"Metaphor" means "to carry across." That is what artists do: carry across their vision(s) of the world into images or sounds. And that is what we are here to discuss.
I am sure art has limits. Limits of the human imagination, which, I hope is nearly limitless.
Yes, but that's not what I'm asking. Can art, as art, make anything happen outside of itself as art?
Well, I read a study of visual art that focused on political activism. Turns out, the visual art really didn't make an impact on changing anyone's mind. Political art, although fun, seems to preach to the choir. A few novels have changed public policy. 'The Jungle,'change policy, but not the same way the author intended. 'The Jungle' only pointed out what the government should have been doing in the first place, protecting people from being poisoned. 'The Jungle' didn't result in this massive move to socialism. I think some art translate into religious text. Homer's poems/art were religious text, but later became just art. Where as the Bible's text is art and religious text. I think art can cross disciplines. Technologist have used art to make an object more appealing, but then they find that appeal ends up serving a function. Many designs that were beautiful, turned out to be urbanomic or aerodynamic.
Likewise, Kundera's novel "The Joke" seemed to have inspired the student protests. However, the author of "The Philosophical Disenfranchisement of Art," Danto, seems to think that even literature doesn't actually do anything, and that it was a myth created by Plato that we've all accepted. He apparently doesn't consider the effects of the Bible and its poems and stories. Also, it seems that people around the world, throughout history, have agreed with Plato (even without reading him) that literature especially has political effects. Why not the visual arts? Is it because literature makes for more explicit arguments? Could there be visual art that has this kind of effect? If so, has it been done? If not, why not before (and including) now?
Post a Comment