4 ms·
I would argue that universality isn't an artistic quality because it's the exact opposite of individual expression. Art can be universal but something that's in
by dkonofalski 7y ago
I would argue that universality isn't an artistic quality because it's the exact opposite of individual expression. Art can be universal but something that's intended to be universal is rarely impactful or expressive enough to be art.
Art is meant to stoke and provoke thought and discussion. It's pointless if it only evokes passive agreement.
Edit: To clarify, I disagree that the Marvel films are not art or cinema.
- vincent-toups 7y agoIf all important experiences were universal then communication would be superfluous, if not, in some sense, impossible. We don't need to do much work to explain what we all experience. There is no virtuosity of the obvious. Communicating those things we don't share is the province of skill and a particular kind of value not present in the immediate and universal.
- dkonofalski 7y agoThat sounds like you agree with me, though... My point is that art is meant to share the non-universal experiences. Art can be universal but not everything universal can be art.