In modern day society, the dimensions of art and entertainment are endless. Some consider that, in essence, everything is a piece of art. Others look at art in a more conventional method, restricting it to certain entities such as painting or photography. However, one of the ways it is looked at in this chapter, is through Tolstoy's argument that good art communicates the intentional feelings of the artist to mass audiences. I think Tolstoy has some good points here, but I don't agree that good art is just communicated to mass audiences. Good art can often be appreciated by a small group of people or even just an individual too. Sometimes it is not recognized if public, sometimes it is a private piece of art, and/or sometimes it's something that only a select few seem to understand. For example, as an artist myself, I've created many works of art - through painting, drawing, sculpting, dancing, writing, and other methods. But to say that my art isn't good solely because it does not communicate to mass audiences would be false. I think other artists would agree with me. Besides, who is to say that there is only one definition that constitutes "good art"? What is good? I believe that what is considered "good" should be determined by individuals based on their own experiences, views, and opinions on certain topics. However, the ethical dimensions and implications that accompany art and entertainment are often the ones that attract responses from mass audiences. Take, for example, Steven Spielberg's film Schindler's List, discussed in Case 10-D; it elicited a huge response when it came out - deemed by some as one of the best and most raw movies of all times. Perhaps its success could be measured based on the innate presence of ethical values such as: tenacity, dignity, sufficiency, equity, and community. Or perhaps it is measured based solely on the history and precocity of story being told. Spielberg presented the movie in a way that touched the mass audiences in a holistic way...however: how do you compare art such as Schindler's List to art such as Andy Warhol's? Each affects audiences in different ways; there's no way to determine a concrete solution as to what makes something tick versus the other.
However, some communications scholars argue that it doesn't matter how art does something, it's the way in which they do it, which they often believe is a method to "reinforce the status quo". But as the chapter discusses, some argue that one needs to have an "aesthetic" attitude to fully comprehend and appreciate art - that is: an attitude that values close and complete concentration of
all the senses and summons both emotion and logic to its ends. Is part of this aesthetic attitude acknowledging philosophical guidelines for their artistic decisions? I feel that artists utilize such philosophical guidelines unintentionally; the golden mean, categorical imperative, and utility principle all play a role in art. They serve as the actor, action, and outcome - three components that are crucial in the equation of art. I think it's important to keep those in mind when analyzing such an area. Furthermore, with such diverse views swimming around, how do we decide what is art, entertainment, and/or news? With areas such as Cop TV, reality TV, documentaries, and the movies, there are so many ways for the dimensions of art and entertainment to be discussed. As our society puts focus on and emphasizes the media more and more, the line continues to become grayer and fuzzier for what is what. The answer to the above question is not black and white, and most likely never will be. My only hopes is that art will never be underestimated, its innate power is something to be proud of and something that I believe can be used in a wholly fulfilling way if we let it.
No comments:
Post a Comment