|
|
Post by Tara on Jun 17, 2005 16:51:52 GMT -5
Do you think art in general is not given enough credit?
|
|
|
|
Post by saintwiggy on Jun 17, 2005 16:59:31 GMT -5
I am not impressed by puny works of man. There is only value in something in which man has assigned.
Man's greatest technological invention/breakthrough pales in comparison to the life of the smallest gnat that God created.
|
|
|
|
Post by PhantomsPandora on Jun 17, 2005 19:31:16 GMT -5
no it's really not. It's taken out of schools. I love looking at paintings, I'm one of those museum people.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tigress on Jun 17, 2005 21:21:13 GMT -5
It isn't and it bothers me. Art is viewed as an extracurricular activity or hobby, leaving people like myself, who are or aspire to be artists first and foremost, at a loss. In my experience, if a child wishes to be a teacher or a police officer, he/she is encouraged, but when a child wishes to be an artist, he/she is generally met with a chuckle or some other nonsense. This is one of the reasons I don't intend on sending any potential children of mine to public school.
|
|
|
|
Post by PhantomsPandora on Jun 17, 2005 21:53:29 GMT -5
Yes, it's one of my pet peeves. I was in Band, Dance, and Drama when I was in high school-we always had to pay our supplies , even stuff for sets. We were told we didn't have enough funding, but the athletic teams got everything they wanted. Our school didn't have a choir, which I would have loved to have joined( they did try to start up a gospel choir, but that didn't last long because the school wouldn't spend money on it). We had to go to everyone of the football games because I was in band, and most of us did it out of support. But when the band had a competition, or the drama had a play to put on, no one mentioned it in the school's announcements. I just thought it was so rude, and I got to be honest, it made me resentful of anyone mentioning we should go to agame to give them support.
Music and the arts are good for development just as much as athletics. I can sit and look at a painting for so long, wondering what a persont hought when they painted it. I can go to a ballet and admire allthe work that person has put into making that step seem effortless. I can go to a play or a musical and feel more moved there than any moment when a team won a game. Maybe it's just the way I'm made.
*and now, she steps off of the soapbox*
|
|
|
|
Post by Tara on Jun 18, 2005 6:31:55 GMT -5
Wow... that's pretty bad. I don't think art is given enough credit at all. Especially in the U.S. here. A teacher of mine told the class how he went to go to see this poet read his poems and the place was empty. He went to talk to him and the guy was not surprised. He said he gets much better luck in Europe than he does in the U.S. Whenever I have children, I plan to get as much art into their lives as possible, especially if they show a great interest. If not, that's fine to, I wouldn't force anything. But that's total bull. No funding for singing and drama? We have the same problem here as well.
BTW, my dumbass voted wrong. I meant to say "yes". Go figure. lol
Anyway, I think art plays an important role in history. It's actually the onlyway we knew the history of some cultures. Art and symbolism all play a role in determining how one thinks and what kinds of ideas they wish to express.
It's a truly sad case. *shakes head*
|
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on Jun 18, 2005 10:24:08 GMT -5
I think our view of the arts is a reflection of our souls. Art is one person baring his soul for all to see. How we handle such an act of courage and vulnerability reflects on our own.
This is not to say that I don't agree with a certain level of censorship too. Just because something is true doesn't mean it's appropriate for innocents to see. Some things are best burned after they are created -- I wish more of our tortured artists would exercise that option and find healing in the sacrifice.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tara on Jun 20, 2005 7:28:52 GMT -5
Some could easily say that about your faith. This is how deeply artists feel about their work.
|
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on Jun 20, 2005 7:42:59 GMT -5
The main difference is who the act is for. In matters of Christian faith, we truly believe those who refuse Christ will suffer for eternity. If you believed something would cause someone to suffer for eternity, would you not take action to prevent that? The intention of Christian faith is the protection of innocents.
Tortured art, on the other hand, is done for various reasons, but preventing evil is not among them. At best, it can only be said that the artist is trying to expose evil -- not prevent it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tara on Jun 20, 2005 8:11:43 GMT -5
Wow. Now you're sounding like a Puritan from the Salem Witch Trails. I think to fear something is to give it power over you. I don't think the artist always sees or works hard to give a clear distinction between what is evil and what isn't. I think they just "tell it like it is" straight from the heart.
|
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on Jun 20, 2005 8:58:08 GMT -5
You misinterpret me. I do not fear evil, but I do refuse to participate in evil. And I do believe innocents should be protected from evil through faith.
Not once have I suggested that "the people" or "the government" should destroy art or artists. But I do believe artists should exercise judgment in how much they impose their own experiences of evil on a public that includes innocents. To do otherwise is rather selfish, IMO.
As for your statement about not distinguishing evil, do you believe they do not do this out of ignorance (they don't realize that what they portray is the result of something evil) or out of disregard for others (they don't care that what they are disseminating is the result of something evil -- it just makes them feel better and that's a good enough reason to do it)? Or some other reason?
Don't get me wrong... I absolutely believe that art is an important outlet and brings healing to the artist. But as I said, art that results from evil is best destroyed once created.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tara on Jun 20, 2005 12:53:35 GMT -5
I think that when we look at art, like you said, we are somehwat looking into ourselves (souls). There is no doubt, that there are things that we fear or wish to avoid about ourselves. Notice how one piece of art may mean something to one and it may not mean the same to the other? So I don't think it would be fair to the artists to judge their work and make it a living fact for others. It's fine to keep it to yourself if you think a certain type of art has negative or positive vibes for you. But I simply don't think it's fair to make declarations or decisions about what is good taste and what isn't for anyone else who is capable of making that decision for themself.
|
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on Jun 20, 2005 14:14:03 GMT -5
I believe an artist knows whether his inspiration comes from things of God or things of evil. In fact, there is no one in a better position to make that judgment and decision.
|
|
|
|
Post by saintwiggy on Jun 21, 2005 15:58:19 GMT -5
If art is an expression of the soul, then what about those people who lack the talent to express it? Not everyone can draw or paint etc.
I have another take on this. I think the music you listen to reflects your soul. (this is what's portrayed in religious circles - that you can find out a lot about a person on the inside by the type of music they listen to)
|
|
|
|
Post by PhantomsPandora on Jun 21, 2005 18:38:59 GMT -5
Yes and no-I think everyone has a talent in different ways. Artists by giving out their emotions onto a painting, in to a dance, or composing a peice of music connect with another person , perhaps help uplift a spirit or even communicate that they have been in the same situation as the person admiringthe art.
The same can be said for any profession-if you are helping someone else, then you are uplifting a spirit.
|
|
