Many artists used their artistic productions as a tool to convey a social or political belief ( Goya, Picasso etc) Indeed, art has successfully proven its capacity to either unveil the truth hidden behind a political or social event, or to create changes in people’s minds.
However, regardless of its political or social implications, a work of art is unlikely to catch anyone’s attention if it does not have a strong and powerful spiritual component. The spiritual component is, i believe, what will give an identity and a impactful meaning to an art work.
I suppose that Art can function at both levels, personally and socially, and can do so inclusively. Art is created by the artist as they attempt to represent an emotion or experience and in this act it functions at the most internal level; it allows an artist to converse with themselves and understand their being and humanity at a higher level. Subsequently, this exploration of their humanity is not unique and can be understood or felt by other people because of the commonality of their existence. It is here, at this shared experience, that Malevitch would say you can make the leap from Art being an intrinsic endeavour to employing it socially, perhaps in the form of resistance or awareness. Evoking a shared feeling in other people with something that you have created (and is deeply personal) is surely an intelligent way to arrive at a reaction form them.
I think there is a synergy between the social and individual. It is tried and true that art can create social/political movements, however this doesn’t mean that it is solely a tool for domination/assertion of power (although it can be used this way). Everyone has desires or craves explanation/validation and will strive to satisfy them, in this sense we accept images that touch on these innate feeling and project it outwardly (in the movements we support, the ‘urban tribes’ we belong too, the art we make ourselves).
In my opinion, images (art) start with a spiritual effect that occurs within the artist or within an individual who created the image either physically or mentally. Then once the image (art) has been created, the social aspect of it comes along, it starts to serve as a social effect once it delivers itself from one individual to another, or simply from one idea to another. Furthermore, once it reaches another mind, it continues to serve as a spiritual effect for another individual. I view them as a cycle, one comes after another.
While art can certainly be used as statements for the masses, I personally believe that art is more for the individual– spiritually. When we see art, we are consuming it for ourselves and imposing our own experiences on the works; when we create art, we are creating something from our own experiences– so I believe that it’s something that functions more on the spiritual level than the social level.
As for whether it is a form of social control or social liberation, I think it can go both ways and can’t say which side I stand on– I have some mixed feelings when I think back to one of the documentary we just watched (The Century of the Self). The photos of the women smoking cigarettes was both liberating and controlling; there seemed to be liberation for the women, but it was a staged experiment– so it goes both ways at the same time. Which is it? I’m not sure.
Control and rebellion are two sides of a coin. If there is no control, there is no rebellion. I think both control and rebellion works together to improve our understanding of ourself. This indulgence-awarkening-indulgence-awarken process completes us as human beings, having both primitive part and divine part. And I think social phenomenon is the reflection of collective spirituality. So directly pointing out the stupidness of the mass or guiding the mass towards their spirituality both work.
I would have to say that art being a medium for social applications or spiritual applications depends entirely on the artists intention when making the image. However, I feel that for the purposes of spiritual growth, the image in question can in fact be an image that was created for that purpose, via knowledge of social structure and norms. So in the end, an image is meant to translate an idea from the artist into the viewer, an idea that is influenced by their own experiences. Which may or may not come from social interaction.
That idea could be that they need to smoke to gain power and freedom, or it could be that the image is pleasing and that the view wants that image itself, regardless of its actual usefulness, or the actual need for the image. Thus increasing the so called spiritual existence that we obtain from having and realizing desires that go beyond the actual need.
In my experience, art effects both social and spiritual. It more depends on how artist want to show to audience. When I create an art, I create it within my life experience, but there will be the social effects when I posting or sharing my art. It can start from personal experience and developing in the social effect. Therefore, I believe that art can effect in both social and spiritual.
From my point of view, images have a large social impact, but this impact differs from individual to individual. Images are used in order to control masses by commercials and political propaganda, but it’s never the same response from all the people that they have as a result. Some people tend to follow the behavior that is expected from them, some follow the opposite direction. It depends on their environment and personal believes. However, every image influences everybody. Even when an artwork was created by the individual as a part of his “spiritual development” in the moment when this image is shared with someone else it starts to produce social impact in one or another way. It is a part of people’s way of perception: we always try to give something more meaning than it had initially, create connections with other experiences and discuss it all over again with different people. As a result, every image becomes a part of the global web and, therefore, has a large social impact.
I deem that art affect can breaks into both social and spiritual, it sometimes can tell on the artist itself. Some artist will use their experience to become art. And social effects is also an important thing in art which most artist will express themselves through social effects.
I believe that the art effects more on social view than individual. The reason is that society or context that we are living incorporated multiple institutions, in which refers to education, science and religion. All are organized by a number of people, as the change of society happened, those members are more likely to be influenced. The work of art plays an important role in those dynamic interweaving. When the expression of artists’ ideas was shown up to the society, whether people rejects or not, they have already produced new way to look at the world.
I think art could be either spiritual or social. It depends on the artist’s intention, the content it was put into, the way it was used, and the audience experience. In my opinion, image of an ad would have more social impact, and image/painting in a gallery/museum would have more artistic and spiritual value.
Many artists used their artistic productions as a tool to convey a social or political belief ( Goya, Picasso etc) Indeed, art has successfully proven its capacity to either unveil the truth hidden behind a political or social event, or to create changes in people’s minds.
However, regardless of its political or social implications, a work of art is unlikely to catch anyone’s attention if it does not have a strong and powerful spiritual component. The spiritual component is, i believe, what will give an identity and a impactful meaning to an art work.
I suppose that Art can function at both levels, personally and socially, and can do so inclusively. Art is created by the artist as they attempt to represent an emotion or experience and in this act it functions at the most internal level; it allows an artist to converse with themselves and understand their being and humanity at a higher level. Subsequently, this exploration of their humanity is not unique and can be understood or felt by other people because of the commonality of their existence. It is here, at this shared experience, that Malevitch would say you can make the leap from Art being an intrinsic endeavour to employing it socially, perhaps in the form of resistance or awareness. Evoking a shared feeling in other people with something that you have created (and is deeply personal) is surely an intelligent way to arrive at a reaction form them.
I think there is a synergy between the social and individual. It is tried and true that art can create social/political movements, however this doesn’t mean that it is solely a tool for domination/assertion of power (although it can be used this way). Everyone has desires or craves explanation/validation and will strive to satisfy them, in this sense we accept images that touch on these innate feeling and project it outwardly (in the movements we support, the ‘urban tribes’ we belong too, the art we make ourselves).
inward=outwards, you feel!
This is really hard to explain T_T
In my opinion, images (art) start with a spiritual effect that occurs within the artist or within an individual who created the image either physically or mentally. Then once the image (art) has been created, the social aspect of it comes along, it starts to serve as a social effect once it delivers itself from one individual to another, or simply from one idea to another. Furthermore, once it reaches another mind, it continues to serve as a spiritual effect for another individual. I view them as a cycle, one comes after another.
While art can certainly be used as statements for the masses, I personally believe that art is more for the individual– spiritually. When we see art, we are consuming it for ourselves and imposing our own experiences on the works; when we create art, we are creating something from our own experiences– so I believe that it’s something that functions more on the spiritual level than the social level.
As for whether it is a form of social control or social liberation, I think it can go both ways and can’t say which side I stand on– I have some mixed feelings when I think back to one of the documentary we just watched (The Century of the Self). The photos of the women smoking cigarettes was both liberating and controlling; there seemed to be liberation for the women, but it was a staged experiment– so it goes both ways at the same time. Which is it? I’m not sure.
Control and rebellion are two sides of a coin. If there is no control, there is no rebellion. I think both control and rebellion works together to improve our understanding of ourself. This indulgence-awarkening-indulgence-awarken process completes us as human beings, having both primitive part and divine part. And I think social phenomenon is the reflection of collective spirituality. So directly pointing out the stupidness of the mass or guiding the mass towards their spirituality both work.
I would have to say that art being a medium for social applications or spiritual applications depends entirely on the artists intention when making the image. However, I feel that for the purposes of spiritual growth, the image in question can in fact be an image that was created for that purpose, via knowledge of social structure and norms. So in the end, an image is meant to translate an idea from the artist into the viewer, an idea that is influenced by their own experiences. Which may or may not come from social interaction.
That idea could be that they need to smoke to gain power and freedom, or it could be that the image is pleasing and that the view wants that image itself, regardless of its actual usefulness, or the actual need for the image. Thus increasing the so called spiritual existence that we obtain from having and realizing desires that go beyond the actual need.
In my experience, art effects both social and spiritual. It more depends on how artist want to show to audience. When I create an art, I create it within my life experience, but there will be the social effects when I posting or sharing my art. It can start from personal experience and developing in the social effect. Therefore, I believe that art can effect in both social and spiritual.
From my point of view, images have a large social impact, but this impact differs from individual to individual. Images are used in order to control masses by commercials and political propaganda, but it’s never the same response from all the people that they have as a result. Some people tend to follow the behavior that is expected from them, some follow the opposite direction. It depends on their environment and personal believes. However, every image influences everybody. Even when an artwork was created by the individual as a part of his “spiritual development” in the moment when this image is shared with someone else it starts to produce social impact in one or another way. It is a part of people’s way of perception: we always try to give something more meaning than it had initially, create connections with other experiences and discuss it all over again with different people. As a result, every image becomes a part of the global web and, therefore, has a large social impact.
I deem that art affect can breaks into both social and spiritual, it sometimes can tell on the artist itself. Some artist will use their experience to become art. And social effects is also an important thing in art which most artist will express themselves through social effects.
I believe that the art effects more on social view than individual. The reason is that society or context that we are living incorporated multiple institutions, in which refers to education, science and religion. All are organized by a number of people, as the change of society happened, those members are more likely to be influenced. The work of art plays an important role in those dynamic interweaving. When the expression of artists’ ideas was shown up to the society, whether people rejects or not, they have already produced new way to look at the world.
I think art could be either spiritual or social. It depends on the artist’s intention, the content it was put into, the way it was used, and the audience experience. In my opinion, image of an ad would have more social impact, and image/painting in a gallery/museum would have more artistic and spiritual value.