving monster, continues to grow. Now, things like Instagram profiles and blogs on Tumblr are becoming somewhat reminiscent of works of art, at least in the world of the internet. Many internet-lovers refer to these "artistic" accounts as having an "aesthetic."
I do think these aesthetically pleasing accounts have artistic qualities about them, but is it right to consider this art? Does the internet and social media change the ways in which we perceive art? Does social media create limitations or opportunities for art and the definition of art itself?
a great place to start for whoever may choose this topic is Roger Scruton's "Why Beauty Matters." In it Scruton argues that there are certain parameters that have been and should be set on what is considered "art," as well as who can and should be considered an artist. He discusses what he sees as the breaking points in the artistic world which lead to art deviating from what he considers to be the true purpose of art. Since this topic asks to consider what should and should not fall into the category of art, as well as changes in artistic perception, it seems like Scruton's work would be an ideal place to start when considering the issues presented in this topic. – ees7 years ago
I think there can be and often is a distinction between Art and something that is simply aesthetically pleasing. Patterns on carpets, cushions and neckties can be aesthetically pleasing, but I think we'd seldom call them Art. Although ultimately whether something is Art is in the eye/ear of the beholder, for me Art has to convey something of the human condition, however abstract. It should resonate personally with the beholder at some deeper level. The Scruton documentary is interesting. I have a bit of a connection with it in that it uses some of my music (the music that starts at around 48:55 is mine, you can hear the full track here: https://soundcloud.com/broomoid/annotations-iii-closing ). Ironically, I fairly strongly disagree with his central premise that contemporary Art is not concerned with beauty. I think Scruton presents an idea of beauty which is very narrow in scope indeed, and anything that falls outside it is discounted as not worthy of consideration. But the idea that contemporary artists by and large do not concern themselves with balance, with composition, with tone, line, weight, texture and with the same artistic rigour as earlier artists, albeit applied in markedly different ways, is simply not true. I believe the best sort of discussion about Art ideally opens some additional doors to those that partake, but I believe that in his documentary Scruton is closing more doors than he is opening, and that's a missed opportunity. – Broomoid7 years ago
It seems all of my favourite writers, actors, poets, artists, painters, etc… have had some guiding pain in their life that really came out in their work. Take Van Gogh or Elliot Smith, these guys expressed their pain through art, and beautifully. But what about those happy artists, or the artists completely content with life? Are there any? One that comes to mind is Bob Marley. What are your guys' thoughts on the matter?
Creativity does appear to be produced by angst. – Munjeera7 years ago
Good topic suggestion! It might be worthwhile expanding this idea to take a broader look at the artist/writer's background and upbringing as well, in order to gain some understanding of the origin of that 'pain'. For instance, you mention Van Gogh (who happens to be my favourite painter) - not many know that he was named Vincent, after an earlier sibling who died before he was born, so try to imagine how a sensitive soul like Vincent would feel, growing up, knowing he had been named almost as a replacement for his dead brother. – Amyus7 years ago
I think everyone in life has had their share of pain. Pain is different for different people, but all lives have ups and downs, no matter how steep. people draw from their human experience to create art, which I personally think includes pain. I don't think you have to be depressed to create something special, but pain is often inspiration for innovative creations. – alyssabrown57 years ago
Edmund Wilson certainly saw a connection between suffering and art. He was a famous critic who wrote about that connection in a series of essays under the collection title Wound And The Bow: Seven Studies In Literature. – JamesBKelley7 years ago
I think the important thing to remember in these cases is that art is often known for imitating life, or as a way to relate and provide insight into aspects of our life. Of course there's also the obvious - art is an escape from ourselves. With this in mind, wouldn't it be a fair assumption that life goes through a series of ups and downs, joy and pain? I personally think it's important to have a balance of the two to get a whole artistic image; I mean without knowing the great happiness we're missing out on, we can't purely work with pain. But why is it easier to create and relate to pain - is it because it gives us the freedom to be dramatic or feeling heard in an attempt to get back to reality and appreciate everything else? I don't know if anything I just wrote makes any sense, it's very late at night, but I find the topic idea very interesting! – GabB7 years ago
I think in order to create truly great, memorable art, the artist, of any kind needs to be in touch with a deep emotion that they are sensing and feeling. Art of any type, whether it is music, literature, poetry, painting, or sketching, derives from deep inspiration and in order to be counted as memorable the creator needs to feel that inspiration deeply. I don't believe the artist needs solely to be in pain to create a great piece of work. Extreme love, happiness, bliss, and admiration have also created great pieces of art as well. However, pain, suffering, are simply avenues that help people connect to deep emotional roots and serve as excellent sources of inspiration for artistic creativity. – TimothyCSvenson7 years ago
I believe the idea that suffering leads to great art is a myth - and an incredibly harmful one! The association of creativity with pain seems to lead to the romanticisation of mental illnesses. If people see mental illness as having an artistic and therefore economic value, then there is less motivation for mentally ill people to be treated.
The trope of the mentally ill artist also further stigmatises mentally ill people by suggesting they need to "redeem" themselves by having certain skills. I do think this is a very interesting topic and it would be great for someone to keep the stigma of mental illness in mind when discussing the pain of artists such as Van Gogh and Elliot Smith! – Indigo7 years ago
I do not believe that in order to create great art you must feel immense pain but I do believe that the great artists we know of had the ability to detail their pain in such a way that their consumers could do nothing but hold on to their work. We are aware of these artists because of their extreme behavior. After-all, our society is obsessed with pain and death. For some reason it interests us. Those attitudes keep us grounded. – Chelsiah7 years ago
Tennesse Williams was a tortured playwright- some of his best work stemmed from the worst moments in his life. Art often reflects reality and so ones reality (if troubled, optimistic or otherwise) is inherently embedded in the art. Art is subjective. However, the question may be if this is conscious (an overt statement) or perhaps simply a coincidence. An artist might produce beautiful, melancholic work and be totally at peace with the world. – danielleraffaele7 years ago
Often it's the pain of love or loss that leads artists to write such emotionally intense stories or poems.
James Joyce's autobiographical 'The Portrait of an Artist as a young man' shows how the painful experience of finding his true identity shaped him as an artist. Yeats in 'Meditations in Time of Civil war' stated that 'only an aching heart conceives a changeless work of art.'
– SarahPhilip7 years ago
Nice topic! Maybe, to be more specific, you could question why consumers are drawn to artists who are more "in pain" as you said, rather than the ones who seem to be"happy". – Gabby7 years ago
Well what can happiness create? An involvement of bright colors perhaps. Although, pain and misfortune experiences create this cataclysmic still among a storm, a blooming flower embracing the sun whilst its roots are mangled in jagged rocks.It is beauty! If one is happy then they are content, if they are not then chances are they will explore more as to why, immerse within the feeling. Some enjoy their demons, and let them takeover but those are just my two cents. – Febrilflor7 years ago
This generation has seen a reinvigorated interest in the representation of women and minorities in the arts past and present. Entire industries are racing to be more inclusive in terms of both fictional characters and real-life labor, to avoid stereotypes and sexualization in favor of agency, to make up for previous manifestations of prejudice, and to give more due recognition to women, nonwhites, LGBTQ persons, etc., for works of merit. To what extent is this a genuine cultural reckoning, and to what extent is this (speaking from the extreme polar opposite perspective) a cynical corporate ad strategy targeting millennials which isn't really meaningfully changing the wealth-geared, elitist, social Darwinist neoliberal reality we live in? Where do we see this trend creating new stereotypes as opposed to new, truly refreshing narrative paradigms? One potential avenue for the writer to consider is the sustained neoliberal negligence towards issues of class, particularly in Trump's America–as opposed to issues of sex, race, ethnicity and sexuality, discussion of which has no doubt been rightly rejuvenated.
The media loves sequels. Name almost any popular action, animated, or other movie from the last decade and you can pretty much bet it has a sequel or is getting one this year. The same is true for television shows. For example, Fuller House serves as a sequel to Full House, although it's something of a reboot, too. Books that were not meant as series also get sequels. The wildly popular Wonder (a personal fave) has some short story sequels from the POV of other characters besides Auggie.
Sequels are great, and there's obviously a huge market for them. But do we always need them? That is, do we always need or want to know what's next, or can we be content to let characters live happily ever after, as it were? What about writing our own sequels – besides being a ton of fun, do fanfictions and headcanons fill some sort of creative void? Discuss.
I like this, so long as the focus is on the creative merits of sequels, rather than a look at the financial incentives to produce them. The two are inexorably linked, but the latter topic has sort of been done to death. – John Wilson7 years ago
The media loves sequels? No! The production companies love sequels to swell their bloated bank accounts and, in my opinion, have been (and still are) guilty of pumping out any old garbage because they know there are fans who are desperate for more and so will even accept something that doesn't come up to the originality and/or quality of the first. Conversely, I have no problem with genuine sequels taken from source, or imaginatively created sequels that stay true to and further explore the world of the first, but when we get to the point where a James Bond sequel is based on an idea based on a novel that Bond happened to be reading in one of the original books, I despair! It also makes me wonder why some fans of a certain film or TV series can't simply accept that the story ends here - why do they need a continuance? One example I can use is a You Tube comment in response to the 2012 anime film 'Ōkami Kodomo no Ame to Yuki' (released in the West as 'Wolf Children'); she wanted to know what happened next. Why? The story is complete as it is and had she been paying attention to the story then she would have understood that there is no need for a sequel. – Amyus7 years ago
In this day and age the arts are one of the most freeing career paths a person can choose, from drawing and painting to animation and sculpture the field is vast and full of potential. Discuss why people devlue the art of learning these subjects, often expect work to be done for free, and then celebrate the art as beloved. Do we value the work and undervalue the artist? Is this ideal changing? Discuss how this mindset and belief that art is not of valur affects the "little" guy while allowing large main stream corporations to become highly monetarily successful.
The devaluing of art is constantly present in creative communities and it's a vicious cycle. The mentality is that "the smaller you are (reputation-wise) the less you can charge" otherwise "you'd be bigger," and "you have to work for it." And this thought process stifles one's ability TO grow while in a constant lack of proper support. Rather than pay a small creator for the time and effort they put into their work, people flock to brand merchandise or cheap widely distributed prints. What it boils down to is a lack of understanding on the part of the consumer for the market: they try to equivocate the price of the products while completely unaware of the resources spent to make them. "Why pay $20 for this when I can get it for $5 somewhere else." The need to make money in any form, forces small creators to accept low wages or to be paid in "exposure" because it's that or nothing, which in turn justifies the devaluing of their and others' art in future. So the cycle continues. Since art is so accessible, and there are so many artists out there, it's hard to stop this from happening. I'd love if the article included ideas on how to combat this mentality and educate consumers on where their money is going when supporting small creators. – Slaidey7 years ago
I also should have added that I do think the attitude toward smaller creators is shifting in some regard. Mentioning Patreon and sites which help support creators is relevant to the topic and could be worth mentioning :) – Slaidey7 years ago
Put side-by-side subjects in medieval art appear generally as identical, flat and featureless, two-dimensional portraiture's with white pasty faces. By referring to Jean Clouet’s Portrait of François I King of France, 1525-30; Hans Holbein’s The Ambassadors, 1533 and François Clouet’s A Lady in Her Bath, 1571 humanist thinking in the Renaissance period let artists embark on representing people physiologically unique from other humans. Realizing also that the artists’ works mentioned are a valuable part of history. The artists’ resurgent innovation begins in Italy where it is in respect to God’s handiwork of the human being, the body. Leading the way to a worldwide impression of days gone by which is in portraits of people with individual traits.
The new movie "Loving Vincent" is a celebration of Van Gogh's life. Write about the film that made history as the first fully painted feature film as an international effort.
By sheer coincidence I happened to acquire a copy of this film recently and watched it this evening. 'Loving Vincent' is a thing of beauty and an astounding project to undertake. I can only imagine the technical difficulties those involved had to overcome, but the end result is well worth the time and effort. Perhaps the only suggestion I could add to your topic suggestion is to also look at the artists involved in the film making and how they approached the subject matter, what research they did and what insight they (hopefully) gained into the art of Vincent Van Gogh. – Amyus7 years ago
Barack Obama recently selected Kehinde Wiley to paint his official portrait. Consider how Wiley's works compare with those of other presidential portrait artists. In what ways can we consider Wiley's work to be in a continuum with other presidential portrait artists? How can we anticipate his work will diverge from the traditions of presidential portraiture?
I think you have a great topic here. It's specific and being posted at a great time. I am excited to read this one. Everything about the Obama Administration was about change and creating new ground for future generations to stand on. Having his presidential portrait created should be no different. His portrait will define what America is, so comparing Obama's portrait to those before him is important. I also think looking at his legacy to the changing art industry may be interesting. – Emily7 years ago
