|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Jul 16, 2017 14:28:01 GMT
Traditionally art is supposed to represent the public's heritage, i.e. Homer playing the lyre and singing about the Trojan war to an audience of Greeks. It is their history, it is relevant to them. Nature is a constant truth, and good art is about truth.
Abstract or modern art has nothing to do with the public--it is about wealthy people selling to other wealthy people. The less it is relevant to the public at large the better. Thus the more it defies natural or traditional structure, the better. But you end up with incoherence.
Movies have gone the same way. It is less and less about identifying with or communicating truth to the public.
A few years ago some Wall Street folks commissions Demian Hirst to make an artwork for them--it consisted of dozens of decapitated sheep sitting at school desks (and yet there are people on this board who think Wall Street--and the media companies they own--actually care about the public.). I dont know what is more shocking, the depravity of that "art work," or the naivety of people who defend Wall Street bankers--the same folk who sent jobs to China--that's how much they care about the public.
|
|