Kristi proposes in her blog that technological advances have in essence "revolutionized art." I propose it is also safe to say that capitalism is largely responsible for bringing about and disseminating many of the technological and digital advances that we have today. I suppose that this proposition could be challenged, but assuming that it is true-- it creates an interesting dichotomy.However, before I go there, let me add a quick aside: There are many who argue that capitalism has lead to the degradation of fine art and that a capitalist free market does not support and cultivate fine art. For more on this matter, consider this discussion: Art and Capitalism- Can Art Survive?
Coming back, I now suggest an interesting dichotomy: On one hand, some argue that capitalism has given us technology that has lead to an expanding frontier of art. While on the other hand, others argue that it is this same system that engenders a social and economic structure which fails to facilitate the creation of fine art. Can both of these arguments be true? Or do both arguments express and value different ideals in art and aesthetics?
The dichotomy exists, I believe, because we all have such varied concepts of what fine art is or should be. For one person it is taking hundreds of sketches and turning it into an animation. For others it may be a Rembrandt or Raphael. I think as there is a cultural shift that is still in process we are going to find ourselves trying to always bring all kinds of art together.
ReplyDeleteThat is an excellent point Kristi. I think you are right that ones ideals in art and aesthetics will largely influence your view on the matter.
ReplyDelete