∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞
What drives current aesthetics of art and arts participation?
What cultural institutions and structures are involved? What social forces/issues?
In what ways do practices, ideas, narratives, or ideologies associated with this aesthetic depend on transmediations?
∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞
Time for the third module, so append your initial responses and thoughts to the above questions as comments on this post. Feel free to draw on examples from the Module 3 resources page, the Diigo course group, or your own experience.
I thought Sebastian Smee had some interesting things to say about cultural institutions and structures and social forces in the Prospect Magazine article John posted to the Digo group. Though, I found his tone a bit pretentious, the idea that our era is in a sort of identity crisis I agree with in theory. However, I’m not sure that an inability to define ourselves as a culture is unique to our era, rather it is endemic of living during the age you are attempting to define parameters for. Smee is criticizing another art critics attempt to define our era with a list of 100, stating, “the very attempt implies a kind of panic endemic to our era. It is the recoil of an absence of valid criteria; a vacuum that is filled, reflexively and repeatedly, by recourse to statistics and lists. As an exercise in discrimination…(Smee, http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/arts-and-books/age-of-the-arbitrary-contemporary-art).” While I do find qualitative lists something definitive to the generation of click bate, I don’t know that panic is an accurate adjective for what is going on. It is true that consumers are reacting to an over saturation, and the lists we find everywhere online are an attempt at flood containment. I don’t, at least, sense panic so much as openness to different voices creeping in. Possibly the panic Smee refers to is his own, as a critic whose critical voice is no longer given a pedestal. Smee starts his article pointing out that artist in the 18th century produced a fraction of the work modern artists produce, but I wonder if this is true. Did they produce less, or were fewer of them allowed to showcase their work. And, of the artists who were allowed a forum, what of their work was disregarded and tossed aside by the gatekeepers. I think it is less that the modern world exists in a criteria vacuum, but more that “valid criteria” is being redefined by someone other than the insiders, and gates are being rolled over by the flood waters of digital access and outsider art movements.
Lets supposed for the moment that we can define an age in which we are currently living, and say that our age is defined by the death of gatekeepers. That our age is also defined by social change through art, that “any thoughtful person involved in the arts must balance his poetic concerns against the weight of Real World need (Desmarais).” For the sake of argument, these two things define our current age where does that leave the title of artist? If Matthew Taylor is correct, and everyone has the power to create, and we are obligated to nurture this power and leverage it for social good, than what distinguishes mass creativity from some exemplary and world changing art? How do we keep the floodwaters from drowning us, but rather channel and harness its power like a hydroelectric damn?
If “it is the art world, rather than the individual artist, which makes the work (Becker, p.194),” and we live in a world flooded over with work, possibly the use of transmediations can act as a sort of damn, replacing the old gates and their keepers with something that funnels, channels, and directs the flood of creativity where we want it to go, and at the same time, draws power from the flood to create a useful by-product; something that stands out as different from its source.
If we are living in a world defined by universal creativity bolstering social action and flooding the old modes of gatekeeping, if art “is being re-defined, re-framed, and re-conceived at such a rate that just to contemplate the whole business can trigger befuddlement and senseless babbling (otherwise known as art criticism) (Smee, http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/arts-and-books/age-of-the-arbitrary-contemporary-art),” then possibly it is the critic and the idea of “valid criteria” that have outlived their age, and the title artist is one that can be owned by everyone.
The world, as a creative whole, still longs to define art and beauty, still serving on the intellectual, and constantly disputed, battlefield over what art is and what it should be. Inspired by answers and searching for understanding for a distinct definition, this purely personal vision is perpetuated by a finely drawn line across multiple, undefinable platforms. There are a number of choices necessary to conceive, create and finish any ‘project’, and as Becker mentions in his article regarding “Editing”, there are a great many people involved in the organized division of labor so called an ‘art world’. So, it is no longer a self made, self fought, self taught battle of a solo individual, current aesthetics are driven to incorporate a full force of participants.
There is a nice, gentle effective of today’s ravenous art market and as every cultural institution will espouse to be a part of the next ‘big thing’ the claws can come out and the involvement, that was meant to be so kind, turns out to wear an ugly shade of red. The scramble and the vying to be on top is only furthered by our modern technology, social media, and mobile, on the go lives we all lead. The cultural institutions and structures may remain the same as they’ve always been, but it is clear that the tactics are evolving to shadow the overblown and follow the footsteps of those that hope to transform, but often fall in the reputation of their structures and the pleasures of success.
Yet, there is a pleasure in success and certainly when a collective whole works together to produce an aesthetic masterpiece. To transition over time without change is impossible and the fore-most social forces driving the current strains in art and arts participation remain engulfed in personal spotlighting. With all the available media and resources and entertainment at our fingertips there is a very discrete, and overlapping, understand of what belongs to who and who created what. In the best instances, our current social issues surrounding these issues help to push them further forward, making them more available and easier to access, but in the end, the creator becomes nothing more than a mouthpiece or rhythmic reminder of the past.
Although spontaneity exists in our transmediated world, the overall conception and deliver of the narrative for any story or piece of art, is very well planned. There is a privilege to grasp each part of the story and complete the whole, for your own understanding. It is easy for us to shun the unattainable and search only for what we know to be true, but when an idea can be coupled with a visual that can be matched with a story line, then the entirety of the aesthetic is that much better. We pursue a passion for comprehension and to be at the top of our techniques for cognitive realization, but if we eliminate the factors (be them seen or unseen) we are left with a landscape of flat, pale horizons. There is a remarkable, and rewarding, effect that transmediation can have if we are able to take the time to allow the saturation of ideologies, technique, practice, participation and the narrative of any ambitious aesthetic. Worldly circumstance will continue to mold and shape our views to help us decipher how we choose to see our environment around us, but if we continue to strive for the complete understand, we might just find it easier to feel more connected to what and how we interpret the atmosphere we envelop.
When we reference “current” I tend to look towards what has become mainstream or popularized. The current aesthetic of arts and arts participation is driven by the current culture of mainstream populations as well as the underground and extremely vibrant counter culture populations. Together, we see that aesthetics are based on the value we place through art and depending on the community we participate in, different values are placed on what makes art aesthetically pleasing or displeasing.
Choices drive aesthetics. As seen in Becker’s chapter around editing, he mentions that choices fuel “the mechanism by which participation in an art world affects what artists do and the character of their work” (197). We as a current culture have the choice in how we participate. As seen in the time of remix culture, everything always has a spin when someone else choose to participate. The artistic lens is shifted, the message may be different and we may be viewing it entirely different than the original. Looking at the Video materials as well as the course Digo group resources, you can see that remix culture is constantly evolving and rapidly growing. As death to originality has begun, we still strive for innovation? Is every idea something that has already been created, just unpacked differently?
When looking at cultural institutions and structures for arts participation, I tend to gravitate towards physical structures: organizations/centers, galleries, museums. They all play a role in institutionalized arts participation. We then place the role of these works of arts in the hands of institution as Becker states “aesthetic decisions decide the life or death of works. Even more they decide the life or death of genres” (220). Slightly heavy. As culture we have begun discussion around this, we have taken the reigns on making our own decisions based on our participation and ability to appreciate our own views on aesthetics.
When looking at cultural institutions and structures we begin to see the social forces/issues at play: socio-economic status, race, class, gender, education, etc. These social forces and issues contribute to a whole other sector art, art with social justice purpose, with a message that they are truly meaning to convey in contrast with a painting that is merely meant for aesthetic interpretation. This is not art for arts sake, this is art for social change. When I refer to social justice art, I am looking at example like the Beehive Collective (http://beehivecollective.org/about-the-hive/who-the-collective-are/). They do not have the names of the artists on their art work because they know they constantly take on new creation as they are cross pollinated and distributed widely. This is where we begin to see transmedia play an active role within our narratives, ideologies and practice, transforming through how our stores are delivered.
With the use of the internet and it’s accessibility only growing, we begin to see that their is a force at work to help reform institution and structure and to break the mold of the current paradigm in place. We have taken the key away from the gatekeepers, and made 3,000 molds through transmediation to distribute to our closest Facebook friends. Everyone is able to have access, then pushing that statement further, everyone has an opportunity to participate in art worlds and become an artist. So where do we draw the lines? Is there such thing as too much transmediation? Not sure. It just seems like we are able to share our story in our own light, our own creativity, our own sense of purpose and expression. Its questions like this that only begin to have more meaning as we push the boundaries of traditional art aesthetics and the critiques that are surrounding current institutions and structure.
What drives current aesthetics of art and arts participation?
Current aesthetics of art and arts participation is driven largely by the editing process and decision making process of the artist and by extension, editors, audience, etc.
What cultural institutions and structures are involved? What social forces/issues?
At any time, one piece of art can have an elaborate structure of participation. Each of those participants whether it be the artist, the institution that houses the work or publishes it, the people that work for that institution, or they audience can claim some sort of ownership. Ownership is where we run into trouble with content and copyright laws. Pursuit of this ownership can be driven as much by the vulnerability of the participants when something is appropriated as the desire to make money (if the object in question makes money) though they’re not exclusive. Sampling music, video, or audio isn’t new, fanfiction isn’t new but they both come under the same fire especially when, through our access to the internet, it’s easier than ever before to find examples that supposedly violate copyright laws.
What I find even more interesting is when authors or artists of a particular work disown it after it’s become appropriated – or at least, disown the appropriation. Authors P.L. Travers, Philip Pullman, and Roald Dahl are just a few examples of authors who’ve protested the film versions of their books. When I was working in the children’s book industry, I was surprised, though I shouldn’t have been, that most authors do not have movie rights in their contracts unless they negotiate for them but for an un-established author, it makes no sense to include that in their contract. Instead, those rights belong to the publishing house which is usually not as interested in remaining true to the integrity book but see film adaptations as a great method of advertising. There’s an interesting discussion of this by authors here: http://filmmakermagazine.com/58787-turning-a-book-into-a-movie-an-authors-perspective/#.VFXBQ_nF-So
In what ways do practices, ideas, narratives, or ideologies associated with this aesthetic depend on transmediations?
Nothing can truly be claimed as wholly original. There is no way to trace the ur-type of something since humanity has been reinventing and re-imagining practices, ideas, ideologies, narratives, etc. since the beginning of our conscious existence. Even if there is an original form found, an earlier rendition in almost every case will later be found. This is indexed well in the Anti Aarne/Stith Thompson collection of motifs in fairy tales where by looking at one part of a story such as a magic shoe, suddenly we find hundreds of stories that all share one idea. Therefore, everything becomes a transmediation of something else. Everything can be taken apart and each of those parts traced back to a new whole,that whole can be taken apart and traced back, etc. It is a constantly expanding and collapsing all at once. At the same time, transmediation is important for the continuation and livelihood of a practice, idea, etc. because without the re-imagining, reinventing, re-appropriating process that practice, idea, etc. is in danger of dying. Becker mentions this in the chapter “Editing” by pointing out that art forms can die from neglect or from the political desire to see that art form die. Transmediation keeps aesthetic alive.
Aesthetics. This is such a loaded term. We have read and talked about aesthetics every week. It seems to me that all conversations end up at this similar and controversial place. The basic explanation of aesthetics goes back to the Becker article in week one. The people who define art and aesthetics are being exclusive rather than inclusive. They define what is and what is not art. Currently we are still operation of this system of listening to people who are respected, not because they are correct in their definitions of art and taste, but because the majority of people or the “important people” of the art worlds agree with them. But, things are changing. More people are able to express their opinions and have them validated (or argued with) by others. The internet has vastly opened up the world of art and aesthetics. Still, the mainstream aesthetics versus the individual aesthetics of younger generations is a battle that the old system is winning. Aesthetics can be very restrictive.
Aesthetics are created by individuals, whether they are part of the sophisticated high art world, or one of the millions online expressing their own opinions. The institutions involved in the creation of aesthetics include art museums, history museums, galleries, and really any place that exhibits art (both current and historical). Those included in the “high art” sector are usually old institutions that can be somewhat intimidating to “outsiders” and younger audiences. So, because of that they stay quite fixed in their ways, defining art and aesthetics in a more traditional and exclusive way. New forces however are becoming stronger in the world of art. Some places that display new art and choosing for themselves what aesthetics are. They are defining art in a new way, choosing to show what some of the more fixed and unchanging old guard would see as non-art. The internet is also changing aesthetics in this regard. More people can see these new forms of art on a daily basis. One does not have to go to a museum and pay to see art any more, you can google it.
Transmedia changes aesthetic, in that it creates more access. With more people being to access more ideas and more art every day, ideologies are changing. Multitudes of people can express their opinions and personal aesthetics and have them broadcasted just as much as the traditional ideas of aesthetics. All forms of media (the internet, posters, art, tv, radio, etc) allow for the sharing of unique and new ideas.
It is interesting to look at the idea of change within the art worlds. Change is created in the art worlds because of choice. In Becker’s article on “Editing”, he discusses the idea of choice and how it relates to participation within the art world. Becker says “All these choices, made by all these participants over the works life, are what give meaning to the assertion that art worlds… make works of art” (Becker, p. 198). What is interesting about Becker’s article is that participation within the arts is made by editing or change to the work of art over time. Change, or ‘editing’ as Becker uses, is what can create participation and aesthetics for a work of art. Although remixing or changing the art world can be a daunting and ‘scary’ idea, change is inevitable. Society will not stop changing and remolding the social norms and the art worlds will continue to be shaped based on the choices of the people within society. In this regard, the art worlds are determined and shaped by the participants and how these participants shape these art worlds is through change and editing.
The idea that originality is not necessarily a true idea is fascinating in that things are constantly being remixed, whether it be for a better or more advanced idea or because change may seem necessary at the time. The remixing of art works is essentially based on different ideologies of the participants. However, change seems to happen the quickly when participants are in a group. If multiple people wish there to be change the movement of remixing will occur. The idea of remixing also allows multiple people to interact with one another. The YouTube videos that showcased people playing music together is a great way to showcase participation within the art worlds. This video combined multiple artists playing music and created one innovative work of art. In a way, combing all of these people together allowed for people to be participating together on a single piece of art work. It created an inclusive project for many people to be a part of.
Change and editing are created through participatory action and without this remixing of the art worlds, participation is lost. Change allows for people to critique and add their own interpretation to a work of art and it allows for an inclusive world. Through the use of remixing or editing, we can create differences and variety within the art worlds.
Popular culture today has an incredibly large influence on the aesthetics of art and arts participation. Knowledge drives aesthetics and in a culture where art is constantly being reimagined, remixed, reinvented, etc., the idea of original thoughts or movements has become difficult. Thinking very basically about this entire module, I believe that individuals enjoy what they are familiar with and in a society where completely original thought and creation might be lacking, we are used to what we know. New things scare us and, in turn, there is a lack of interest. Although it is seemingly rare that we find something that is not at least derived from previous ideas, there is also (sometimes) an incredibly positive reaction. The Allergy to Originality video began with the list of movies and how something is always a sequel, spinoff, etc. Being the theatre geek that I am, this video made me recall an article I read a few years back about original musicals. It is so incredibly rare that an original show is written nowadays. Many musicals are revivals, adaptations, or derived from something else. This basically comes down to risk. The cost of taking a show to broadway is so incredibly high that investors are simply not willing to take a chance on an unproven “franchise.” Like new musicals, artists can look at history, see what has been successful, and use those movements, styles, etc., as influences in there work while counting on the hopes that the audience will have the knowledge to understand and appreciate.
Cultural institutions involved would be museums, galleries, etc. In regards to music or film, production companies are included institutions. When thinking about social issues am drawn more to this overall issue of originality, or lack thereof. With more and more people using past artists as inspiration, there is a higher chance of this coming through too strongly in new work. Then there are tons of legal issues at hand. Transmediation comes into play with the way ideas are now able to be shared. Through various channels we can see artists showcasing themselves and sharing their work with the world.
The documentary on remix sparked a domestic discussion. My husband and I watched it together and found ourselves in disagreement near the end of the film, when Brazil’s “pirating” and redistribution of the AIDS drug was mentioned. “I hope that the organization that researched and discovered that drug didn’t go under because Brazil did this,” my husband, who is a PhD candidate in economics, said. I asked him why it mattered. “Because it takes a lot of money to come up with these things. Research isn’t free. A company that employs scientists that do this research has to make enough to stay afloat. They have thousands of failed attempts before they come up with something that works. If they don’t make money on the medicine they create then how can they continue to do research and create more helpful drugs?”
This upset me, because I like to think that the desire to help people is more of a driving force than money. This is an optimistic and idealistic approach to life, and I know that. As someone who majored in anthropology as an undergraduate student I have my own problems with capitalism as a community-building system of governance. One of the messages I picked up from the film is that when money is the goal of life, innovation, free expression, and creativity suffer. “But what is the point of creating a drug to help cure a widespread disease when people don’t have access to it? I don’t think it matters if that company that created the AIDS drug goes under if they can’t even distribute their medicine to people who need it. What is the point, then?”
“There has to be an incentive. We can’t have scientists working all day to discover these cures and drugs and then go home to their tiny studios because they don’t make that much money.”
“Does it matter if we have scientists living in studios? Is that a horrible thing?” Artists go home to studios all the time. Musicians, people who create and innovate and produce something that changes the way people think, listen, live. There is an economic hierarchy and art makers and art shakers do not seem to garner concern, where scientists do. Now I understand that processes of schooling are different, that drugs produced to cure disease have a huge impact and are incredibly important. But I am interested in the reality of this economic hierarchy, this particular current of hegemony. It is an interesting debate. What should matter more, the monetary capital to be able to create something or the accessibility of what is created?
The theme that I latched onto throughout this series of questions was that of copyright and the originality of art. I found that the documentary, Rip: A Remix Manifesto, was an interesting film regarding the issues of mash-ups and utilizing the work of others in the generation of new art. I think that this issue is particularly relevant today as more and more of our culture is becoming copyrighted, regulated and shelved. Music is an obvious starting point because it is a medium that is constantly under scrutiny for copyright infringement. Throughout the doc, the director focuses on musician Girl Talk, who uses his computer as an instrument to create mixes featuring popular songs. It was estimated that if he paid the royalties for all the tracks he used, it would cost him over $4M. While I can understand why some artists would feel possessive of their music and why they would want to benefit financially from it’s use, however, I think there was a valid argument in the documentary that by stifling the use and reuse of creative materials, we are providing big media outlets the opportunity to essentially monopolize creativity. I think that this also seeps into the first questions for this week about what the aesthetics of art and art participation are. The more that people become obsessed with controlling the market (I’m talking to you, Lars) the more restricted the dimensions for aesthetic diversity.
The other issue here is that art is taken to a new level of commercialism when copyright is involved. People fighting in court over who has the “right” to perform something as simple as Happy Birthday seems to negate most of Bill Ivey’s Cultural Bill of Rights. If we want to give everyone the opportunity to live a creative life, we have to open source our own art to allow for it’s future. Just look at Disney. I mean, come on! They have taken folktales from cultures around the world, twisted them and profited from them. If it weren’t for the work of those who came before, there would be no Disney. As demonstrated in Rip, even Steamboat Willie, the founding cartoon that gave the world Mickey Mouse, was taken from a previous film of Steamboat Bill.
Another reason why I think that this is such a potent and timely topic is because we have serious issues in our country regarding the regulation and patenting of medicine. In light of the recent ebola cases, which have caused a frenzy across news media and social sites, I’ve been thinking a lot about the ways in which medications have become a privilege in our country, used to push profits instead of healing the sick. If they were to invent a vaccine or cure for ebola, would it even be available to the people who needed it? Stories of the abuse victims of the disease have suffered for lacking health insurance are already becoming urban legends on the web. When Jonas Salk developed the cure for polio, he was asked if he would patent it and he simply replied, “Could you patent the sun?” My fear is that we are headed to an age where the answer to that question is yes.
I love the route you took in your feedback…”by stifling the use and reuse of creative materials, we are providing big media outlets the opportunity to essentially monopolize creativity.” I also thought that part of the Girl Talk video was particularly powerful. It makes me wonder…..someday, will there not be any original ideas left to have because companies will have monopolized them all? Since when did creativity become an asset to be licensed and controlled?
I had to look up the word “aesthetics” because I have struggled with understanding the use of this word in context of class. “A set of principles concerned with the nature and appreciation of beauty, especially in art, the branch of philosophy that deals with the principles of beauty and artistic taste.” (Google Search)
“What drives current aesthetics of art and arts participation?”
The two websites linked on the readings page for Module 3 spoke to me as someone who values nature and having participated in the world of fan fiction, (https://www.fanfiction.net/u/1210444/starrieidgirl). How I relate to these worlds is that I have participated in some activity related to each, whether by being involved in Free Shakespeare in the Park or posting my own fan fiction writing or fan art, http://www.deviantart.com/browse/all/?qh=§ion=&global=1&q=starrieidgirl.
How would I know about FSitP or about deviantART? Posters and word of mouth, respectfully but to have participated in the fan fiction came through a competition on a dedicated forum site for those how are fans of the Japanese manga/anime series Full Metal Alchemist. The stories and art I have submitted online are based on my interpretation of the work created by the original artist. By developing these works, I feel a deeper connection to the story though it may not actually exist in the artist’s mind. By participating in this manner, I am fulfilling some expectation that was not present in the original work. Similar to the mashup artist, Girl Talk, I am taking an existing work and expanding upon it and giving my own twist. As much as I attempted to draw the characters in the same manner as the original artist, I have my own unique style and very limited skills as a visual artist.
So if I am an aesthetic, I fall into the art world of Japanese manga and anime, cosplay, and theatre. Re-creating or interpenetrating another’s work is something I enjoy and relish my achievements when others appreciate my efforts. Proper credit is given to when I use someone else’s characters as they came up with it first and deserve the recognition. I know I cannot pay the original artist for the use of their characters, there appears to be some form of protection in place for a fan fiction writer like myself. This is where finding the website http://transformativeworks.org/ is wonderful as they are working to preserve fan art as it can be “transformitative.”
“What cultural institutions and structures are involved? What social forces/issues?”
So with the Organization of Transformative Works and Creative Commons (https://creativecommons.org/), we have the opposite effect with new anti-piracy laws to prevent the spread of illegal sales of DVDs, CDs, and Blue-Rays. But with Girl Talk, is the artist doing anything really wrong? He may not be paying the original artist royalty fees for sampling their music, but am I in the wrong as well with my fan art? Social forces in play is the acceptance of using another artists work without retribution but then is the original artist being properly represented and the use of work made by artists posted online now have to have their own set of regulations via Creative Commons and the Organization of Transformative Works. If public or private schools or colleges allow for students to use artists’ works for educational purposes are they exempt from paying royalties? Theatres, even schools, have to pay royalties for the use of scripts for plays and musicals when they are under copyright, but what about pre-show music for a contemporary play?
“In what ways do practices, ideas, narratives, or ideologies associated with this aesthetic depend on transmediations?”
Dedicated forum sites which encourage the sharing of stories and artwork then force the artist to find ways to get it online. The uploading or sharing of music via iTunes, Shazam, Napster, Sound Cloud, Spotify, Pandora, and Grooveshark may ask for you to create a profile and others can then access playlists and download them for their use as well. YouTube has become more stringent of the uploading of copyrighted works but I was able to spend numerous days watching fan sub-titled videos of Japanese anime as I was unable to access English dubbed videos because they were not made. By people using their various skills in another language or understanding rhythms to generate exciting playlists, people can participate in different forms of transmedia via the Internet.
Participation is a drive for current aesthetics of the art. In the article called Art Worlds, Becker states several examples of participation through the process of editing. I particularly liked the example of the different sentence structured arranged by T.C. Elliot and his editor. This is another great example of the discussion we had in class about who to credit for a project or work of art. It is also a discussion of using the title “artist.” Who is considered to be the creator? This is something I would like to discuss during class.
For the second part of the first question, I believe what drives participation is a shared passion to create something meaningful to all participates. No, I did not get this from Google or Wikipedia. There is probably something similar out their though to my original thought. Overall, participation has to be a passion somewhere along the way.
The issue I wanted to raise to this module is originality. All the readings and videos shared this common them and raised the question of how much the work is from an artist and how much is from influencers. This topic is similar to the question I raised about Duchamp’s works and how other artists influence each other. How much of the work is authentic and how much belongs to someone else. The Allegory To Originality video made this issue apparent to viewers. Originality is also an issue that graphic designers can run into too. In the media marketing class, I remember over hearing a conversation with students about you thing you have an original logo idea but the authenticity is hindered when you see another successful logo similar to it.
Transmedia plays a dynamic role in the practices, ideas, narratives, and ideologies associated with aesthetic in art. One that is most apparent is the influence it has on our choices for our work. We do research on the internet. Google makes it easier to look up images to inspire styles and artistic choices. For example, my field guide assignment took a different role y looking up walk art. It came up with a project of an artist who took picture of people walking y and glued the picture to the sidewalk. There were also image of highly developed chalk art that I am going to add to my project.
There are two things that I believe are currently driving the aesthetics of art and arts participation in society today. There is the obvious answer of business and corporation that was laid out clearly, and possibly a little biased, in the documentary RiP: A Remix Manifesto. But to say that it is biased does not mean that the point the film made wasn’t clear or correct in several ways. Bias is opinion and in many ways, opinions keep things moving forward and further developing. I think what the documentary did in answering this question about the aesthetics of art is it showed how art and arts participation is actually taken out of the equation many times and it becomes a cold hard reality of cash flow and revenue. But those aesthetics that the businesses or major corporations exude are then countered by this art culture and those that participate in it. And this is where you get art that is exemplified. Not only does this counter attack or sort of counter culture enhance the art that they put out there, but they make it more. They add, the mix, they distort, often times paying homage to the original artists, which – ding ding – in itself it a form of arts participation!
In the Becker chapter about Editing you can see a more formal side to this remix movement as well. Obviously literary works can’t be spun and scratched like a record but they can be manipulated and changed to fit that of another’s opinion of an ideal artistry or work of literature. The final product, a novel or poem, then proves that this form of participation, this word remix, can be accepted and embraced, and utilized.
So you’ve got these two forces, law fighting for rights sake and a certain culture or people fighting for the sake of shared art. The two feed and fuel each other, and sometimes, like seen in the end of the documentary, reform, reshape and influence each, if only a small bit.
Aesthetic, which is relating to art or beauty, responding to or appreciating of what is pleasurable to the senses. Aesthetic is a kind of ideology (ideas) and supported by art knowledge and artists’ related experiences. Art is something that is created with imagination and skill and that is beautiful or that expresses important ideas or feelings (comes from Webster). Art participation is a wild marketing of art world, art participator who carrying some art factors transfers or reflects the current aesthetic. Those three define has some overlap factors and influenced by each other.
Art has its epochal character, thus, we have to think how to define the era of the art and its related aesthetic value. Perhaps each art products that made at that time could represent some characters of its history, but what should we do is searching its core stuff, that is, art and art participant.
As for art, from the period of Renaissance to the oriental dynasties the development of the art reflected current social situation, economy, cultural policy, political background, and social aesthetic trends. In my opinion, art comes from the secular life and serves for its public. For example, during the war era, government used art to gain citizens’ supports. Let public reach out of psychophobia，art works playing a role of “placebo”. At this condition, aesthetic doesn’t have deep meaning except a govern tool. But afterwards, at post-war reconstruction period, arts was endowed an educational function. Rulers took advantage of art as therapy method and governance means. Governors made use of subjectivity and provocative character of art to penetrate ideology into the minds of the younger generation. Aesthetic at this time, served as soft govern policy. At the same time, art were also be used by some emerging artists. Artists usually utilized art forms to express their demands, such as painting, sculpture, composing or dancing. A painting works could show their desire for peace, discontented with ruling class. Even just create a pure space for their utopianism. Waiting until the revitalization and development time, art is given more profound aesthetic significance. The rapid development of emerging arts organizations and arts education institutions improving the people’s quality of life and aesthetic level. When the people’s material life are met, art helps people to open up new ways of life, pursuing of spiritual enjoyment. Many art communities are responsible for art education, providing more opportunities for local people to reach out of material life, touching art as much as possible.
Then, art participant is coming. Art is such a kind of activity needs collaboration and division of labor. Every participant in the cooperative network that creates the work could call “artist” broadly. In the early period of art, only those who have the sophistic skills are known as the artist. Others without outstanding talent were defined as the general public. At that time, general public might have no right to talk about “aesthetics”, most public have no access to the art and art-making process. But in modern life, art becomes more close to the people. Thus with the changes of nature of art and social openness improving, more and more people can participate in the art to become aesthetic composition. For example, only elite or professor have ability to appreciate or critic art works in the past, however, everyone could be come an influential person. Concert, for instance, many singers invited to sit in the audience to lead everyone to feel the music together and make them to become art participant. Besides that the increasing family-focus galleries or museums aim at appealing general target to be a part of their organization, desiring to more feedbacks or response. Even sending a Twitter message can be called participation.
There is no doubt that public participation and popular art are also very serious and formal. Contemporary Aesthetics is inclusive, diversity and acceptance. It is determined by the social nature, but also reflect the social aesthetic.
As I spent the majority of my time on the gregorybrothers.com website watching edited videos made in music videos, I’ll address first my commenting on the aesthetic process of editing. Watching all of the videos made me think about the idea of choice, as noted in the Becker idea, and how the artists editing those videos into songs were making purposeful choices to boost the aesthetics. Videos I might not have watched earlier were made into hilarious, aesthetically pleasing vehicles for the transmission of information. By appealing to the affection individuals have for pop culture, these artists were able to disseminate information more effectively. This editing and revising process of pre-existing text or art also plays into the other video about society being “allergic to originality”. I recall when this realization first hit me as a middle schooler with a passion for creative writing. It is easy to become depressed and feel jaded about the world at large and its collective creativity, or lack there of, and to think that everything that you have and may produce is just a recycled reiteration of something that was already stated in some form or another before. But things are revised and restated and reworked for a reason! Things are repeated because they are still working for our culture, and sometimes they fade with time because they no longer function for the creators or their audiences. And sometimes aspects of the old are worked into the new, because we must have a platform of reference from which to understand an object or text. I distinctly remember labororiously trying to create some creature, some being, some object that was so alien and urecognizable as to be deemed original. Not only is that feat impossible to arrive at for me, it would be impossible for my creation to be successful when presented to an audience who would not be able to relate to the creation.
Overwhelmingly, cultural ideals of what is aesthetically pleasing will influence the creation of art, and continue to be successful. Instead of being critical of the remakes and sequels, I rather think the revisions of things are responding in a culturally appropriate and effective way. By recreating something in the image of something which was already successful, the creator can be certain that his or her work will be viewed. Incorporating some level of original, innovative, provocative thinking within a work is equally as important, but needs to demonstrate some sort of cultural competency for there to be an audience.
All about the materials especially video are has a high requirement about English. According to the article “Locating Fair Use in the Space Between Fandom and the Art World” Henry Jenkins introduced one younger artist which has some experiences about the art world and fandom. She created a video to show her feminism, but it was force to delete, because the law considers this involves sensitive to the issue. This event reflects the society considers feminist issue is a sensitive topic.
Arts affected people in many aspects. like the Drew Christie made the just 5 minutes of video which called “Vanity Fair Decades – The 1940’s” introduced the story of the development of the United States tattoo culture in the period of World War II. United States tattoo 17-18 century colonization began in the Pacific group who explore the subject. At an early stage the US military tattoo is identify an military status, because during the war the physical casualties is incomplete,so the tattoo on the body can become a identification to help military to identify the solders. During World War II, known as the golden age of the tattoo, the US military was the highest rate of a group of people tattoo their leadership style and fashion in pattern layout is the most influential eagle on the Great Seal of the United States is the most popular text tattoos. The process of the war and the development of the American culture are the same time. Gradually, US soldiers choose pattern their parents, wives, children and lovers. Obviously，with the expansion and development of the tattoo culture, tattoo poetry are also on the rise during World War II. Because many poets will get inspiration from the prevailing environment and atmosphere.
Video introduced many people about tattoo’s developed, and one of them which I really impressed called Tattoo Lady. Video also introduced a novel which called Slight Rebellion off Madison, video tell people that a young Holden Caulfield who first meets Sally to go ice skating. After a short talk with her, Holden expresses his true thoughts about his perceived pointlessness of preparatory school.He continues and brings up the idea of moving with her far away from the city, but Sally dismisses this as an absurd fantasy. Later, Holden and Carl Luce appear at the Wadsworth bar, where they drink scotch and sodas. Holden addresses Carl as an “intellectual guy” and asks him hypothetically what he would do if he hated school and wanted to “get the hell out of New York.” Then, after chatting with the piano player at the bar , Holden waits for a bus on the corner of Madison Avenue with tears in his eyes. Finally，the video says the protagonist and author of the novel both committed suicide. Although it have some negative, but it also reflected the art on people’s thinking, behavior, etc have a huge impact.
Drew Chrisite also made a very interesting video which called Allergy To Originality: A New York Times Op-Doc. This is a humorous animated, explores the rich history of adaptation, plagiarism, and other forms of appropriation in art. As we all know, plagiarism are very common social phenomenon，video not only reveals the social nowadays situation, but also led people to think. Because in our lives, we can see the plagiarism everywhere but we all did not to thought why. Through the video, maybe we should require deep thinking about this phenomenon.
When we’re thinking of current art and arts participation, a lot of what is going on right now falls into this idea of editing and remixing that most of the reading for this module had to do with. Originality used to mean being able to come up with a new idea, but these days originality can be taking something that already exists and presenting it in a new way. That rearrangement of existing capital has become a very legitimate version of “creation” even though the individual parts were not created by the artist. The product, however still maintains a sense of style, individuality, and that “ness” that makes you able to identify something as art. After listening to some of the Kutiman videos, I sent them to one of my friends because I knew that they leant themselves to his taste in music. I made that judgement based on a genre that I identified from all of these disparate parts that were put together. I doubt that anyone who constituted any of those videos knew they were going to form part of a well-formed piece of music that would be the smokey, sultry, somewhat dissonant, and enchantingly aloof kind of thing that you’d hear in a smoke-filled jazz club. Kutiman saw all of the parts – a horn trio in a practice room, a guy giving a vibraphone tutorial, a possibly amateur singer performing part of an original song – like a painter would see the different colored paints and made a fully-formed piece. You can say that you like the saxophone bit just like you can say that you like the green in the paint, but the pieces that make up this kind of art would each be individual paintings themselves. The parts and the whole are both greater than each other in their own ways; these songs wouldn’t be the same if all of the people were on stage performing together. The songs would still sound good, but the novelty of the collaborators who never knew that they would collaborate to make that song lessens the overall effect.
More and more cultural institutions are starting to get involved in these sorts of aesthetic practices. Look at the publishers who are putting out the “Pride and Prejudice and Zombies” series that are re-imagining classics with monsters that proliferate modern-day horror movies. DJs like Girl Talk and DJ Earworm take popular songs and make new songs that say new things out of them. Even some movies and TV shows take borrow recognizable elements from each other so that the perceptive participant has a chuckle and can pat themselves on the back for their knowledge of pop culture. If done well, these practices can also make the audience member think that the artistic product is smarter and more personal because of those references. These sorts of practices go from street art and dance all the way up to Broadway shows (the references to Les Mis in the musical Urinetown), popular movies like Frozen (taking notable gestures from the show Arrested Development), choral music based on famous poems, and many others.
Like the remix manifesto said, the copyright industry and big corporations often try to make these practices not happen. Especially when it comes to music and movies, there are many roadblocks to creating art like this without risking legal action. Like any social issue like this, people are reacting against the corporations to create art like this just to make a statement.
In what ways do practices, ideas, narratives, or ideologies associated with this aesthetic depend on transmediations?
Transmediation is incredibly important to this aesthetic. This blending together of art across genre and medium relies on a wide range of source material. In the video game Bioshock Infinite, many of the most important scenes are augmented by music by Mozart as well jazz re-imaginations of songs like “Tainted Love.” Really, this aesthetic is a perfect example of transmediation. Borrowing, fixing, and re-imagining already existing pieces of art to make a new product both makes up these remixes as well as the idea of what transmedia can do. At its best, it is an incredibly original way to view an existing landscape of art while carving out a new place in that landscape. At its worst, and what many of the corporations argue, is that it is a blatant rip off of something that already exists and violates the ownership of the original artist. In the end, that debate will go on and has been going on for a long time, but it is the transmedia at the heart of this form of creation that both gives it its life and controversy.
One could argue that all art is not original because it stems from material previously authored, whether that is an idea or a tangible creation. Then again, if that cannot be helped, then “original” must be defined, which may as well be within the terms of recreating existing information in a new creative way. All of the specific videos sourced for this section, as well as the Becker article, present thoughts associated with the appropriation of ideas, music and art. These things are consumed and digested and then may re-enter the world as something else. The reality is that very little is truly original. It is all based off of existing knowledge and experiences. Art aesthetics are driven by the existing culture on which it feeds, and transmediation expedites this process of digesting, transforming and expelling information.
Arts participation essentially results in a constant co-authorship of works, giving multi-dimensional meanings to everything. In Becker’s Art Worlds he talked about how it is really the art world that makes the work rather than the individual artist, because there are so many more people involved when it comes down to the actual formulation of an art work (Becker, p. 194). Not only are artists borrowing existing material and ideas, even unknowingly, but they are automatically incorporating the work and ideas of other people by default. This question begs to be asked: how can anyone claim to be an original author?
The reality is that there are institutions set in place to control and protect authorship, ownership and originality. These institutions may be formal copyright firms or institutional arts organizations that attempt to regulate ideas of culture. Even though a work could potentially be authored by a significant number of people, the unwritten and written rules of society say that this cannot be. Copyright laws specifically, which were originally set to encourage creativity, are now more limiting than ever as we find ourselves within an increasingly digital age. Transmediation has allowed the consumer to enter a new realm as creator. Creativity is now accessible for almost anyone, and it has no limits, except for those posed by societal institutions committed to preserving individual authorship and ownership. All for profit.
So often we equate art and truth because it represents some truth within the human spirit or our cultures. One of the reasons people become upset about sampling (what Girl Talk does) is that people want to believe that a lone artist exists who made a perfect product. When another artist samples something so obvious from that artist, then the artist, the people working with the artist, and the fans of the artist often become upset, as if something has been taken away from them. This something could deal with ego or money, but they often feel there has been a disservice. In modern times, we have laws regulating these practices. However, the creation of transmediations is made ever easier as the internet grows. The idea of who owns something comes into play more and more. While the origins of these feelings of unfairness seem perfectly natural, the reality is that we live in a highly participatory, ever shifting landscape where stifling practices like sampling or including other artists’ work within new art can also stifle creativity, art participation, and the longevity of the original art item.
The idea that Girl Talk takes the production of other artists and uses them for himself fascinates or bothers many people. But, when this happens in a private arena, such as Becker’s example of T.S. Elliot taking ideas and thoughts of another famous poet, Ezra Pound, then people call this collaboration. With the existence of the internet comes the heightened possibility to collaborate remotely and to sample and share ideas with strangers. The system is flawed if copyrighted material stops the creation of new material, rather than simply protects a cohesive product.
It seems to me, that on the whole, that arts and arts participation is driven mainly by cultural consumerism. If the general population does not find the artwork or performance pleasing, then the success of the artwork in question can be greatly compromised. That isn’t to say that all art has to be aesthetically pleasing to be considered art. Throughout our history, there have been numerous artists who have produced artwork that has been less than desirable to look at or listen to (example: Manzoni’s work “Merda d’artista, or Chris Burden’s performance “Through the Night Softly”). Often art that is aesthetically pleasing is only one facet of the artworks that are produced within our artistic culture. We as participants, we don’t always have the opportunity to see these other, less aesthetically pleasing, sides of art, as they are less desirable to the human experience.
The driving cultural institutions and structures that are involved with the defining of aesthetics often still are universities, colleges, and museums, but also digital outlets in our popular culture. Blogs, web forums, and social media all have a hand in the art that has become accessible to the public. Therefore, if these digital media sources filter the pieces that are being viewed by the general public (promoting some over others for example), one can then say that the general public’s view on aesthetics is being filtered as well.
However, the use of internet sources to promote art also have a significant role in the process of transmedia as well. Art is now far more accessible to the general public than it had been in the past. Previously, art (using the conventional term loosely here, as we all understand that art is not just defined to what the old masters have produced) used to be housed only in museums and galleries. During this era, art was kept away from the general public through not only distance, but also intimidating institutions. Nowadays, I can sit on my computer and type in a rough description of the artwork that I’m interested in, and google will pop up with at least 14,000 suggestions. I may not be seeing the artwork in person, but I am still participating in its viewing and aesthetics.
In what ways do practices, ideas, narratives, or ideologies associated with this aesthetic depend on transmediations?
Based on the reading by Becker, I believe that current aesthetics of art and arts participation are driven by this idea of “choice.” All forms of art are simply expressions of personal meaning that artists seek to display through physical or ephemeral materials. “Their choices, made throughout the life of a work, and the artist’s knowledge of what their standards and choices will probably be, constitute the mechanism by which participation in in an art world affects what artists do and the character of their work,” (Becker 197). All of these choices create transformations of similar works throughout time by various participants. Because of this, it can be asserted that art worlds drive current aesthetics of art rather than individual artists.
Because all forms of art are transformative and derivative of each other, several cultural and social institutions are involved in their creation and regulation. I think the blog post, “Locating Fair Use in the Space Between Fandom and the Art World (Part One),” shared a lot of helpful information that helps us understand the social forces and issues that several appropriation artists are facing today. Stacia Yeapanis and others are now battling against the Digital Millennium Copyright Act for their right to remix videos, movies, songs, etc. to reflect their own social commentary and ideals that they create from viewing or listening to others’ work. Since childhood, we are taught to not take art at face value, but to create our own meanings. It becomes confusing when laws are placed on expressions of creativity. How can someone dictate what you think and feel about someone else’s art, and then how you display this thought process to others? It reminds me of the literature and creative poetry classes I took during my undergraduate degree. We were encouraged and taught how to create “blackout poetry,” which is the process of blacking out portions of a poem to create our own through random words and sentences. What makes this acceptable in an academic and institutional setting, but not fan fiction and the remixing of youtube videos?
Since all art forms depend on others to provide a background of understanding, I would argue that they all depend on transmediations. Due to the fact that similar ideas are presented through a plethora of avenues, multitudes of people are able to find one that aids their understanding in various forms of art. Some may come across blogs or forms of written work that may resonate with them, while others who do not enjoy reading encounter similar ideas through film or television that they might not have encountered elsewhere.
As obvious as this sounds… everybody needs a voice, ANY VOICE in the social/communal/global-discussion. Often the only available voice is the artistic voice. This need for a voice simmers within all of, it only depends upon “circumstances.” When I think about reasons to create and one cultural cause for one realm of art/aesthetics I immediately think DADA and Surrealism and how it helped to cultivate much of the counter-culture are within the last century. Social injustice can be what drive many to create what they do, whether it be emotional or financial.
The angry-voiceless, the spurned-creatives making mock of what the status-quo defines as the norm, war is good, “I’m rich because I worked hard,” etc. Although I don’t exactly agree with the approach of some of the gonzo-style-commentary, some being what I’d consider actual vandalism, I do see a need for it. BUT I also see this kind of approach causing a very negative reaction. I see is cultivating disdain for many good causes. Such as negative coverage of a billboard bomb, coverage that concentrates only on the end-product, the act of “vandalism” and not the meaning.
Participation of art aesthetic is always considered as involved between art professionals and elite in such areas in the past generations. Modern technics help no marl people to get their own art works. By creating stages through Youtube, minecraft or even an app on the Iphone, putting a piano stage in the subways, or with any possible ways to create aesthetic “dialogues” can be easier and simple than ever before.
Transmedia can definitely do to help participation, we are informed by great things, but not only form one resource, by gaining the art with visual , sound or any other forms can be stimulated much more easier.
However, with the easier access to create art with internet, there are still, we can not ignore the fact, too many sounds out there, people are trying to express, they determine not to keep the silent any more longer, with this kind of chaos situation and environment, atheistic by ordinary people can be easily scanned, ignored or even belittled.
This is the point art organization work their ways out, with the resources or to say , transmedia dialogue a mature organization may provide, we offer dialogues, bridges for people to participate in a stage.
I think there are various elements to drive current aesthetics of art, but actually I know little about it, because it is a deep research field in arts I consider. As far as concerned, the first element that comes to my mind if you ask this question are artists. Just like most people think, artists create art works, so they control art current aesthetics. Artists can affect audiences’ feeling by their art works. “If I write this in a minor key, it will affect people as sad, since it makes me sad, and will produce the emotion I am after” an artist says.
After reading material of Becker, H. S. I knew except artists, there are other significant elements actually. First of all, editors have right to make decision to art works. They decide the theme of art works although they don’t create them and they also have many choices to decide what art works can be released. It seems editors have the most power, but they are not the only ones who make choices. Because I think editors choices are based on every art participants’ suggestions, including audiences, current hot topics, etc… Good editors can make decision by their own, but that don’t mean they just consider personal preferences. They may have a series of standards. I don’t know what are their specific standards, but being a fashion editor is always my dream career.
Audiences, one of very key elements to art works. Although they don’t devote to particular work, they also contribute to drive current aesthetics of arts. Audiences means marketing, for profit art organizations or companies audiences’ feedback is important, which will guide the direction of arts and decision of editors. In reading material Becker, H. S. puts forward the idea that art works have not stable character, audiences can both learn to experience new elements and forget how to experience old elements of a work, which is fresh to me. After thinking, I believe this interpretation makes some sense. Maybe there are less audience who are the loyal fans to a specific artist, they like art works than artists. In art artistic world, there are no stable audiences.
Remove the human factor, there are other factors to drive the current aesthetics of art. Policy is one of elements that cannot be ignored. If art works touch some dangerous topics, that will not be allowed to publish. Government use their power to restrain sensitive topics they think. War is another factor will drive art direction. Wars can destroy art works deeply, even making human civilization backward. So protecting these precious art works is important for human beings.
Aesthetics. Hegemony. High art versus Low art. Who is to say something is high or low? I can see now that we are in a different world now. All these concepts and ideas are new to me. I am enjoying all the above comments and seeing some of the common threads of thought. I am learning so much and feeling super grateful.
The cultural and institutions that are involved that I see as being involved are museums, art galleries and or art centers. Many of these seem or appear as “stuffy” or going towards a more intellectual sensibility that may intimidate the general public, this can affect participation and these are issues that I am sure many of these organizations deal with regularly. It’s not all of them. I think “transmediations” are more interesting now, as it reaches wider group and can take unique forms. Just the thought that strangers can look at what is available online through various portals to see what is being created artistically. I question if one posts art on their facebook page, does it diminish the artist’s art? Is it considered “art” still once it’s published online? I have wondered about this. I have been creating paintings, cards and various other doodles, yet I have posted quite a bit on photobucket, fb and or myspace. I question if these choices were good choices to make as an artist. At the time, I think it’s just a fun way to get my art out there. However, it does make me think should I have been more selective about where I post my art? Where is the portal for artists? Is it back to the art gallery versus online?
Then when we talk about participation and collaboration, I can see how artists need to rely on other artists to help build a network of mentors. When one artist is starting out to market themselves, how do they reach out to other artists that are already well known in a community. How do they network? Who teaches them how to communicate with other professionals? These are important issues that I think artists confront. If they already claim to have fame, how do they continue working?
I want to talk about the Kutiman videos. I really enjoyed these because I valued seeing people working together and creating something new. It created a new community and it’s a place for exploring sound. I enjoyed seeing this. It gave me a sense of inspiration. I also value seeing how the videos were editing in a new way. Plus, the viewer can collaborate and or participate by writing comments to connect with all the musicians.
(Becker P. 3) “My description of the choices that constitute a work of art is deceptively oversimplified. I described the artist making the work, as though one person were involved. In fact, as I demonstrated earlier, a great many people are involved in the division of labor I have called in art world. Their choices, made throughout the life of a work, and the artists knowledge of what their standards and choices will probably be, constitute the mechanism by which participation in an art world affects what artists do and the character of the work.” This statement speaks to me on the level that there is a relationship between artists and how what they are creating becomes it’s own form of communication. I know that when I am creating new comics or new paintings. I am inspired by what I see around me whether it’s my environment or the way we feel certain emotions. I am inspired by human nature. I am intrigued by human interaction and our idiosyncratic habits. This is why I love to draw comics or cartoons. I know on a deeper level though when I show my work and if the work itself doesn’t communicate on an aesthetic way, I feel that I have missed something. I have become excluded from something bigger. It allows for me to dig deeper in my work. I am wanting to look at my choices in a new way every time I work. There are new ways to create something and new ways to reach out to others.
After reading material,i think power of the media promote the popularization and improvement of art, and the media with its special status and power discourse about the direction of the development of the arts, or lead the trend of development of art.
For example,With respect to the production of individual artists in the past, the relationship between contemporary art and society, although this does not change the characteristics of the individual production, but the dependence of individuals and society often makes it difficult to leave the arts society and independent existence. For the artists, after creation, they can’t completely self-appreciation, only through social communication in order to show the value. The role and influence of the media occurred in each period and each stage of the exchange.For example,hold solo exhibition for this artist,publicize by media,a powerful art critic of the evaluation will affect the development of this artist.
So, I think the power of the media is an important element in the development of artistic aesthetics, with the media and art exhibitions, art events, often become a part of the artistic activities. That because the position of the media over the years in mass psychology in the formation. No media involvement with artistic activity is difficult to imagine. Today, the relationship between art and the media, in addition to the original meaning, more artistic activities and content of the event, become the object of media attention, which also reflects the economic development of the arts and arts position upgrade,also show the functions of the media itself diversification. Media and Arts Development has a close relationship. Highly developed media, not only popularize basic knowledge of art, contact the relationship between art and the public, but also promote the development of modern art. Media is an invisible giant hand, guide the aesthetic fate general audience, but also determines the acquisition of art information about art,and influence arts market price movements and market conditions.
The concept of ‘aesthetics’ is one of those protean things that is always in flux. Drawing on art history, we can witness a shift from portraiture to landscapes to religious paintings. Busts, friezes, sculptures, things had a time and season that changed with what people wanted to see. In the modern age I would argue that the changes move much more quickly due to the speed at which technology allows us to participate in art. The advent of Photoshop meant that we no longer had to worry that our own bodies were not aesthetically pleasing because we could now change how they look to those online. I’ll just put the word catfish here and see what it does.
Beyond the visual, people have an expectation of how someone should act as well. If you look at entertainment, you have stereotypical and typecast characters. These would not exist but for the same reason as visual aesthetics. These tropes become what people expect and what they look for. Only when it’s missing or it becomes overly saturated to people tend to notice. The seasons continue to change though.