This article is opposing
the views of art critics for whom art is simply a beautiful representation for
the amusement of people and without real consequences that could impact our
world. The author of the article presents the thesis of his argument in the
title: “Can Art Change the World?” He believes that while art may not present
pragmatic solutions to everyday problems in society, it is an inspiration for thoughts
that eventually change the world.
I agree when he writes “art
is a medium or matrix through which one sees the world”. Artists are observers
of events and the impacts that they have in society. Artists have been
recording changes in the world from rupestral art to the French Revolution, and
the Great Depression. They express the sentiments of the society of their times
and provoke thought and reflection in later generations. The author quotes
critic Peter Schjeldahl's words when he wrote “art it's a system for mapping,
reflecting, prospecting, and creating consciousness”. Art not only triggers
emotions, but also feeds reasoning; and it is feelings and thoughts what ignites
revolutions that bring change to the world. As quoted by Cassese,” "You're seeing a static object that has thought and
experience embedded in it, a changeless thing that changes through time"
and in my opinion, sparkles change.
Comments
Post a Comment