I know that right now, I should be working - my workload this week is going to be immense, and by Thursday, I'm going to be completely fried. However, in this moment of relative calm, I have a few thoughts that have been dancing in my head, aching to get out. So here goes:
Art and Communication - I had an amazing conversation the other day with someone who works in the advertising field about subliminal advertising. In essence, good advertising is subliminal - it plays to your emotions in subtle ways to get you to buy the product. For instance, red and yellow, apparently, are colors that make you hungry. So as a result, all fast food joints use red and yellow in their color scheme. Then I bought a painting from a nice young fellow by the name of Tyler Cristobal - my first purchase of a painting ever (and so now I have one thing on my living room wall). And overall, I really like the painting - not just because it was cheap, but because, like a dream, it stirs up a bunch of thoughts all at once.
Anyway, all of this brings me back to an old concept I remember talking to my roommate in college about - that art is communication. The best artists - be they writers, painters, sculptors, actors or advertisers - can communicate a wealth of thoughts and feelings in a single moment. Its why when we come across great art, we are immediately struck - our minds are trying to figure out the entirety of the message. When we come across bad art, we immediately forget it - there's nothing for our minds to consider. Interestingly enough, it is commercial art that is the most self-aware of this aspect. I suspect its because commercial art isn't driven by artistic desire, but by cold, hard cash.
Religion and Extremism - My oldest and one of my dearest friends, consistently posts on Facebook about Islamic extremism across the globe. While I don't like Islamic extremism anymore than the next liberal, I think his focus on Islam is somewhat misplaced. The truth is, the extremists of all religions are equally problematic. And, it doesn't really matter what the religion is, either. For instance, Christianity is truly a religion of peace - to the extent that when faced with imminent death, Jesus Christ healed the wounds of his attackers after they arrested him. Yet, as you look throughout history, Christians have committed atrocity after atrocity literally in the name of Jesus Christ. Similar examples can be found in literally every religion.
Now, don't get me wrong, Muslim extremists - from the Saudi clerics, to the Taliban, to the Iranian regime, are all repressive douchebags. But, they're not repressive douchebags because they are Muslims, they're just douchebags. The problem with focusing on their religion is that its too easy for douchebags to dismiss the criticisms as chauvinism, and it serves to ignore douchebaggery in our own religions. Of course, there are some religions more likely to be subject to extremism than others, but the nature of worship tends to get people to accept all kinds of douchebaggery.
That said, religion is not necessarily a bad thing. A kernel of faith to help through the bad times, and religion fills a deep seated need of all people to connect with something greater than themselves.
Showing posts with label Art. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Art. Show all posts
Monday, August 30, 2010
Monday, August 2, 2010
Evolution and the Arts. . .
So, like so many other people, I saw "Inception" the yesterday and was suitably impressed. I guess a better way of saying it was that my mind was completely blown. To balance four (or five) separate dream sequences in the mind of the viewers simultaneously was totally fucking awesome.* My initial thought was that the acting was solid, but not great, while the plot was brilliant. Upon reflection, the acting was far better than I had realized. Joseph Gordon-Levitt's performance, in particular, was amazing and subtle. Anyway, Christopher Nolan is a genius, hands-down.
And in that realization, I began to think again about the evolution of art, in general. For instance, if you look at the cave paintings of our early ancestors, which have depth and perspective, and compare them to the paintings of the Middle Ages (which lack either depth or perspective), and then compare that to the later works of the Renaissance, you get totally confused. Are we evolving or moving backward, or going back to where we've been?
Biologically speaking, there's not a whole lot of difference between humans today and humans 25,000 years ago (especially since, outside of Africa, the family tree doesn't branch out a whole lot). The same abilities and same brains are at work. The hunters in the caves made art because they were felt compelled to by the same motivation that drove Leonardo and Christopher Nolan - to make art. And as hunters, they had a lot of free time on their hands (look this one up people - hunting and gathering is ridiculously easy compared to agriculture), so they could take the time to paint.
But as people spent more time farming, less time was spent on painting. So, art began to suck. Additionally, the good artists were probably drawn to other types of art. If painting is a drag, then artists will go into sculpture, or performance art, or writing. And when it comes to the painting art of the Middle Ages, I think that's what happened. The good artists were probably sculpting, and the hacks were painting. Once there was some money in painting, the good artists, like Leonardo or Michelangelo became painters.
Comic books in the 20th Century is a good example of this. When the 20th Century rolled around, probably the lowest form of art was the comic book, and the authors of comic books wrote crappy plotlines and two dimensional characters. But, these comic books were popular, and some kids who actually had artistic talent went into the comic industry (such as Alan Moore and Neil Gaiman), and then comic books became more and more complicated and complex. Similarly, Nolan's rewriting of the summer action film is probably the result of being inspired by earlier, crappier films.
So, I guess to sum up, I think that art, or rather the production of art, is a fluid evolution and devolution of thoughts and techniques, all depending on what inspires the artist. Who knows, maybe the "Jersey Shore" will inspire some genius down the road. . .or not.
*Ed. Note - The author has a tendency to turn into a total fanboy sometimes. Our apologies.
And in that realization, I began to think again about the evolution of art, in general. For instance, if you look at the cave paintings of our early ancestors, which have depth and perspective, and compare them to the paintings of the Middle Ages (which lack either depth or perspective), and then compare that to the later works of the Renaissance, you get totally confused. Are we evolving or moving backward, or going back to where we've been?
Biologically speaking, there's not a whole lot of difference between humans today and humans 25,000 years ago (especially since, outside of Africa, the family tree doesn't branch out a whole lot). The same abilities and same brains are at work. The hunters in the caves made art because they were felt compelled to by the same motivation that drove Leonardo and Christopher Nolan - to make art. And as hunters, they had a lot of free time on their hands (look this one up people - hunting and gathering is ridiculously easy compared to agriculture), so they could take the time to paint.
But as people spent more time farming, less time was spent on painting. So, art began to suck. Additionally, the good artists were probably drawn to other types of art. If painting is a drag, then artists will go into sculpture, or performance art, or writing. And when it comes to the painting art of the Middle Ages, I think that's what happened. The good artists were probably sculpting, and the hacks were painting. Once there was some money in painting, the good artists, like Leonardo or Michelangelo became painters.
Comic books in the 20th Century is a good example of this. When the 20th Century rolled around, probably the lowest form of art was the comic book, and the authors of comic books wrote crappy plotlines and two dimensional characters. But, these comic books were popular, and some kids who actually had artistic talent went into the comic industry (such as Alan Moore and Neil Gaiman), and then comic books became more and more complicated and complex. Similarly, Nolan's rewriting of the summer action film is probably the result of being inspired by earlier, crappier films.
So, I guess to sum up, I think that art, or rather the production of art, is a fluid evolution and devolution of thoughts and techniques, all depending on what inspires the artist. Who knows, maybe the "Jersey Shore" will inspire some genius down the road. . .or not.
*Ed. Note - The author has a tendency to turn into a total fanboy sometimes. Our apologies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)