Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous
however, smaller scale art.. street art.. and the art of individuals such as writing, painting, and music will definitely thrive in this increasingly humanistic environment. This kind of art depends upon sincerity and authenticity, thinks which impoverished conditions tend to foster. Further poverty creates an audience for this kind of art.
|
The argument
against that of course, at least in part, is found in the crash of the 1930s, when people didn't turn to culture that
reflected their situation but rather that which offered them an
escape from it: hence the lavish cinema spectacles churned out by Hollywood during that period.
That's cinema of course, which operates by a different set of rules to some of the other arts. Even so, the idea that impoverished conditions might lead to a more 'sincere' art strikes me as being hopeful at best.
On a slightly separate note, I found this passage in that article interesting:
Why not make studio training an interdisciplinary experience, crossing over into sociology, anthropology, psychology, philosophy, poetry and theology?
Although university Art programmes, in the UK at least, have promoted this kind of interdisciplinary approach for some time now (usually under the name 'comparative studies') the idea has become slightly diluted of late into what might best be described simply as 'theory'. (Roughly translated as art theorists who've (mis)read some Deleuze writing about other art theorists who've (mis)read some Deleuze). I think art would benefit enormously from once again re-engaging with ideas from other disciplines (so long as the dialogue isn't just one way - sociologists looking at art would be nice too). I think it's this potential of looking for new paths and new methods in unexpected places that might ultimately see art becoming a beneficiary, rather than a victim, of the next few years.