because many of us now encounter almost every region trying to create a work of art that is used to introduce, promote, offer and explain the potential of the area to a wide audience. Certainly without ruling out the elements of art that is in it.
In my view, genre is key. So a work of art that is re-used as a political tool, will change function. Aesthetic pleasure will no longer be its primary goal; that goal is now persuasion. For instance, a painting of Van Gogh, used in an advertisement for a printer to show the high quality of its colour prints is no longer primarily a work of art, but a vehicle for selling a printer. Viewers will as a consequence look with different eyes at the same painting in the advertisement and in a catalogue of Van Gogh paintings.
Aesthetic impact and utility (social or otherwise) are independent variables. They can --and often do-- coexist in a work (or act) of art.
Since art is often a commentary on the affairs of the times, I think art can play a political function and still retain its aesthetic value. Certainly Renaissance art produced by Michelangelo, Raphael, and Leonardo went to support the authority of the Renaissance popes over late medieval Europe; yet no one would deny that these works are artistic masterpieces.
Hello,
There are those people who believe in l'art pour l'art- art for the sake of art. However, using art for transmitting a message against tyrants and recalcitrants is also art proper. The reason is that in the latter case the artistic ingenuity is employed to create a message that supports a noble cause.
Best regards,
R. Biria
Art has its constituents even though it is a dynamic field deconstructing and reconstructing those constituents and the relation in which they stand to one another from time to time. However, the fact that certain basic elements stand out as elements of art and the artistic is indisputable whatever the philosophical side one inhabits on the art for art's sake debate. Art can be political and still be art; all art is actually partisan though not all art is political. Art always stands for something and is as such partisan or to put it neutrally, thematic.
thanks for all the answers. of course this is very interesting to discuss, considering the two are often side by side.
Best regards,
Tirta Negara
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Philosophy
- Esthetics
- Interpretation