Questioning the Conclusions of Art’s Purpose
Is art impactful? Is it powerful? Is it received? That is, does one receive what art gives? And if so, how does that conflict with this next question: Does art have a message to send? It’s message could be what it represents, but what is that? Like a nice scenery or soft tone to calm the mind is it? Some emotion to spare? Or are we just seeing what shapes the body can bend in or is there something more suggestive under the surface here? What of art for change? Art-Activism if you like.
Does that message pertain rules that when broken come to deny suitability? But the plot thickens – messages could be received not otherwise sent through misinterpretation or is there something else at work? And further, what if those interpretations had rulings themselves? Hmmm let us evaluate:
What should art be to do what art does?
Asking should art be powerful sounds like an oxymoron. Like should it stand out? Should it be defining? Should it be prominent? Elevating? Or on a plane of ordinary and civilian? Could be, but might not perform then as other art would that fits more of a criteria of excellence. By which a message could become an extra dimension into the art, to add to its complexity but turn equally increase the probability of spoilage if not applied successfully. And ‘pedestrianism’ could even be a threatening stalking line as dusk sets on good days old, with elevation claiming the fruit below as picked.
What would the message be anyway? Something simple? Something ‘every day’? Something… Mundane…??? Would the message be a question like, ‘how is the weather?’
Or applying unsightly unnecessary and undoing blandness? Would the message be ironic? A deliberate message, obvious, and self-explanatory? Or for art to be itself, would it be compelled to improve and seek attention as attention changes?
So calls do something meaningful? A proclivity even. Impactful as if to put your foot down as a stamp in time and reject what’s normalised by being abrupt. To showcase conversations unspoken were the silence can be deafening. What is revolutionary in every sense, intelligence? Or as important as the art itself should be, as intended by the artist? An outstanding statement standing out. To be against. To be bold, wrought with power.
Which should we then know would enter into controversy.
To be offensive, and whatever web makes that entanglement. Though successful execution of being offensive of course requires power of some kind. Anything threat that is weak is laughably pathetic unless of course there is trickery intended. But at the same time, what is offensive is reflective upon the defensive fortitude of the group assaulted. Should what is weak be found like discipline lacking that’s juvenile, so easily should they be agitated in response though perhaps also to devise a ploy as the games get underway.
One side knows full well the manipulative power of shaming, and the desire not to offend and keep peace all together. Gatekeeping beauty by normalising their own lack of. It’s an unspoken truth on this battlefield. Shaming those that appreciate a certain standard that cannot or will not be attained, portrayed on portrait. And will then twist the arm of victimisation as a strategy to their favour, pushing boundaries and mining group advantage under the guise of valuing sympathy. Saying what is offensive and shaming those that disagree as an exiled placeholder.
It’s all as it’s ever been, one-upmanship competitive infighting for group identity survival, and the concept of art can be the center stage of. It’s ‘Seen This Scene all Before’ Vs. ‘Trying Too Hard’. But is this the pull of art in times of peace?
As for the sport, the ‘tastefulness’ should be palpable to reception. To read the room as it were but they’re a mock anyway. Though maybe that adds to the art’s charm? How often is it a piece foregone is only appreciated after as being ‘before its time’? ‘How well did it age?’ We ask. That would just depend on the position – or disposition – of the culture included of which future is being fought for as cruelty interprets as it progresses nicely. Though it does then make me question something.
Where is the line? You see stunning art, but then if the underlining message is actually propaganda, how does that affect the piece? Especially from the other side? How does that belittle it? Can’t anything be propaganda in its own way in some way? Playing into the paid script of lies in how society is and isn’t controlled? Is there such a thing as ‘political art’? Moral art or is that itself a contradiction. Here we go… Telling a message, nae, the condescending story of the ‘good person’ you should be, and a ‘bad person’ you need to one up. Trying to lecture with an education time. Or the musts of good and evil.
And the person observing the art. Instead of getting the vibration they anticipated and hoped, now left disappointed and remembered by whatever this little stunt is supposed to be? When double sided social issues become intertwined in a piece that only tells one side, and what was sent out as art, becomes just a patronising conditioning? Is it then sullied what it means for something to be art? To defile art itself? Or are they just ignorant to what always was, slowly seeing through?
What about how those respond to a specific frustration they have, to escape ugliness. To escape inanity of mundanity and the lurking irking boresome feeling drenched in that is normalisation. Art could act then as a safe haven, a bastion of how one holds something up. But not now… thanks to this… activist and poser. And if spread art may only serve the purpose of showing the group themselves. The gap widens.
What if the reception is unrequited? Is the objective completed? Or has a scales been tipped too far? Could it become contradictory to intent? When your cause garners even more opposition due to your own efforts. You weren’t the stunning and brave hero you thought you were, you were just a fool. A rebel to your own cause that extended your own pushback sealed your own fate. And trying to cast that into the special category of art? Forget it. And you can’t accept it, but It just looks sad. …
What seems to be so thus in this rabbit hole tumbled down into, is when one says what kind of art they are attracted to, to be more consistent and accurate with their declaration, they should also say what motive and intent they like for the art to be driven by. But that then may be revealing of how unappealing and mediocre their preferences are, and more inclined to hide their intentions.
If it is true art cannot escape the projection of signals, whilst being inclined to shine and thusly outshine as that culture progresses. My choice wouldn’t be to shy away and negate discussion with petty dismissive remarks and group support to point and laugh. You’re not afraid of a little challenge are you??
Make your own canvas a platform. Art is a grand tournament of non-violent warfare that is eugenical idealism through our emotional resonance, such is our preference. And we pass judgement so proudly, what is not and here to stay and wonder why – showing us exactly where we are. See art as a summoning ritual that can transform tomorrow. I wouldn’t ask if art has a message or should have, I would instead question in my perplexity: How can it possibly not?
