The other day I was watching a one hour long Spanish soap opera. This is unusually because I don’t watch much television. Television is an old stone age media which tries to keep your attention but doesn’t provide any kind of quality programing. This “novela” used the old formula of the girl growing up poor and catching the eye of a rich guy, eventually, they become a couple and marry. Why does the audience watch the same story over and over again? You can say that the plot appeals to people or that they don’t have alternatives. I think the ladder must be right. The producers of the show just don’t want to experiment because they know what works and are too risk-averse to tinker with anything new. Oh well, our lost. But wait! We have so many other alternatives and they all can be found on the Internet. Youtube, ted.com, forat.tv are just some of the examples of internet video which will eventually replace television.
I am optimistic on the growth of content but I also recognize that the hit-soap opera or the hit-movie will be with us for long time. The hit satisfies our craving for a story which titillates our emotions and grabs our attention. The plot, unless it is a mystery, is known or you can guess it with a high probability of being right. The stories have happy endings. I like happy endings, most people probably like happy endings. I wouldn’t invest my time, energy or money on entertainment which would make me feel bad at the end.
This brings me to the purpose of Art. But, if I am to dabble on this subject ,I must first define it. Art is artificiality. Ok, I got the noun,verb, and object but what do I mean. What I am trying to do is expand the domain of art from what originally comes to mind. It isn’t just a painting, sculpture or music, but also clothing, a jet plane, and soap operas. The difference between the stuff lies on the purpose of each human made artifact. Even though, we can categories all of it as products, which would lead me to a discussion of economics, I want to focus on art that has a purpose not meant as a utility. What is the purpose of a painting? Is it just mere decoration or something to contemplate and criticize. And what of the creator of the painting? Did what he imagine materialize, or did he just did it for the sake of it?
First, before I try to answer these question, let us look into the two philosophies or art and the domains they occupied. I am sure there is more theories of art but I am going to use these two because of the relationship they have on the two domains of thought I am writing off. The peculiar and the general, the individual and the Society, the subjective and the objective. These are examples of what one perceives and what one knows is out there but is abstract. Take for example the individual and the Society, much digital print and blood has been spilled over which is more important. Or which holds a higher superiority over the other. But the fact that their is arguments over these subjects leads to the recognition of conflicts unresolved. And throughout History the pendulum of power has swung either way or stayed static. The same applies to “Art for arts sake” and what I’ll name as “Classic Greek”.
Oscar Wilde was one of the first proponents of the ideas that the purpose of art was entirely subjective and the only reason for its existence was as a medium of expression for the artist. In “Salomé”-great play by the way- he has his characters describe poetically but differently the moon. He wanted to show the audience that art, the spoken word in this case, was subjective. And it was only a matter of who was uttering the words and his or her emotional mood. This is the dominant art philosophy today. It is individualistic, non-conformist, shocking, self-promoting, it is only concern with the freedom of self-expression disregarding the consequences of the art. Andy Warhol, Bob Dylan, Elvis, these are some the names that come to mind. They threw away the manual and follow their own way either led by reason, relativism or a drug induce haze. The point was that there was no point or many, you can go left or right up or down or nowhere at all. This is individual liberty taken to is highest ideals both positive and negative. I am not going to praise or condemn this philosophy but rather just describe it. We do live in a increasingly individualistic age- hey, I have a blog about me-and technology has facilitated the access to the tools needed to express yourself without the hassles of physics or any measurement of consequences.
The other side of the coin emerges when we think of the consequences of “Classic Greek ” The Greek had a overall philosophy, but it pertains to art also, which relied on the idea that there was truths, if not absolute at least probable to a high degree, on this world. That a fact, like a line was a line, wasn’t just in terms of what one thought subjectively was a line but what we can measure and prove to everybody was, indeed, a line. This lead to an overall aggregation of knowledge base on evidence and proofs. But how does this relate to, say the Acropolis of Athens and Art? Because with the confirmation that there was natural truths and techniques to measure them it allowed the ancient Greek artist to edify structures which didn’t come from his mind alone but where more concern with its natural aesthetic and place in the neighborhood and city. The poet, to use another example, thought of the impact of his work or at least how the poem fit in the overall picture. He thought of the society as a whole. His medium wasn’t just a form of self-expression but a conscious effort to show, stir, entertain, or enrich the society he lived in. He thought of the public and what form of art might benefit it. Natural objective aesthetics which everybody can recognize was a giving truth. The aim was to enrich and help the public transcend this world through art. The right art has the power to lift the user to transcending highs and leave him in catharsis and with a new perspective of the world, one hopes. The problem, of course, is that with the emphasis place on society and the overall picture there wasn’t much room for the solo thinker or if one existed, he ran the risk of getting censor. And if society is above the artist then this can be taken to extremes by controlling society through symbols and limiting the availability of different ways of seeing things. Also, the art, for the most part, was local and folkie. It wasn’t concerned with other cities or cultures unless it was Athens. All this is what I call the “Greek Classic” way. Again, I don’t know if it was a better way of doing art or just a highly romanticizes ancient way.
Sometimes, I hear some Americans say that the U.S.A has no art, or is trash entertainment, or that Starbucks is all we got for art. This I believe is wrong because they are thinking of art in the “Greek Classic” way. What America has is “ Art for Arts sake” art and, for the most part, new European art, also has self-expression as the motivator. But the modern or post-modern art has unique attributes. First, there is art that binds a large amount of the public together. Be it the blockbusters, like Star-Wars, Madonna, Michael Jackson, Disney ,The Office or whatever is the Hit-Parade. And the other more cottage art which is to a large degree generated by the Internet. Think of viral videos, machianime or the communities you create on social networks. These are subcultures not the mainstream but, nevertheless, worlds of their own. The art we create is for our own pleasure, subjective, and networkie. Oscar Wilde ‘s view of art is dominant today and he has been vindicated by becoming a brand of his own, indeed, he is very popular, specially amount the Morrissey and The Smiths crowd. Henceforth, the art of any post industrial society is individualistic and only concern with exhibition of the creator.
—-I’ll edit this mmm..post later, since this is a blog I leave it as is for now.
No comments:
Post a Comment