I have questions somehow related to the stereotyped artistic personnalities.
It is pretty current to hear, even among artists, that art as to move or change things or people (social worker, rule breaker, etc). We can honestly see that somehow militant or political work seems to often be favored.
For you, is social critique necessary to art making?
What is it with politically involved art that makes it so acclaimed?
Is beauty and poetry obsolete in art?
2 comments:
i enjoy political art and "beautiful art". it just depends on the work itself. sometimes i make things that just make me feel good and other times i try to reach out to the world. for me, following my internal compass usually works better than when i attempt a contrived "statement". i respect both perspectives.
oh i forgot to add that i think the reason political art is popular is because everything in our culture is so sensationalized. people are so saturated with the idea of "beauty" that the thought of stopping to find it in art is for most a joke. the intellectual drive of academia also tends to discredit any notion of imagination or collective spirituality, which really bums me out. if i didn't believe there was some connection between me and the world, be it energy or god or whatever- then i would've exercized my bi-polar, schizo, creative side a long time ago and ate the butt of a rifle, as several of my relatives were inclined to do. i don't think intellectual rigor and spirituality have to be mutually exclusive- in fact, i believe they are intertwined. but maybe that's because it's 2am and i am pooped...
Post a Comment