The Death of Art
Original, perhaps creative thinking has seemingly all but disappeared, where the typical westerner takes up a similar approach to learning prescribed by Benjamin Franklin: imitation. To what extent are we products of our time and our space? Ultimately, these spatiotemporal categories impose limitations on what we learn, how we learn, how we think, how we communicate ideas...but where then does true art fit, where does the artist who truly believes in the power and transcendence of art fit into postmodern schema -- the limits of contextual relativity? While pondering these questions, my observation of what society notes to be 'art' in the most general sense, has more to do with social value, more to do with the imitation of what other before have done. But have we embraced the originality and creativity that true art notably required? Or did originality and creativity ever exist, ever transcend our limitations? Observing concerts, operas, going to art galleries, looking at photography, breezing through graphic novels, staring at t-shirts...what strikes me is the imitating of elements characteristic of particular social spheres, wherein identity lies within the realm characterized by prestige, wealth, individualism...
In school curriculum, thinking for oneself has been waylaid until one can properly note what historians, philosophers, and other novelists and artists have stated before. Oringinal thinking just is not good enough any more apart from traditional thinking -- yet another constraint. But how many constraints can one have, culturally, historically, familialy, literarily, logically before a person's psyche snaps and revolution against imposed limits ensues and what is sacred breaks free from the chains of institutionalization?
Is then there an inherent need characteristic of human beings for creativity and originality to somehow teleologically explain their natural condition? And if so, when will the next Art revolution take place? In what form? How violently? And what could this mean for the varying human spheres on planet Earth? How might this affect how we think? How we teach? What to value?
Is art dead? One can make that argument...though I think there may be enough evidence that it only lies dormant.
As long as the sacred exists (perhaps until secularism eventually kills it and an eschaton of sorts ensues), then art, creativity, and originality have their existence in the mystery characteristic of our sacred constructions. [But even further, if one considers art to be teleologically normative, then as long as human beings are doing ethics, art will have a place.] Thus mystery and art have consummated their marriage under specific rules, yielding offspring of different shapes and sizes and values...all valid in our postmodern thought, though some historically shunned or even killed. But many children survive under the covenant umbrella of mystery. They imitate their adopted parents, perhaps enlightening them, perhaps merely living unnoticed. And when they are threatened by others, we defend ferociously our own children...we always seek to understand them...we impose our own limitations upon them, punishing them if not obeyed...and we love them...
...such is the perception of art, and such is the perception of the sacred...our adopted children, though more likely our own veiled dogma, fed by our misplaced love. True art then, in my opinion, is not truly created, or truly interpreted without true love placed not in the act of creating, not in the interpretation of that creation, but within the sphere of mystery on a quest to unveil art's true origin.
In school curriculum, thinking for oneself has been waylaid until one can properly note what historians, philosophers, and other novelists and artists have stated before. Oringinal thinking just is not good enough any more apart from traditional thinking -- yet another constraint. But how many constraints can one have, culturally, historically, familialy, literarily, logically before a person's psyche snaps and revolution against imposed limits ensues and what is sacred breaks free from the chains of institutionalization?
Is then there an inherent need characteristic of human beings for creativity and originality to somehow teleologically explain their natural condition? And if so, when will the next Art revolution take place? In what form? How violently? And what could this mean for the varying human spheres on planet Earth? How might this affect how we think? How we teach? What to value?
Is art dead? One can make that argument...though I think there may be enough evidence that it only lies dormant.
As long as the sacred exists (perhaps until secularism eventually kills it and an eschaton of sorts ensues), then art, creativity, and originality have their existence in the mystery characteristic of our sacred constructions. [But even further, if one considers art to be teleologically normative, then as long as human beings are doing ethics, art will have a place.] Thus mystery and art have consummated their marriage under specific rules, yielding offspring of different shapes and sizes and values...all valid in our postmodern thought, though some historically shunned or even killed. But many children survive under the covenant umbrella of mystery. They imitate their adopted parents, perhaps enlightening them, perhaps merely living unnoticed. And when they are threatened by others, we defend ferociously our own children...we always seek to understand them...we impose our own limitations upon them, punishing them if not obeyed...and we love them...
...such is the perception of art, and such is the perception of the sacred...our adopted children, though more likely our own veiled dogma, fed by our misplaced love. True art then, in my opinion, is not truly created, or truly interpreted without true love placed not in the act of creating, not in the interpretation of that creation, but within the sphere of mystery on a quest to unveil art's true origin.
posted by Timcom at 8:30 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home