Is "art just art", or is it more powerful than tha

Post Reply New Topic

I started this thread to avoid further derailing another thread, so here goes.

I am of the opinion that all forms of artistic expression (be it drawings, paintings, music, cinema, writing) are an expression of the artist's personality. I am of the opinion that the artist usually wants to leave an impression on whoever is partaking in his artistic endeavors. I am of the opinion that every work of art in existence has a point behind it.

It is common for some people to say that art is "just art", and if somebody has an adverse reaction to it, the art is not to blame. I question that theory. I used to be a strong supporter of it, until a few years ago when I developed a strong addiction to the world of gay porn (in the form of erotic fiction, yaoi, and streaming videos). Too much of that stuff rotted my brain, and I am working on rebuilding my view of how sexuality should be healthy. I have since been opposed to messages that condone unhealthy forms of sexuality, and yes, I feel very strongly about that. And messages like that are everywhere around me in American culture.

If artists of any kind were putting all of their effort into their work only to have it known as being "just art", there would be a lot fewer artists in the world. How could they take pride in their work if it turns out to be thoroughly meaningless?

I am still a supporter of free speech. If somebody really wants to read a perverse manga, or if somebody really wants to read a work of racially hateful literature, they should be allowed to. But dismissing those things as "harmless" is truly naive. There are a lot of art out in the world that was formed out of toxicity.

EDIT - for the record, I am a gay man, and I do not feel that is unhealthy. I feel the depictions of sex I used to subject myself to on a regular basis was unhealthy, but homosexuality in itself is not. Just thought I'd get that clarification out there.

But that was your reaction. Not every one is going to react the same. So why should any form of art be blamed for how any specific individual or group may react to it.

I looked at yaoi cross-dressing episodes as a challenge of endurance once, and I had the opposite reactions to those videos from yaoi lovers. I found it disgusting and disturbing. Even though it's meant to be porn and somewhat erotic, but to me, it had a different affect. This also applies to many others. But regardless, my reaction was my own reaction. The art had nothing to do with it, and therefore, it is not the cause for how we respond to it.

I personally don't see how yaoi is "bad". I've read a bunch of it and there is a wide variety, from really kinky explicit stuff to pure, almost chaste and sweet stuff. None is bad. It's fiction. It's not real. Reading those no more makes you a pervert, predator, or molester than watching horror movies or reading horror books makes you a serial killer.

What's unhealthy for me is healthy for others, and what's healthy for me can be unhealthy for others, and etc......

But I will stick to my guns when I say that "drawings" are more than "just drawings". Any work of art is an extension of the artist's personality.

Yeah, I do get emotional at times. That's just who I am. Less emotional than what I was a year ago, but yeah, it's still there.

I ask forgiveness for the display of emotion I had over the last hour. I'll try to be more careful next time.

I suppose I've never really seen porn as art more a not so great form of entertainment, it usually just grosses me out because who wants to watch two or more other people having sex...I guess I more cringe at the noises that are made during it than get turned on especially if its all overdone like it likely is in most porn. I think art can be quite powerful but I probably wouldn't put porn in that category as that actually does seem pretty meaningless. I mean what is more meaningless than two people having sex for a paycheck so the porn audience can be entertained? Just my opinion but I do agree that art can certainly be powerful and that can be a good thing.

Last edited by Sweetleaf on 05 Jan 2013, 12:29 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Actually, you were alright. I feel I made a wrong judgement of your tone earlier in the other thread.

Art is a form of expression. The original meaning is known only to the artist, as it expresses the artist's perceptions and/or feelings at the time the art was produced. Two artists can produce or perform similar pieces of work, and their pieces will mean something different to both artists.

Art is also dependent on context -- the context of the studio, the context of the artist's memories and current life-status, and the context of the past and current social orders.

The artist's tools also play a role. Tools that feel like an extension of the artist's own body will better enable the artistic expression than a set of third-hand, broken-down, poorly-balance tools (imagine a world-class ballerina dancing in a pair of combat boots).

So the artist produces a "Magnum Opus"; what's next?

The process repeats itself in the audience's minds. Their personal context, their social context, and their ability to perceive the artwork itself (can a blind man appreciate the Mona Lisa?), all come together to influence the artist's intended effect.

IF the artist is in the midst of political strife, and he produces a work of art that addresses that strife, the artwork can gone on to inspire countless generations into striving for a more harmonious social order (Picasso's "Guernica" during the Spanish Civil War).

On the other hand, an artist may produce a piece that is simply pleasant until a major social event traumatizes the populace, and then they take comfort from the piece that they would have otherwise ignored (Enya's "Only Time" after 9/11).

Imo, if the DaVinci's "Mona Lisa" were painted today, it would be just another painting in acrylics, and Michelangelo's "David" would be just another nude statue cast in plaster.

To OP: What is art?

ruveyn

The only proven solution to Bad speech is good speech.

The only proven solution to Censorship is a revolution.

Extending the concept of art to imagery in general... an over exposure to certain images could well influence the viewer into a sense of banality of the content. This could be hardcore porn, deviant (child / animal) porn, violence, murder. When such images seem like an everyday occurrence it seems more likely the individual may act out on those concepts. We all see endless images on TV of starving children in African towns, people lying in bloody pools in war torn countries and we barely notice any more - it doesn't even interrupt or distract us from our TV dinner conversations. 100 years ago people would have been shocked at such images. Today we think it is "normal" for children to starve to death in Africa and don't give it a second thought.

Well, art is in the eye of the beholder. My definition will be different than yours. "Art" is a concept that is different for every person on the planet.

To Vexcalibur, I am not calling for censorship. People are going to do what they are going to do whether censorship exists or not. I am just stating that I believe that some forms of art were made to argue in favor of toxic and exploitative views of the world, and that some artists make their work to argue in favor of such a view. It's my way of saying "art" is not "just art" - some art has a positive impact on the art, some art can generate great change in societies. On the opposite coin, some art is arguably detrimental to the development of the people who partake in it. For example, now I really wish that I was older than 12 before I developed my fascination with sexually exploitative content (in the form of stories and comics).

Art is art as long as the aesthetics don't go neglected. Anything outside art can still be powerful and produce a message or statement that speaks too many; all it takes is a will and the right context. Art at its best is beautiful, extravagant or in some ways creative or boundary-pushing. The social aspect needn't be there at all to mesmerise others.