Art and social dialogue

[Thorondor_]

I had a most interesting discussion about art with a workmate this week. We came to the conclusion (surprising one to me) that art is a very efficient form of transmitting messages, across most of the communication barriers. I even had to agree that there is a (bidirectional, if I have to mentio) dialogue between artists, who transmit the artistic message, and the receivers of it, as art changes in time, in purpose, method, form and message - even if this dialogue takes form over long periods of time.
However, one shortcoming is that, considering the time which is necessary to create the artistic message and the time to transmit, art is very ineffective in mobilising and organising for immediate or elaborate action.
Any opinions on the subject?

[HLGStrider]

Well, I am not a big fan of any sort of art (writing, painting, music) done purely to make a statement. There has to be more to it than that. There has to be beauty, interest, and talent. Therefore, I am not crazy about art as a social medium. I look at it and I see a lecture rather than a thing of beauty, and I think, "Huh, whatever, let me get back to DaVinci, when things were beautiful as well as potent."

Art will always serve a dual purpose because it does have the ability to tell a story, to transmit an idea. However, if you want instant communication, art isn't for you. For one thing, I think true art has a timeless quality to it, and it must last beyond something that needs immediate address.

Just because an artist can create something that expresses an idea doesn't make it right. Artists are talented people, but they generally posses no greater understanding of social issues than non-talented people. It is a mistake to believe that just because a man can paint his side of an arguement when I can only state mine that that man is right. Therefore as a social medium, art's quality is mainly emotional. It stirs up rather than convinces. Occassionally that is good. Some issues need a visceral uprising. On the other hand, I'll take an essay that explains the issue over a picture of the issue any day.

I never agreed that a picture was worth a thousand words. A picture is just usually more interesting.

[Thorondor_]

Well, I am not a big fan of any sort of art (writing, painting, music) done purely to make a statement.
I would say any art is a statement - I hope this is true even for the modern/absurd art, I could never figure that one out. And even though I never delved too much in the subject, there is a good connection between beauty and morality.
Therefore as a social medium, art's quality is mainly emotional. It stirs up rather than convinces. Occassionally that is good. Some issues need a visceral uprising.
One thing I disliked in certain forms of art is when artists are exorcising their inner problems - at our expense. But I guess it's a problem of personal sensibility, perhaps some folks like art with a "twist".
I never agreed that a picture was worth a thousand words. A picture is just usually more interesting.
I think the original chinese saying is that a landscape seen with your own eyes is worth a thousand words. You know, I pretty much like the way some chinese artists worked: they got drunk, they would spill paint randomly across the canvas (sometimes with their own hair!) and afterwards, they would meditate on what appears on the canvas and start painting from that.

[HLGStrider]

Then they'd wake up next morning with a hang over?

I used to paint quite a bit, and my instinct has always been to make a nice picture, but I always have believed, "Art should only be practiced by the poor souls who can't help themselves." Not the exact quote, but you get the idea.

In art, are we discussing just painting/sculpture, or do you want to include literature and music? I was including at least literature, but I don't know as much about music as someone who played a clarinet for ten years should (you can fake anything after ten years).

[Astran]

Thorondor is right. Art is a medium, which artists use to transmit a message to the audience. An example is Dario Fo in Italy. however im not a fan of him, he has been trying his entire life to wake up the working class and make them revolt against the capitalist system. Also, a lot of revolutions have been started by a play, or other art. I know examples, but i dont know the english names of them, and most of you won't know em. :)

[Arlina]

Some artists do have messages in thier artwork, but those messages are normally personal. Sometimes, artists, for example, paint a picture that means a lot to them, but won't care if anyone else get the message, I mean, the artist could see the image one way, and the viewer another. I believe that the image to somebody, be it the artist or the viewer, will mean something, even if it isn't suppose to. When I paint, it's noramlly either something that I like, or something that is great importance to me in some way. When I take pictures, however, is normally from the artist view, (ie: lines, form, shape, color, balance, etc).

Well, that's just my view on it.

[Thorondor_]

In fairness, I started this thread and the "Tolkien and morality" one with the same idea in mind: artists who help the society by their work.
@ Elgee
Your statement that: "Art should only be practiced by the poor souls who can't help themselves." is true only to a certain extent; art, like prayer or the books, should be abandoned only when it no longer suits our current conscioussness - because at that level we see beauty and meaning in everything (and we are in everything).
"are we discussing just painting/sculpture, or do you want to include literature and music?" I am reffering to any sort of art. [I mostly liked the daoist craftsmen or the zen archers, who elevated their activity to an art degree.] I played violin for some seven years, but, darn, did I hate it or what. But I guess it influenced me positevely to a certain degree.
@Astran
Can you give examples of events which were started/catalyzed by art? I think this is turning out as a very interesting topic.

[HLGStrider]

I know of one failed attempt to use a Shakespeare play to insight rebelion against Elizabeth I. It only ended up getting Shakespeare in trouble.

I heard one artist state that a certain performance of a Chekov play (I can't remember which, the one with the famous line, "I am bored, bored, bored.") insighted the breaking up of the Soviet union, but I think the person who said that was being facetious.

The idea that art should only be practiced by those who can't help themselves is from Irving Stone's novel The Agony and the Ecstasy. It describes art as both a joy and a pain, something that when practiced fully will do the artist harm while giving them pleasure. Something that will consume you. That is a great book.

Writing for me has been a joy and a frustration, and I know I haven't given it my full attention. I work full time, take time to goof around on here all day, I am not a "writer" in the professional sense of the word and only half one in the artistic sense.

For me art is a form of expression, first off of beauty, second of joy, and then if you really have a political statement you want to hammer home, go ahead, but it had better be a nice picture/song/story in its own right, or else I am NOT going to listen. I will read a story if it is a good story even if it has a political stance I disagree with. I will not listen to a political rambling even if I agree with it if it is put in the middle of a lousy story.

Therefore I think I will put skill before message any day with any sort of art. Who cares if the message is great if the work stinks? That's been my problem with the majority of Christian literature. Though I am a Christian, I hate most Christian fiction. It's generally poorly written. There are various reasons for this, and I know somebody is going to post a list of good Christian literature. I probably gave up on the genre too easily, but it is just an example.

I think when art becomes "all statement" it loses something.

And really, saying something doesn't do much. It is only doing something that can truly help people.

[Thorondor_]

It describes art as both a joy and a pain, something that when practiced fully will do the artist harm while giving them pleasure. Something that will consume you.
I would say that this is art performed solely at an individual level. When the energy consumed in the process is solely individual, related to the ego, then yes, you consume yourself. But one could connect to a higher leve through art (and going beyond ego is both a means and a purpose), and that can be very nurturing.
I think when art becomes "all statement" it loses something.
Yes, when art appeals only to the mind and not to the soul anymore, then it looses its magic and it's a mere communication.
And really, saying something doesn't do much. It is only doing something that can truly help people.
I would say that sometimes you have to challenge attitudes in order to get significant action going. Debates can only go so far in challenging attitudes, because sometimes people are too rooted in half-knowledge. But art can easily challenge even this kind of ignorance, as it can appeal to the soul.

[HLGStrider]

Actually, I think this stage in art is reached when a person gets out of themselves and begins to gain happiness only through art. Art becomes that person's life and a person ceases to see themselves outside of art. Art can therefore take over and occupy a persons soul and become an idol in some ways.

It's like the artist in the Great Divorce who longs to paint heaven. When he looks at beauty he can only see paintings whereas before he had painted because he was capturing beauty because it gave him joy.

Art gives release because it lets go of things that are within us and allows us to get whatever emotions we have out in a productive way.

Art is a very emotional thing.

Now, I don't like shock art. You know the "let's throw something disgusting on a religious symbol and see who faints" or "let's strip down in public and see who stares." To me it is both an insult to my sensibilities and intelligence. It is the equivelent of someone who starts swearing in an arguement.

[Thorondor_]

Actually, I think this stage in art is reached when a person gets out of themselves and begins to gain happiness only through art. Art becomes that person's life and a person ceases to see themselves outside of art. Art can therefore take over and occupy a persons soul and become an idol in some ways.
The fact there is attachment to art still implies ego and the ego energy I reffered to, which consumes the artist, because the only energy that is used is the personal one, and not the universal one. If the artist keeps relating to the universal aspect through art, beyond attachment, then there must come a time when perfection is achieved, and it is the universal aspect of the artist that is expressed through art, with little if any trace of the individuality (ego) of the artist. In that case, the dialogue through art is as complete as it can get.

Now, I don't like shock art
Neither do I, but a certain element of surprise must exist in an art work, so that our mind doesn't immediately disqualifies it as something that is already "known".

[HLGStrider]

Well, everyone likes something eye-catching.

I actually don't see "ego" as a bad thing. It is a necessary part of our being. We need to be individuals in order to survive. I see selfish obsession with the ego or belief that the ego is prime over the other as a bad thing, but I think there must be an element of self put into art. Things need to be personal before they can effectively be universal.