Good intentions vs. artistic quality?
I have been wrestling with this issue this week and would like to know what you all think:
What is the criteria to judge a mural, a dance piece or even an abstract painting that is meant for social change? Are the good intentions of the artists more important than the artistic quality of what they produce? Is there even a need to separate art between socially-engaged and not?
Tags: Social change, aesthetics, artist, artists, culture, evaluating art
Replies to This Post
-
Permalink Reply by Abby Levine on
-
I think that all art should be judged by the same criteria: If it functions as an organism. If it engages the viewer. I make politically engaged art, not "confessional" art. If people get the message of my work, which is seductive visually, and, I hope, not strident or necessarily obvious, it is their choice, not mine. Once the work is exhibited, it belongs, in a sense, to those who are interested in it for any reason they wish to graft onto it or interpret as the artist's intention.
Can art effect social change? Artists are not a special class of people. They are affected by the same forces as others. They choose to express themselves in a certain manner. The "frame" in which the work is presented has a lot to do with the way the work is perceived (whether it is in an elitist setting or not, how it is labeled, artist's statements (which are generally unbearable to read, and often ignored) Those who pay attention to it, and are moved by it, are a very small part of society, and hence, unlikely to, unless they are part of a larger social movement, change anything.
-
Permalink Reply by Alexander Sutulov on -
I believe to be a rhetorical question revealing the absence of art. Today practically anything is a potentially artistic expression susceptible to the syllogism of "nothing is art". You don't require labels or categorizations, it's more about consensus. For example, memorable mural art such as Rivera's Zocalo epic, is a gathering of the collective consciousness about an ideal, dream and mythology which became the understatement of social realism. The key aspect is relinquished to the fact of a beautifully visually narrated story. You may disagree its content, and yet its aesthetic value is capable to mobilize, transcend in time. You may integrate in the process of creation as many people are required, but in order to transcend, the artistic conception must sustain as a whole. Otherwise, we fall in the same predicament of inconclusive rhetoric.
-
Permalink Reply by Juliet Mevi-Shiflett on -
Picasso was able to to create a painting which expressed the need for social change yet the work is executed with skill and modernity and it is beautiful to look at...and is unique. example "Guernica."
-
Permalink Reply by J M Fahey on -
You rise a very interesting point here. I know few other works of art as politically charged as "Guernica" .
Yet, the valid question is: ¿Did it cause social change?
NOT AT ALL. Franco did not leave power one second earlier because of this picture. Not one split second.
He was in power for around 40 years, only left when he died.
Guernica only found a home in Spain when the Socialists came into power.
The basic point is this: being exhibited, praised, pampered, whatever, BY THE RULING GOVERNMENT is not my idea of Revolution, no matter what its political sign is; rather it looks as cosmetic change for the voters, with no real economic change, which is what happens in Spain, it continues to be as ruled by Banks, Corporations, Media Empires and Stock Exchange as before.
As a side note, when I visited Spain could check that "the People" had only the faintest or not at all idea about the Guernica, even less about its meaning, and the only visitors at the special museum where it's exhibited were tourists and the occasional School group which had it in its "obligatory visit" list.
-
Permalink Reply by helge olle janssen on -
Too few people 'understand' art for it to be 'effective', certainly in the context of immediate social change. However, art is always subversive - even if only because it can create beauty out of anything, even out of chaos - and as such carries an eternal power 'for transformation' in the aesthetic sense. As such true art becomes a beacon for those who seek inspiration/truth/enlightenment. One only has to look at fascist regimes, for their suppression of art. Anything that questions the status quo leads to the undermining of their power. Art, therefore is certainly effective in this mysterious way and should never be underestimated.
So, if ever there was a 'good intention' of any artist, it must surely be to create beauty? It is history that judges that beauty.
'Art' then, is a bit like human rights, or the human spirit. It can be suppressed, it can be controlled, but it can never be denied!
Politics on the other hand is always about control and power. If not this party, then the other. Some countries are lucky if that power seeks the betterment of all it peoples. Surely a sign of 'advancement' is when the latter is applied. And the way things stand historically, that seems to be about the best one can hope for! Surely it is through education that the betterment of humanity can be achieved, but when human psychology (generally) is controlled by greed and power one gets tied up in the seemingly eternal swing between 'good' and 'evil'. I do not see this changing in the foreseeable future.
-
Permalink Reply by Ramon Alviso Mendoza on
-
Just a few questions that come to my head as I read this
If we can agree that all art may not be subjective you have one answer. If you agree that art is objective, then there is another answer.
Consider these points of inquiry:
1. Has the quality of art ever been given standards with metrics to defer to?
2. What makes art socially relevant and to whom is it relevant and why?
3. The same questions would apply to culturally significant works of art.
4. What makes art, relevant from the point of technique?
-
Permalink Reply by Nico Daswani on -
all very good questions, Ramon- they tell your point of view! "To whom is it relevant and why" is a key question. Thank you for this
-
Permalink Reply by dance without borders on
-
i keep coming back to these questions as a producer. there is no universal language.
-
Permalink Reply by Andre on -
read most of the comments posted, mostly good points. one point missed, the art market, meaning "monetary value". Regardless of statement, is art good because someone is willing to pay a lot of money? I think today the market is very disproportionate, like an over-priced sports figure or a hollywood-celeb. It is a one winner take all attitude. In short, the statement is very important and it crosses all quality styles of work. I believe the quality and statement issue has to do with how accomplished an artists is and there is a higher price bracket for the accomplished.
-
Permalink Reply by Revelation on -
Did you ever know someone who disliked color, who did not have a favorite color? Even black and white are absolute colors. Color is the root of all things dead or alive. Color is who and what we are as living beings if we know that or not. Art is color and color is art. I tried to imagine art without color, without meaning. Then I tried to imagine meaning and to whom. I tried to imagine the most simplistic art like a swipe of paint, only one color on a white canvas and what can be read into it. The conclusion: Even if art is created for self, when it is seen by the first person other than self its meaning begins to change...it begins to grow in its "social" arena.
Regardless of the judging part of art, I would prefer to leave it to people who have the misconception of having the right. For me, I love color(s), I love texture(s), I love thought(s), I love cause(s), I love, I love, I love... and even sometimes I hate! Even in my hatred if I look hard enough I can find beauty.
For an example: Even if the color swiped on the canvas was white, still there was intent and whether the intent was what I believed it to be or not, still there was intent.
In art shows (competitions), the judging criteria is written in black and white. We could make it up as we go along. It is the artists' right to chose to enter an arena where they will be judged, by whom and against what criteria, and actually I think most artist want to hear what the world has to say about how their art makes them feel. Intentions are futile often times as people see what they want to see, feel what they want to feel, and quality is also a subjective, not objective finding, unless of course what is sought is concretely written in black and white.
Art as social? What color(s) are you? - Attachments:
-
Permalink Reply by Revelation on
-
Kazimir Malevich, Suprematist Composition White on White. 1918, oil on canvas.
Malevich as a philosopher. To really strip it down to the bones, here's what a Suprematist thinks:
Nothing is more important (or "supreme") than feeling.
You cannot use art to produce feelings if your art is actually of something that exists in real life. Only master forms can produce feeling.
The square is the ultimate master form.
All of this talk about art producing "feelings" and how you can't paint a rose or a bunch of guys in a boat and produce these "feelings" because only lines and squiggles can do that may remind you of the artistic philosophy of another artist...
badarthistory.blogspot.com/
-
Permalink Reply by RG Associates on -
This opens up an enormous discussion, lol!
From my direct experiences a community arts project facilitator, volunteer participant, etc... the 'process itself' becomes The Art-In-The-Moment...and idea Product-Orientation often contradicts The Process.
In addition, as the age of participants may also vary in socially-focused art... critique of their abilities and passionate and noble effort are best left out of the picture. Often, these enthusiastic and willing participants are also volunteers; thus, their time, energy and devotion to a cause are motivated by factors like their sense of 'Gifting, Personal Healing, Community Building, Team Spirit, Addressing Their Own Issue-specific Goals, Learning, etc...'
In my humble opinion (and more for the purposes of our having a stimulating discussion here...) what can also be addressed WITHIN this same question, is...
Can venues ( public spaces, private galleries, electronic media-based forums, and other un-charted settings ) themselves be more appropriately re-purposed in such a way that 'how visual art is hosted, promoted, endorsed, sponsored and represented' is more conducive towards our opening the doors for new and exciting forums that enable further development of the arts; and more specifically in the context of your question... The role of The Arts in Social Change?
RGA.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
Stay In Touch
Follow Create Culture
Get Started
© 2013 Created by Create Culture.
<