Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mallus" data-source="post: 632188" data-attributes="member: 3887">Celebrim, isn't the private meaning a work of art holds for a person established upon viewing/experiencing the work? How would any artist know what meanings{s} a piece holds beforehand, except to themselves? Unless the subject of the work was so banal as to have only one possible reaction {say, a cute puppy. Everyone loves puppies}.If you're suggesting that artist only create works with the lowest common denominator appeal {and thus the least private, most publically agreed upon meaning}, then you're talking about the end of the personal experience of art, and pretty much the functional end of art itself. And this isn't a aesthetic/critical point I'm making. I'm operating under the simple belief that the easiest way to lose a target audiences interest is to give them exactly what the think they want. The result is formulaic product that fails to interest the audience because they've seen it all before. Think of the current state of pop music, blockbuster films written by comittee, etc.But then you've reduced art to a mere collection of {assumedly} pretty images with broad, consensus meanings. In other words, you've stripped art of any ability to convey a little of what its like to experience the world from anothers point to view. To see the way another assembles meanings, experiences emotions, just... lives. And replaced it a big canvas full of images of puppies {note: I really do like puppies}.And consider what would happen if working artist did exactly what you suggest and created nothing but what they preceived their audiences wanted. There'd be no innovation. No new forms. Do you like jazz, the blues, rock and roll, hip hop? How would any of these come about without individual artists, personally expressing themselves?Sorry for the hyperbole. I'll retire my soapbox for now...</blockquote>

Verification