I found Youngblood’s optimism for our cybernetic society to be quite flattering. There was one part, however, where he sounded a bit pessimistic, and, in my opinion, defined commercial art perfectly. He states “When we’re enslaved to any system the creative impulse is dulled and the tendency to imitate increases. Thus arises the phenomenon of commercial entertainment distinct from art, a system of temporarily gratifying, without really fulfilling, the experiential needs of an aesthetically impoverished culture.”
When I read this I thought about systems such as Hollywood, or PIXAR, or Marvel, or japanese anime, etc., where all the “style” is generally accepted as the norm and hundreds of people work on a single project so similarly that an unique “artistic style” is lost. But… why are these not considered collaborative artworks?
I was surprised when Alex said, “But, art school is a system!” She brought up an interesting point by saying that. Are we all being taught the same way to the point to where all of our art becomes part of a system. Why is it that our art is considered fulfilling? Is it only fulfilling to us as artists, or can it be fulfilling to our audience as well?
I don’t really have the answers to these questions yet. They’re just wondering thoughts.
No comments:
Post a Comment