A question for uncle Nietzsche

Oct 06, 2009 18:57

Can art created out of poverty still be uplifting to its observer?

Leave a comment

Comments 4

whiterevolver October 6 2009, 10:19:23 UTC
I can't comment on Flirty Uncle Nietzsche's behalf, but I think so; if only as a showcase for the human spirit.

(And I mean that purely in a courageous and determined way, not religiously..)

Reply


anjo_de_rapina November 1 2009, 22:40:08 UTC
yes. there are sculptures made out of trash, architectural enterprises built where before were slums and photos of starving swolen bellied african children always make us feel that our situation is not as bad, so they are uplifting.

Reply

masha_999 November 2 2009, 01:39:11 UTC
Hm, I meant poverty in a specifically Nietzschean sense - poverty of the spirit, the opposite of overabundance. Poverty as a lack - of will, of joy, of desire, of energy, of strength. And then - art as an expression of that lack, or at least as something growing out of it, perhaps created to mask it, as an attempt (perhaps a successful one!) to supply whatever is lacking. Must art itself be crippled if it grows from such circumstances? Or can such art be as uplifting to its audience as art created out of abundance? - Does it perhaps depend on the audience? Say we have the spiritual equivalent of trash-sculptures. Is it possible for the "wealthy" viewer (again in a spiritual sense) to raise himself above them and to use them to recognise that his situation isn't as bad? We must remember that there is a difference between our hypothetical trash-sculpture and, say, a tragedy - that is, a direct portrayal of misery. The great spirit can put affliction onstage and still celebrate life and elevate the spirits of his viewers. But can someone ( ... )

Reply

anjo_de_rapina November 2 2009, 16:36:50 UTC
robert ryman may have the answer.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up