I think art will become, like books and film, more individualistic. It will appeal to smaller audiences on different levels, which is how it was 'in the beginning' when sponsors chose an artist based on what THEY personally liked. I believe we are headed back to 'niches' and I think it's actually good for art. Let people who like the art pay for it, and meaningless art will vanish.
Art's purpose to uplift and edify has gone out of vogue. Art's purpose today seems to be to question, shock, and propagandize--but only in a politically correct manner. When people see photos of aborted babies, they find the photo offensive--not the actual act of destroying those lives. A cartoon denigrating Jesus Christ is accepted; a cartoon depicting Mohammed is not. The NEA has encouraged groups of artists to come to President Obama's aid to push the issues he supports, and I find art used to propagandize far more offensive and dangerous than art that stupidly lashes out at those finer things the artist doesn't understand.
I believe art will continue to be used for propaganda purposes. The NEA and federal grants will reward artists who suit their purposes. This will not mean the end of beautiful art. There will always be artists who will create beauty, even if they are derided and must work menial tasks to afford their craft. However, if we continue as we are, mainstream art will not reflect those artists.
Comments 4
Reply
I believe art will continue to be used for propaganda purposes. The NEA and federal grants will reward artists who suit their purposes. This will not mean the end of beautiful art. There will always be artists who will create beauty, even if they are derided and must work menial tasks to afford their craft. However, if we continue as we are, mainstream art will not reflect those artists.
Reply
Oh, and happy birthday.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment