# The eternal question - Does art mirror society or shape it?



## Drama

I like this one. it`s trite and warmed over the cabbage and at the same time it`s not. Yet, whichever conclusion you come to you can`t help admitting that there is food for thought in it. so here comes the question:
*Does Art mirror sociaty or it shape it?*


----------



## Tsoman

neither


----------



## Drama

> neither


Really? Why? Please, my bold curiosity permits me to insist on your backing up your point of veiw by explaining yourslef.) or maybe you just had nothing else to say off the top of your head and it looked like a good easy answer?


----------



## Tsoman

I think it is more a reflection of the artist or the artist's perception of society.


----------



## cuchuflete

And here is the contrary trite answer: Both.

Until and unless you provide your definition of "art", I will assume you mean the things seen and experienced in galleries, fine publications, museums, concert halls, and jazz clubs.  This is not art for the masses.  That is where Tsoman and I coincide.  
Most people have very little exposure to that kind of artistic effort, and the artists who create it only sometimes reflect the broader society around them.  

If you include literature in your definition, we will have stepped towards the edge of what this particular forum allows,  (we do not discuss individual literary works here) but I do think that much of literature is strongly influenced by society, and has some effect on society.


----------



## DDT

cuchuflete said:


> And here is the contrary trite answer: Both.


I agree. Let me add that art is the expression of the society which both the artist and the public contribute to create. 



cuchuflete said:


> Until and unless you provide your definition of "art", I will assume you mean the things seen and experienced in galleries, fine publications, museums, concert halls, and jazz clubs.  This is not art for the masses.  That is where Tsoman and I coincide.
> Most people have very little exposure to that kind of artistic effort, and the artists who create it only sometimes reflect the broader society around them.


It really depends on the artist's talent and sensitivity...why such artists as Leonardo or Raffaello or Michelangelo are worldwide known? Because their genius and sensitivity allowed them to create such masterpieces which can reach and pierce through (almost) everyone. Not all the artists of the same period achieved such a result. Todays it's more or less the same except for the fact that unfortunately some artists are nothing but the result of a shrewd marketing campaign...a good artist and a good writer are able to talk to the masses. I also think we are too involved in the society whose some artists are the expression, that doesn't allow us to have a detached judgement.
And I have to agree, some artists are part of an elite circle not reflecting at all the broader society. But sometimes they're not  

DDT


----------



## ps139

Drama said:


> I like this one. it`s trite and warmed over the cabbage and at the same time it`s not. Yet, whichever conclusion you come to you can`t help admitting that there is food for thought in it. so here comes the question:
> *Does Art mirror sociaty or it shape it?*


BOTH. 

You can make a good case for either way. So, it does both. Call me a simpleton but that's the way I see it.


----------



## sébastien pinsonneault

I think that artists can do both : mirror the society and shape it by being creative.


----------



## cuchuflete

sébastien pinsonneault said:


> I think that artists can do both : mirror the society and shape it by being creative.


  Moving beyond the theory of what artists are capable of doing, can you provide some examples of how artists shape society today, or have done so in recent years?


----------



## .   1

Drama said:


> Really? Why? Please, my bold curiosity permits me to insist on your backing up your point of veiw by explaining yourslef.) or maybe you just had nothing else to say off the top of your head and it looked like a good easy answer?


Geeze you're not backward in coming forward are you.
Your question is difficult because you have asked a question with only two possible answers.
You did not ask for reasons you just waded in with a double barrelled question and then criticized the first response you received.
It's a good thing that I have a thick skin and an ego to match or I would not dare to try to answer you.
Art is society not a mirror of society.
Society shapes art and society mirrors art.
Art is deconstructed society.
Society drives art and allows art to survive and civilisation flourishes in part because of art.

Thanks for your time.

.,,


----------



## Etcetera

cuchuflete said:


> And here is the contrary trite answer: Both.


It seems to me that the artist mirror the society they live in firstly, and then their works may change the society - if they're talented enough.


----------



## maxiogee

What is "art"?
Is Tracey Emin's unmade bed really 'art' - it doesn't seem to 'speak to me', nor does Damien Hirst's split cow. However they do seem to mirror society at the present - fascinated by the trite and the superficial, and valueless.

Does they shape society — I truly hope not. Does any art shape society, I don't know if high art can, but mundane art, utilitarian art, must surely rub off on people through constant exposure — vernacular architecture, postage stamps, well-styled mass-produced products etc.


----------



## Abu Bishr

To answer the question as to whether art mirrors society or shapes it, I'd say it depends on the role that one sees art as playing: either passive or active. Some might see art as playing a passive role such that it merely reflects and mirrors reality including social reality while others see it as playing a more active role in bringing about some type of social change where such a change is needed. In fact, art has been used by both oppressors and the oppressed masses for opposite ends: the former to perpetuate and continue the current status quo and the latter to change and eliminate the current state of affairs. Now, as to whether these two groups actually succeed in achieving their respective goals through art depends on how successful they are in employing art for that purpose, and getting the desired result in their audiences.

At the same time I think it is imprtant to make a distinction between two types of art: high art and popular ("pop") art. While classical music is high art "pop" music falls into popular art, while theater or drama is (generally speaking) high art, film is (generally) "pop" art. Now I would say that "pop" art has had an undeniable impact on society in many ways some being more fundamental and significant than others.

Art has also been used to question standards (even those of art itself) and perceptions, stimulate debate and even used to create controversy. In other words, art can be used both positively and negatively each with its own impact on society. Art is also relative ("Beauty is in the eye of the beholder"). What is art to some is blasphemy to others.

So that's my take.


----------



## .   1

maxiogee said:


> What is "art"?
> Is Tracey Emin's unmade bed really 'art' - it doesn't seem to 'speak to me', nor does Damien Hirst's split cow. However they do seem to mirror society at the present - fascinated by the trite and the superficial, and valueless.
> 
> Does they shape society — I truly hope not. Does any art shape society, I don't know if high art can, but mundane art, utilitarian art, must surely rub off on people through constant exposure — vernacular architecture, postage stamps, well-styled mass-produced products etc.


Unmade beds and split cows seem to reflect a part of our society that is remote to me.  Ballet and Opera confuse me and seem to be more a form of sport.
Postage stamps and advertising billboards and music CD cases and music and books have the opportunity to change the way we perceive what we are.

.,,


----------



## pedro0001

Drama said:


> I like this one. it`s trite and warmed over the cabbage and at the same time it`s not. Yet, whichever conclusion you come to you can`t help admitting that there is food for thought in it. so here comes the question:
> *Does Art mirror sociaty or it shape it?*




NEITHER! The artist can use art to show his point of view about something 
of the society, but ART is not necessariliy connected with society. I don't think 
Chopin wanted to mirror anything of society as he wrote his pianno master 
pieces. Wanted Van Gough to shape society in any of his paintings? No, of 
course not. Art is the food of the alm and has little or nothing to do with society. 
IMHO, of course.


----------



## Drama

_oh, thanks for your reaction and responses. Thank you all those who have found the time and will to express your point of view on this one. It`s a good thing to realise that my thread didn`t fall on deaf ears. _

_What is Art itself? _
_The representation, expression of the world unknown confined in the frame of the mind. A moment arrested in eternity. Sometimes morbid, revolting, spooky, sick turning your stomach putting a disapproving frown on your face, sometimes too esoteric, rambling, abstruse, convoluted raising eyebrows but not more than 2 per person. Other times, speaking in images, it takes your breath away leaving you gasping for air by its beauty all consuming, overwhelming. Art is everything, anything that has you thinking deep, forgetting yourself for a moment, be it a piece of symphony, poetry or a painting or a sculpture. _

_Coming back to the second part of the question. Does art shape society? – Yes. Why? I`ll try to put you on the picture without getting muddled when attempting my sentences._
_What do you go to galleries for? And what about theatres? Music concerts? Do you hit such spots only because your friends say it is a trendy thing to do? Or simply to be surrounded by the bohemian spirit for a while just to show off in front of a bunch of simpletons afterwards? – No. We go there hoping, believing, thirsting for expansion, expansion of the mind, soul, world perception. We seek release, realization of our own fantasies and dreams in what we see around us in there. We go there to push the boundaries, horizons of our own minds by means of having a look into the inner worlds of others. _
_Thus: Art mirrors the minds of those who create it and helps shape the minds of those who admire it._


----------



## pedro0001

Drama said:


> _Coming back to the second part of the question. Does art shape society? – Yes. Why? I`ll try to put you on the picture without getting muddled when attempting my sentences._
> _What do you go to galleries for? And what about theatres? Music concerts? Do you hit such spots only because your friends say it is a trendy thing to do? Or simply to be surrounded by the bohemian spirit for a while just to show off in front of a bunch of simpletons afterwards? – No. We go there hoping, believing, thirsting for expansion, expansion of the mind, soul, world perception. We seek release, realization of our own fantasies and dreams in what we see around us in there. We go there to push the boundaries, horizons of our own minds by means of having a look into the inner worlds of others. _
> _Thus: Art mirrors the minds of those who create it and helps shape the minds of those who admire it._



Very nice, but what has all this with society to do? You're not responding your own question.


----------



## Drama

> Very nice, but what has all this with society to do? You're not responding your own question.


why? i thought i`d made my point of view perfectly clear. if it sounds too rambling or esoteric.. well, isn`t it what art is all about?


----------



## Abu Bishr

Drama said:


> _Thus: Art mirrors the minds of those who create it and helps shape the minds of those who admire it._


 
I suppose that could be one way of looking at art, and a very interesting one at that.


----------



## Drama

By the personal pronoun " WE", i had the ball to mean "Society". I think i should`ve used the word itself... sorry,  been reading too much philosophy of late.


----------



## pedro0001

Drama said:


> why? i thought i`d made my point of view perfectly clear. if it sounds too rambling or esoteric.. well, isn`t it what art is all about?



I respect you're point of view w.r.t. art and I find it nice. But what you are saying about art has nothing to do with society. Please read the definition of society, and then tell me which parts of your writting are refered to the definition: 

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/society


----------



## DDT

pedro0001 said:


> NEITHER! The artist can use art to show his point of view about something
> of the society, but ART is not necessariliy connected with society. I don't think
> Chopin wanted to mirror anything of society as he wrote his pianno master
> pieces. Wanted Van Gough to shape society in any of his paintings? No, of
> course not. Art is the food of the alm and has little or nothing to do with society.
> IMHO, of course.


I think that art is always fully related to society (or a part of it), the form it is expressed can be very detached though.
Try to answer this question: how come that Van Gogh created his works by the end of the 19th century and not during the Renaissance or the Middle Ages? All kind of artistic expressions are "sons and sisters" of the period and the consequent society the artist is going through. You might object that today we can find people painting the way the Renaissance artists did, but that's not art, it's just trivial imitation or plagiarism...and to a certain extent even imitation can make sense, it was used some years ago in order to provoke or to denounce the malaise of...society   [It is a fact sometimes this kind of art is not that easy to understand, that's why in my previous post I made a distinction between good, talented artists and the other ones]

DDT


----------



## DDT

pedro0001 said:


> I respect you're point of view w.r.t. art and I find it nice. But what you are saying about art has nothing to do with society. Please read the definition of society, and then tell me which parts of your writting are refered to the definition:
> 
> http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/society


Let me politely disagree. There is no unique definition of "society" as well as "art" cannot be shut in the cage of a unique definition  
Since definitions are subjective a discussion about definitions is neverending and would lead to no conclusions

DDT


----------



## Drama

> Let me politely disagree. There is no unique definition of "society" as well as "art" cannot be shut in the cage of a unique definition
> 
> DDT


S
I totally come along with DDT on this one.
Society.... what does society consist of? It consists of idividuals such as I, You,They. The more general definition which in my book could be used is "WE".


----------



## pedro0001

DDT said:


> I think that art is always fully related to society, the form it is expressed can be very detached though.
> Try to answer this question: how come that Van Gogh created his works by the end of the 19th century and not during the Renaissance or the Middle Ages?



Sorry my naivety, but maybe because he was not born at that time? What has this with society to do? If Van Gough were born in the medieval time, he would probably have painted something else. But this does not means that what he painted was a mirror or a shape of the society. Van  Gough has painted his soul, his feelings, not the society. 



DDT said:


> All kind of artistic expressions are "sons and sisters" of the period and the consequent society the artist is going through.



But this does not mean that art mirrors or shapes society! Not at all.



DDT said:


> You might object that today we can find people painting the way the Renaissance artists did, but that's not art, it's just trivial imitation or plagiarism



Sorry, but I don't agree with this.


----------



## maxiogee

DDT said:


> There is no unique definition of "society" as well as "art" cannot be shut in the cage of a unique definition



How then can the question posed in this thread even begin to be approached? 
This is balderdash, and possibly even piffle!  
The indefinable cannot affect the undefined!


----------



## pedro0001

Drama said:


> S
> I totally come along with DDT on this one.
> Society.... what does society consist of? It consists of idividuals such as I, You,They. The more general definition which in my book could be used is "WE".



Since when "consist of" means "to be"?


----------



## pedro0001

maxiogee said:


> How then can the question posed in this thread even begin to be approached?
> This is balderdash, and possibly even piffle!
> The indefinable cannot affect the undefined!



 Exactly.


----------



## DDT

pedro0001 said:


> Sorry my naivety, but maybe because he was not born at that time? What has this with society to do? If Van Gough were born in the medieval time, he would probably paint something else. But this does not means that what he painted was a mirror or a shape of the society. Van  Gough has painted his soul, his feelings, not the society.


The complexity of society moulds every human being, I think an artist is someone able to reinterpretate this complexity through his own sensitivity




pedro0001 said:


> But this does not mean that art mirrors or shapes society! Not at all.


On the contrary it does, art is (also) a form of reaction to what the artist is surrounded by




pedro0001 said:


> Sorry, but I don't agree with this.


I have already written about the sense of imitation, if you decontextualize my sentence I can simply say that I respect everyone's point of view  

DDT


----------



## Drama

> Since when "consist of" means "to be"?


Society not being "automonous" by itself exists by means of consisting of idividuals not by means of being. There is no "We" there is no society. Plainly speaking, there are no people what society can we talk about at all?


----------



## pedro0001

Drama said:


> Society not being "automonous" by itself exists by means of consisting of idividuals not by means of being. There is no "We" there is no society. Plainly speaking, there are no people what society can we talk about at all?



Hello Drama,

Wihtout offences. I think you're making a terrible abuse of language and reasoning and this is not taking us anywhere.

Cheers


----------



## Drama

> If Van Gough were born in the medieval time, he would probably paint something else. But this does not means that what he painted was a mirror or a shape of the society.


1. Would have Van Gogh painted something different?- God only knows
2. Geezes,please, be so kind as to put me out or my misery: Is he still alive?!) if my memory serves me well he shot himself on July 27 year 1890 and died 2 days later on July 29.. i haven`t heard anything about him painting ever since.))


----------



## DDT

maxiogee said:


> How then can the question posed in this thread even begin to be approached?
> This is balderdash, and possibly even piffle!
> The indefinable cannot affect the undefined!


Everyone's got his points of view.
IMO unique definitions leave no room for discussion since they imply the claim to being objective  

DDT


----------



## pedro0001

Drama said:


> 1. Would have Van Gogh painted something different?- God only knows
> 2. Geezes,please, be so kind as to put me out or my misery: Is he still alive?!) if my memory serves me well he shot himself on July 27 year 1890 and died 2 days later on July 29.. i haven`t heard anything about him painting ever since.))



Thanks for the correction altought you're being a little ironic.

(You can read point number 1. of the *Word Reference General Guidelines*: http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=14701 )


----------



## maxiogee

Drama said:


> If Van Gough were born in the medieval time, he would probably paint something else. But this does not means that what he painted was a mirror or a shape of the society.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Geezes,please, be so kind as to put me out or my misery: Is he still alive?!) if my memory serves me well he shot himself on July 27 year 1890 and died 2 days later on July 29.. i haven`t heard anything about him painting ever since.))
Click to expand...


What do you not to understand? Where is the cause of your confusion?
Van Gogh was born 1853,
the Middle Ages are generally held to have ended around 300 years earlier,




Drama said:


> 2. Geezes,please, be so kind as to put me out or my misery:


Why?


----------



## ireney

Drama a "the way I see it" in the beginning of your statement would be nice since you make such generic claims 

This is art as _you_ perceived it. I have my own opinion and I have had many chances to follow people much more "versed" in art (if one can believe that such a thing exists) argue about whether a painting i.e. is or isn't art.



> What do you go to galleries for? And what about theatres? Music concerts? Do you hit such spots only because your friends say it is a trendy thing to do? Or simply to be surrounded by the bohemian spirit for a while just to show off in front of a bunch of simpletons afterwards? – No.



All of us? Well I know quite a few people who haven't set foot in a gallery, a theatre or a concert hall and they are part of society too. I have heard about people buying works of art just because they are expensive really or just to show that they too appreciate the art (just as a friend of mine has a pretty nifty selection of books he has never opened).



> No. We go there hoping, believing, thirsting for expansion, expansion of the mind, soul, world perception. We seek release, realisation of our own fantasies and dreams in what we see around us in there. We go there to push the boundaries, horizons of our own minds by means of having a look into the inner worlds of others.



Once again it is "I" instead of "we". 

What philosophers have you been reading? The majority of the philosophers I know of prefer a "neuter" expression like "one", "people" etc and the vast majority of them avoid sweeping generalisations when it comes to people motives (or just make them and add an "of course it doesn't refer to everyone" comment afterwards  )


----------



## Drama

> [All of us? Well I know quite a few people who haven't set foot in a gallery, a theatre or a concert hall and they are part of society too. I have heard about people buying works of art just because they are expensive really or just to show that they too appreciate the art (just as a friend of mine has a pretty nifty selection of books he has never opened).
> /QUOTE]
> To each his own. *Personaly)*, I, feel sorry for those unfortunate ones forking out so much money on a pricey book just to show you are "kinda" into the whole thing. I hardly suppose that your having this book dusting on your shelf will help you much in a spontaneous conversation or discussion of the subject.


----------



## Drama

> [/I hardly suppose that your QUOTE] I beg your pardon : "their having this book". Lest i should get accused of inaccurate generalization.)). Anyways, i`d really like to thank you all for your responses.


----------



## cuchuflete

> No. We go there hoping, believing, thirsting for expansion, expansion of the mind, soul, world perception. We seek release, realisation of our own fantasies and dreams in what we see around us in there. We go there to push the boundaries, horizons of our own minds by means of having a look into the inner worlds of others.


This is over-intellectualized clap-trap.  Some people go for such a simple reason as pleasure, without overlaying big words and 'big ideas' to justify or enhance the pleasure.

Now, if the overblown contortions of the quoted statement were to refer to my personal reasons to look at a wild meadow...they might just have a little contact with reality.


----------



## Tsoman

Personally, I think paintings are a good tool for interior decorating. Same with sculptures. The thing I look for in art is "do I like it" or "does it look good." 

I do love going to art museums (I've worked in two actually) and lately I'e been trying to find out what my own tastes in art are. This is what I've got so far: pretty colors, unique, nice shapes, relaxing, reminds me of something happy -- and I don't think those things have much to do with outside society.

Giant scrap metal statues of insects are awesome btw.

I don't really care for art with a social message -- frankly I think it takes itself too seriously. Unless it's also pretty (example, Diego Rivera; I like his shapes and colors, but don't care for the socialism)

At my job in a glass museum, there were a lot of really down to earth art glass blowers. They even told me that the point of their art was to create pretty glass objects to sell, make money, expiriment with new techniques, improve their ability etc etc. And I think that's absoultely valid -- people need pretty glass objects for their homes. No social message involved whatsoever.


----------



## pedro0001

Tsoman said:


> Personally, I think paintings are a good tool for interior decorating. Same with sculptures. The thing I look for in art is "do I like it" or "does it look good."
> 
> I do love going to art museums (I've worked in two actually) and lately I'e been trying to find out what my own tastes in art are. This is what I've got so far: pretty colors, unique, nice shapes, relaxing, reminds me of something happy -- and I don't think those things have much to do with outside society.
> 
> Giant scrap metal statues of insects are awesome btw.
> 
> * I don't really care for art with a social message *-- frankly I think it takes itself too seriously. Unless it's also pretty (example, Diego Rivera; I like his shapes and colors, but don't care for the socialism)
> 
> At my job in a glass museum, there were a lot of really down to earth art glass blowers. They even told me that the point of their art was to create pretty glass objects to sell, make money, expiriment with new techniques, improve their ability etc etc. And I think that's absoultely valid -- people need pretty glass objects for their homes. No social message involved whatsoever.



 Exactly! I totally agree!


----------



## Abu Bishr

I remember having read something about "what defines an art or aesthetic object?". The author advanced a number of views based on the following considerations: 
(1) sender (artist), 
(2) receiver (viewer or art critic), 
(3) message / text (the art object itself) and 
(4) the context (social and art institutions and conventions concerning art).

Is something art based on what the artist as sender *intends* it to be? But then again he / she might not be aware of subconscious meanings that might also go into the art object. Do you also remember Duchamp's urinal which he signed and then sent it to an art gallery intending it as art.

Is something art based on the *interpretation* of the viewer as receiver and the *significance* it might have for him / her despite the intention of the artist? Not all the viewers or critics might agree that object x constitutes a work of art.

Is something art based on *what the object is in itself* and the certain *qualities* (like symmetry) that it embodies? Accordingly something can be art even though the creator did not intend it as such, but it just so happens to be well shaped, symmetrical, and so on. Here objects in nature also fall in this category.

Is something art because the government or a certain art institutions have declared something to be such. So if we stumble upon a painting without any knowledge of its creator, and gets assessed according the art institutions of the time and subsequently classified as an object of art, does it actually qualify as art. Eventually we find out that the socalled "art object" was actually produced by a group of cats running and scratching with painted paws over a canvass. Would it still be classified as such? Also, if a particular socialist governement declares as art only that which promotes the ideals and aspirations of the working class, would other "art" objects fall outside the scope of art?

What about Postmodernist art which apparently operates without any rules, and *defies definition*, defintion being regarded as part of the legacy of Modernity and the Enlightenment.

*My point*: There is by no means any consensus as to what constitutes an object of art or even art in general. All you can do is subscribe to a particular art perspective, school or theory, and present your case from that perspective, school or theory.

Coming back to Drama's point, I think it is one of many ways in which art can be viewed, you don't necessarily have to accept it, but it's a view nevertheless - a view that has validity in the eyes of those who view and behold art in that way.


----------



## .   1

I care.
I answered.
Many people answered.
Many people went to a great deal of trouble to give an answer to a question about a subject that has existed ever since we came down from the trees and started to make scratchings in the mud or on cave walls.
One person did not understand the question and decided to *try* to be funny.
Art is fundamentally important to who we are and how we perceive ourselves.
Art does not cause massive amounts of pollution as does the pointless space race.
We have learned far more by lying back and looking at the stars to dream than ever we will by popping some squishey scared humans on the top of an enormous bottle rocket and lighting the fuse.
The space race is about nothing but brinksmanship.

.,,


----------



## cuchuflete

Moderator Note: Thanks to .,, for a serious and thoughtful answer to a trivial, childish question, which would have been removed from an otherwise serious conversations had it not received such a reply.

EDIT: It has been removed to prevent further distractions, .,,'s answer hasn't.


----------



## John-Paul

[Trolling?]
I object to this question because it implies that art and society are two different entities, which they are not. Both are labels which are applied differently by different people in different times. The whole determination-historic materialism argument goes back to Hegel and Marx, I was hoping we were beyond that. Again think about what you are suggesting, let me give you an example. Everybody in the late 1800's (except a handful of friends) hated Vincent van Gogh's paintings. He was ridiculed and laughed at. How did he "mirror" or "shape" that society? He didn't. What happened was that after he died people for some reason started to appreciate his work, there were buyers and shortly after, voila, the first Van Gogh scholar popped up. He (no 'she's' at that time) explained to us what Van Gogh's significance was, what his paintings should mean to us, how his brush strokes were his vocabulary and why we all should study him in school. The only thing Vincent had done was paint pictures in very bright colors.

What bothers me immensely about questions like these is that they seem to try to capture art by smeering it with definitions and explanations. The essence of art is that it always starts with the freedom of an empty space (be it a sheet of paper, a canvas, a theatre). You may love the result, you may hate it, you may ignore it, you may promote it, and, yes, you may interpret it, that's what it is there for, but you may not label it in advance. Athough far away, the moon is an essential part of our life. We enjoy staring at night, basking in it, studying it, dreaming about how it must feel to walk it. He gives us the tides and our image seems to be mirrored on its surface. Now imagine someone taking ownership of that experience.


----------

