What do you think art should do in the first place: bring aesthetic pleasure, shock, convey high ideas or what?
Or something else entirely?
Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
Art does not “have to” do anything, but if we talk about the social function of art, it is undoubtedly a certain pacification, softening of morals, increasing public attention to social issues and the harmonious development of the individual, which can be achieved by shocking means.
I think art should first of all evoke feelings and emotions. Not necessarily good, not necessarily bad.
Impressionism does not have high ideas, but it is a beautiful painting, painting as it is.
Expressionism does not have a pleasant aesthetic, as a rule, but it conveys to the person the artist's experiences, reflection on terrible topics.
Why limit art to just one thing? If the work touches some strings in the soul of at least one person-this is already art.
Art is a way to expand thinking, to see reality in a different way. Create other meanings to act consciously.
This is a way to break out of the cycle of biological existence, to become a Human creator
Art does not have the task of shocking, bringing aesthetic pleasure, or conveying high ideas. These are the author's tasks. Art, like nothing else, is the litmus test of what is happening in society. And the author has the right to decide how he / she wants to show his / her vision of art.�
Being in a state of chaos and reflection, postmodernism showed that art “can do anything”. Even though some people don't perceive certain content as art, others may admire it. Self-expression without borders.�
The only function of art is to influence people's minds. And what it means depends on the author, society, time, circumstances, and much more.
Again, let's turn to dictionaries. There are a lot of definitions, but I liked one succinct one: “Art should be of general interest.” That is, it should interest the public. “Aesthetic pleasure”, “shock”, “idealism”, “disgust”, and other definitions are just different manifestations of aroused interest. Therefore, the impersonal answer is: “art should cause a human reaction.” And how this reaction will be expressed, positively or negatively, is secondary.
Art owes nothing to anyone, it owes only to itself. Art is a manifestation of the author's imagination, evoking emotions and feelings. You may like or dislike it, surprise or disappoint, but the main task of art is to touch the minds and hearts of people, to encourage them to empathize or reflect.
The picture primarily affects the subconscious mind, helps a person realize their inner world, it is a way of knowing the world.
It helps a person to love, to know the true beauty, each person in the pictures is looking for something different. Thanks to cortines, a person develops pleasant feelings, interesting thoughts, and moral principles. With the study of creativity, people become internally attractive, rich, and interesting.
Art, against the background of mandatory language and cultural literacy, should openly express the author's vision of both modern and historical events, as well as opinions about heroes and anti-heroes of all times and peoples. Only in this case will art arouse interest, bring pleasure and defend high ideas, or irritate and lead to denial of the author's position, shock the reader with its assessment and make him think about his rightness and, given the existing concrete surrounding atmosphere, sometimes feel the hidden truth of life and make it re-evaluate for himself. Of course, the representative of the art sphere is not a faceless photographer, not a journalist who writes on request, but a witness, but not an unprincipled judge of his time. This requires unconditional and comprehensive support for creative freedom, and only in this case the personal and social significance of any art form is priceless.
First of all, art should bring pleasure.�To do this, in any of the types of arts, you must have at least a little understanding. Musical art gives pleasure to almost everyone.
Art has always been and will always be an artist's self-expression! Poets expressed their attitude to the world, love, nature, and even society – in a word, artists-with a brush, choreographers-with dance, etc. I don't think that a real artist – master is trying to entertain, satisfy and even more shock someone!
I will immediately make a reservation that art cannot be considered something that is produced for material gain or for the public's needs – this is handicraft for art. Therefore, art is a materialization of the artist's inner world. And what associations it will evoke in the listener, contemplator or reader is up to the acceptor himself!
Nothing it should not be in the first or last. It is there. And I am. The way I am depends on the need for art. Like� Tolstoy – why does music do what it does
What is art? The root is artificial.
A person is constantly in contact with the surrounding world. At the same time, he gets different feelings. I saw a woman-one feeling, I saw a beast – another. Rain is the third sense.
Then the man came up with the idea to draw a beast on a stone, and lo and behold, the feeling arose as from a real beast.
The task and purpose of art with the help of various surrogates that replace the surrounding reality is to arouse different feelings in a person, nothing more. It is good for relaxation, for changing your attention and mood.
Art and culture are often equated. These are completely different things, even the opposite. Art is closer to a drug, culture is knowledge, which is divided into three components:
In a healthy society, art should convey high ideas and bring aesthetic pleasure. And someone may need drama to survive the catharsis. Art should change a person in a qualitatively better way. Art for man, not man for art.
All of the above. Art should be and should be diverse.
As in Nietzsche's “Great things remain for great people, abysses-for the deep, tenderness and tremors of horror – for the sensitive, and in general everything rare – for the rare.”
Rather, an understanding,a deeper understanding that a person is a unique creation,and in fact there are very high goals, and everything is oh so simple.Take your eyes off,so to speak, the bowls of food,and make you think not only about a soft pillow
You can argue for a very long time on the topic: what is the main purpose of art?? Cite a lot of mutually exclusive opinions and conflicting points of view. There are a lot of art history nuances and historical conflicts here. I am reminded of a beautiful statement by Bernard Shaw, which, in a very concise way, formulates the main task of all true art: “Art should give you the strength and desire to live.” I can't vouch for the literal accuracy of this statement of the great playwright – but the meaning is exactly like that! Perhaps this statement contains something that our art historians and cultural scientists cannot find and agree on-a universal criterion for separating true art from pseudo – art, art that is “spirit-lifting”, elevating, uniting everyone, from art that is degrading, degenerate, narrowly elitist for the elite.
If we are talking about art, and not just about creativity, then of course, the main task of art is precisely to help a person grow spiritually.