Life imitating art: Philosophy Forums

Page: 1 2

Life imitating art

noscholar
mumvoyeur

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 08, 2009

Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 36

Posted 03/26/09 - 05:45 PM: Subject: Life imitating art	#1
'Art imitates life' has been the mantra of modern art for decades validating Abstract Expressionism in the 1950's and Pop Art in the '60's. But now life imitates art in the proliferation of reality TV shows making American Idols into movie stars, hinting at the truth of Andy Warhhol's prediction that, in the future, everyone will be famous for 15 minutes. What becomes of Art when so many aspire to be it?

vykk_draygo
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 26, 2008
Location: Minnesota

Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 177

Posted 03/27/09 - 11:08 AM:	#2
It becomes universal. Which is exactly as it should be. Art shouldn't be something that represents only the elite or talented, it should be everywhere, for everyone.
"But are not the dreams of poets and the tales of travellers notoriously false?" H.P. Lovecraft

CDJR
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 23, 2009
Location: In the external world

Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 39

Posted 03/29/09 - 03:39 PM:	#3
Oh dear, noscholar. We must be on the same brainwaves: I just posted a topic also about life imitating art imitating life yesterday and I apologize for not searching the threads before doing so. I speculate that every time life imitates art, which has imitated life, we are to some degree furthering society- whether we know it or not and of a small degree or a much more substantial degree. I see that as art's purpose and when masses start branching off of one source of art, I suspect that given a great degree of advancement for each added branch that society starts to evolve exponentially.
"I reject your reality and substitute my own" -Adam Savage, Mythbusters

noscholar
mumvoyeur

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 08, 2009

Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 36

Posted 04/03/09 - 05:41 AM:	#4
vykk_draygo wrote: It becomes universal. Which is exactly as it should be. Art shouldn't be something that represents only the elite or talented, it should be everywhere, for everyone. What, then, of quality?

noscholar
mumvoyeur

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 08, 2009

Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 36

Posted 04/03/09 - 05:52 AM:	#5
CDJR wrote: Oh dear, noscholar. We must be on the same brainwaves: I just posted a topic also about life imitating art imitating life yesterday and I apologize for not searching the threads before doing so. I speculate that every time life imitates art, which has imitated life, we are to some degree furthering society- whether we know it or not and of a small degree or a much more substantial degree. I see that as art's purpose and when masses start branching off of one source of art, I suspect that given a great degree of advancement for each added branch that society starts to evolve exponentially. The reality TV phenomena allows participants to be characters in a made-for-tv drama/sitcom. I'm not so sure this escape from reality is a good thing.

CDJR
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 23, 2009
Location: In the external world

Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 39

Posted 04/03/09 - 02:10 PM:	#6
Escape from reality? But in some way or another, all fiction is based on reality. Just because it may go unrecognized in short-terms does not mean it is no good. It could be a long-term good and we may never recognize it's effects in such terms. Even if it does not eventually lead to a revolution or something, it could be good: just not on a big scale.
"I reject your reality and substitute my own" -Adam Savage, Mythbusters

vykk_draygo
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 26, 2008
Location: Minnesota

Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 177

Posted 04/04/09 - 05:41 PM:	#7
Low quality doesn't make a piece "non-art." Quality is in the eye of the beholder. Monet and Van Gogh were both marginalized in their time because their paintings were thought to be of lower quality than the more 'realistic' classic styles of the period.
"But are not the dreams of poets and the tales of travellers notoriously false?" H.P. Lovecraft

Altair
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 09, 2009

Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 23

Posted 04/09/09 - 12:04 PM:	#8
I think some art attempts to reproduce the dream the civilisation tries to prevent recognizing. Quote: "Art shouldn't be something that represents only the elite or talented, it should be everywhere, for everyone." Not for people who doesn't want to reach out for the unknown.

noscholar
mumvoyeur

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 08, 2009

Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 36

Posted 04/10/09 - 04:01 PM:	#9
vykk_draygo wrote: Low quality doesn't make a piece "non-art." Quality is in the eye of the beholder. Monet and Van Gogh were both marginalized in their time because their paintings were thought to be of lower quality than the more 'realistic' classic styles of the period. Quality is in the eye of the beholder? Quality is not a relative entity. We differentiate between better and inferior on sound non-variable criteria. Craftsmanship, complexity of meaning and visual (or aural) construct are absolutes in the determination of artistic quality. Monet and Van Gogh were unappreciated only because the art consumer in the 19th century was unable to understand the quality they were offering. Edited by noscholar on 04/10/09 - 04:07 PM

noscholar
mumvoyeur

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 08, 2009

Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 36

Posted 04/10/09 - 04:10 PM:	#10
Altair wrote: I think some art attempts to reproduce the dream the civilisation tries to prevent recognizing. Quote: "Art shouldn't be something that represents only the elite or talented, it should be everywhere, for everyone." Not for people who doesn't want to reach out for the unknown. I'm interested in examples of art that attempts to reproduce the dream....

Page: 1 2

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.