Is art (visual, theatrical, musical, all kinds) better with or without a political message?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
this is *your* space to discuss humanities, eb, senior year, and whatever else is on your mind.
Important Links
Dates to Remember
June 15 & 16
Films In-Class
June 18 - 23
Final Exams
June 24
Film Festival
Films In-Class
June 18 - 23
Final Exams
June 24
Film Festival
Want to post?
E-mail us for an invite:
Mr. Reck (arecktenwald@ebnet.org)
Mrs. Deerson (adeerson@ebnet.org)
Mr. Langdon (rlangdon@ebnet.org)
Mr. Reck (arecktenwald@ebnet.org)
Mrs. Deerson (adeerson@ebnet.org)
Mr. Langdon (rlangdon@ebnet.org)
Blog Archive
-
▼
2009
(74)
-
▼
January
(31)
- Is too much freedom a good thing or a bad thing?
- The Punk Paradox
- Prisoners of the Bell
- Sick And Tired
- Speaking Out
- I'm not sure how to describe punk. Although i fee...
- Religious Freedom
- Black History Month
- Nothing Like Freedom
- Inauguration
- Best Way to Rebel
- Life Without Rejection: Not possible.
- Freedom: Exercising Your Rights
- Is Banksy a punk?
- The cage vs. The world
- new food for thought
- Relativism and Its Impact
- Freedom!
- SNL's Git'mo Ad
- Most Free
- Birthright
- Gaining Freedom
- Too Much Freedom
- Artistic Movements
- The Danger of Total Freedom
- Should Art be Political?
- Rebellion
- PUNK
- Relating to the Butterfly Effect
- It is how you finish
- On Happiness
-
▼
January
(31)
east brunswick high school > 380 cranbury road > east brunswick, nj 08816
18 comments:
I definitely think it's better without a political messages. I mean, it's like the poop painting. Everyone has their right to freedom of expression, but that doesn't mean they should always express it no matter the audience. It might create controversy and press, but it's not always positive. Politics is a REALLY touchy subject--some really, really good friends won't even talk about it because it can lead to fist fights, etc. (Most people probably won't understand the reference, but Jimmy Stewart and Henry Fonda were fantastic friends and were such complete opposites--one being strongly conservative the other just as strongly liberal--and they wouldn't even mention the topic because they got into an argument which literally led to a physical argument and punches were thrown, etc.) Anyway, it can totally ruin relationships and somehow I don't think art is worth it. Some people might disagree, but my view is that paintings don't allow any sort of reciprocal interaction.
Also, at some point, political art ceases to be actual art. It starts to become propaganda and campaign slogans. And although that is art, it's not meant to be appreciated in quite the same way.
Kat
I definitely think art should have political messages. I think the artwork will get the same amount of attention as any other piece of art such as music. Even though politics might be a touchy subject, freedom of expression will come into play. Political art pieces won't cease to be actual art because it is actual art, and it can still be appreciated as art and it's not geared to be propaganda, it's just the artist expressing him/herself just like any other piece of art.
I don't think art is better either way really. To me, that's like asking if art is better when it's about individuals or nature or societies or whatever versus not being about any of those things. Art can be a very powerful and effective means to get an idea across to a lot of people. Maybe you just want to express an emotion or a setting, and maybe it's your feelings on a political or social situation. Art is meant to make the viewer reflect on his or her self, and politics is an undeniable aspect of anyone's existence. It's something people should think and form opinions about, and then they should share those opinions with others so that maybe some productive action can come of it. So I don't think that political art is better art, but I do think it's important art, as important as any other kind.
I don't think that political messages in art alone make the piece of art better. It depends on the original purpose of the artist. If he or she is making a political statement through their artwork, then yes, it does become better. If a political message is just in a piece of art just for the sake of putting it there, then I think it makes the piece worse because of its unnesscessary details.
I honestly think that art is better without a political message. I always thought the purpose of art was to be open to interpretation and what you think it should be. Putting a political message takes all of that away.
I don't think political messages in art makes it better or not. I think the original intent of the artists makes it better. Also it is all a matter of opinion if a piece of art is good or not. I feel like if the artist expressed himself in the way he wanted it to be seem then it is good. If he got a point across he wanted to make then it was successful. Although i do think that political message in art can be good. It can be very effective in bringing up difficult issues and it sometime can be less harsh if not expressed fully in words. I think art has such a big impact in our society that it is a good tool to use in politics.
I definitely think that a piece of art is better with a political message. Any artist paints or draws for the intention of putting a message out to the public. It makes their audience THINK about why they produced such an image.
Also, even if the image is repulsive, it still should have a right to be shown (unless it is being showcased illegally). Think of it this way- that piece of art draws attention. It makes the public agree/disagree and debate among the controversy. In reality, these instances are what makes America. A political message is historical and traces the problems we face during periods of time. It doesn't necessarily make the piece more "beautiful", but it does help the image gain recognition and fame.
Art is art: it shouldn't have a prefered topic. It's all about what the artist wants to say: what fuels their creative engine. If that thing happens to be politics then let it be. However, inspiration can come from anywhere.
I think that art is much better off without a political message. Art is supposed to be passionate. When it has a political message, I think that art loses its beauty and becomes motivated by something other than passion. It is as if all politically based art focuses on opression and hatred. While art means something different to every person, I think that everybody has the same purpose in creating it, to release emotions. Art is an outlet for people to express how they feel and get it out into the public. Political art can cause more controversy and rather than just exposing their feelings, it can cause turmoil.
I don't think a political message makes a piece of artwork "better" or "worse."
The merit of a piece of art should definitely be based on the artist's skill (with the medium, principles, elements etc art terms) their devotion to the piece, and the amount of thinking/expressing that went into it.
If a piece of art has an awesome political message, or an awesome message in general, that shows the artist is skilled in the mind...skilled in that sort of thinking.
I mean, it all ties in together in some beautiful artistic way, but I wanted to point out that a political message doesn't make or break a piece.
Once you get the politics into art there will be a lot of uproar about the whole topic. everything is always better when politics are not involved, but once that happens there will be fights about what is right and what is not. But on the other hand there are already political cartoons of everyone and everything. through this expression there will be "toes stepped on" and not everyone will like it.
I think that it all depends on the artist. If the artist wishes to express art with a more political message than so be it. The same goes for an artist who paints for no message. Art is a collaberation of all ideas, not just political or non-political. If the artist wishes to express the painting one way or another than it is up to the artist.
I agree with the ideas that censorship is unamerican and that no person and no government, has the right or responsibilty to regulate what is and is not "obscene." I see art as a personal reflective expression of life. The government should not be involved at all. That's not to say art shouldn't be political. If you feel like you want to express your political views you have every right to. If a political can express their view you should be able to express yours in whatever way you wish to. Some times the most beautiful art are the pieces with political views.
I do not think it comes down to if it is better or worse because I have seen art that is not political and that is beautiful and I have seen art that is political and is beautiful. They are just different types of art. There is usually a point that the artist tries to make when he/she creates. Sometimes it is just to express how beautiful something is and then sometimes it is political. In that way they are similar because they are trying to prove something. So there is no real answer to if they are art is better or worse if it is political
Michael Ignasiak
Iggy
Period 8-9
some art looks better with the political message. for example, graffiti art like banksy, Sheppard Farley (obey), etc, their art was the message because it was illegal to spray paint but they broke the law just to spread their art.
some art however looks better without a political message.
to be perfectly honest, i think that it in the eye of the beholder to think of art as political or not
I wouldn't say political messages make art better. But it does make certain pieces more interesting. I know when I go to museums and there's a political message, I will look at it right away and wonder what the artist is trying to say. I think i would rather look at political art than art that is really vague.
I wouldn't say that art has to have a political message but most pieces do. The reason people create art is because they have something to say and they want people to talk about it. I know that if i painted something political, I would be thrilled if people were talking about it. This means that my idea is now open for discussion. Also, you do not have to agree with what the artist has to say. If you do not like it, just do not look at it. Every person has a right to express themselves however they feel, so long as it does not hurt anyone. People are always going to talk so you might as well give them something to talk about.
I think most people take art at face value, and enjoy it for what it is, not for the message. Messages are nice, but should not be the only factor in judging a piece of art. There’s modern art; random assortments of squares and squiggles and splatters that usually don’t have a message unless they secretly spell out something when it is viewed a certain way. Remember, not everyone creates art for the sole purpose of rebelling. There are artists who become inspired to create something beautiful (compose a score/rhapsody, paint a picture of nature, ect), and that is nice in its own way. Art should not have any less worth if there is no apparent message.
Post a Comment