In my opinion there are many social benefits to controversial art. For one, anything can be considered controversial to anyone. Basically as long as art can stay controversial, we can remain free in that we can display almost anything. I include almost because I believe society will always place limits and boundaries on what can actually be said and done (displayed). For instance today people can post pictures or drawings of our president that are unfavorable, 50 years ago people wouldn't think of doing that, (and no I don't think that's because 50 years ago more people liked the president at that time.) The other thing about controversial art is that some artists thrive on their controversial work. What I'm trying to say is that if you take away things that are considered controversial, you may very well be eliminating artists while you do this.
Would the world be a better place if all art conformed to predetermined standards? Absolutely not. If this happened all art would end up looking and feeling the same for the most part (if not immediately, then soon after). Art to me is about completely free expression. The minute you start putting rules on art, it is no longer your work of art. From there it becomes art that you made, but with restrictions placed by others. This doesn't mean that if someone tells you to paint a tree that it is no longer your art. But if someone says that the trees leaves must be green, then they've just taken away your perspective, or YOUR art. I believe that conforming art to predetermined standards is almost impossible, it just depends on how obscure you want to go. For instance if you said all paintings must be done on solid objects, that would cover your majority of paintings, but not all. Either way I would never agree with this communist way of thinking.
From this weeks content I've actually learned a lot about myself. I like to consider myself an artist even though the only "artsy" things I really do are make music and photoshop now and again. That being said I like a lot of things that other people don't. I've always enjoyed viewing art and being the one that thinks that basically everything (in life that someone does) is art. However I did find myself a bit uncomfortable with some of the Maplethorpe work. Now I am not homophobic nor do I really have a problem with nudity, but seeing this did evoke some prehensile notion that it was "not good to look at the genetaliea." I believe that this has to do with one's outlook on society and personal insecurities, but when I saw those images I can't say that my first instinct was to not look at the genitals.
-Shawn
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Shawn, Thanks for that candid reflection about week three. It's super that you're openly examining your own reactions to imagery, it's so important for us each to know who we are and, unfortunately, our culture doesn't cultivate that as a 'core' skill. As for Mapplethorpe, I think you're beginning to identify what his work is really all about. In my opinion, his work isn't about seeing beauty in particular objects. It's more about identify how the concept of 'beauty' is constructed and realizing the active role we play in that construction.
Michelle
Post a Comment