3 ms·
But isn't the - at least partially - purpose of art to be a critical mirror of society? Art and the freedom of art have often been used to critise society. No
by User007b 4y ago
But isn't the - at least partially - purpose of art to be a critical mirror of society?
Art and the freedom of art have often been used to critise society.
Now if art becomes a product, where is the critical function of art? Critical art is part of healthy and diverse society, without we're one step closer to an orwellian utopia.
- yupper32 4y agoAgain, you're getting too deep where you don't need to be. You say "if art becomes a product" while I'm showing you examples from 500 years ago where people were paid to create some of the most famous pieces of art in history. You're tapping into a single category of art -- art that is critical of society -- as if that's the only purpose of art. The purpose of and the person who commissioned the piece of art is just part of the context and history of the piece. It says nothing of its impact and importance.
- User007b 4y agoThere are also plenty of examples of paid works that were critical. Mostly in very subtle ways. My main point is that the commoditization of art should not be detrimental to its critical purposes. Artists should not be forced to create art that makes money happy.