4 ms·

I think you've expressed my question a bit clearer than I did. Does art cause change or reflect change that is occurring? I think it's probably more like a fe

• alexqgb 12y ago
  Art is often where change first appears, but it's also where change starts to figure itself out; to find a syntax and a vocabulary. In this sense, it's more than just a reflection, it's an agent - which is not to say it's causing the change, so much as channeling it. It can also go the other way by leading us away from things. 1984 is the classic example of a work that gave people the tools - in the form of language and images - that they could use to describe all manner of disturbing developments that could take place within heavily centralized, industrialized nations. Dystopian visions are now so deeply engrained that any efforts to move government in that direction meet an immediately negative response. Like the immune system, they don't block everything. But they block enough for us to know we'd be in very bad shape without them.
  • Symbiote 12y ago
    For anyone in London, it's worth seeing the Disobedient Objects exhibition at the V&A, "this exhibition is the first to examine the powerful role of objects in movements for social change. It demonstrates how political activism drives a wealth of design ingenuity and collective creativity that defy standard definitions of art and design." It's free. http://www.vam.ac.uk/content/exhibitions/disobedient-objects/ http://www.vam.ac.uk/content/exhibitions/disobedient-objects...