The debate around art goes way back to ancient Greece.
Aristotle considered it to be a source of inspiration and educational values for the good citizen, while Plato viewed it as an unhealthy and corrupted enemy of reason. To him art could only move man away from truth inciting passions and fitful behaviour.
During the 18th century with the invention of the concept of aesthetics, art begin to be seen as a conductor of morality, improving emotional and spiritual awareness. This was when art galleries became temples and art a new form of religion.
In the 19th century a new philanthropic philosophy of art begin to be established; art was considered a way to improve society by arising the spirit of every man, including the poor. It therefore could lead to social cohesion and democratisation (and maybe keep down the malcontents of lower classes that were starting to claim their rights and threatening the hierarchy with strikes and riots).
However new scepticism and criticism on the power of art on man, made their appearance from the 20th century, until now. While theorists of the Frankfurt School in the 1930s and 40s considered art as a tool of unity and social formation, others like Berger start to point their fingers to Western history of art, accusing it of only exploiting and reinforcing the political power of the upper classes. Marxist critic Pierre Bourdieu, conducting a research in the 1960s in French museums, concluded that taste in art is just a maker of class distinction, reflecting the difference of educational and economic status of people.
What can we say about art today?
Where do art museums stand?
Are they a positive tool in our society or are they still deviously "elitarian"?
a.
Aristotle considered it to be a source of inspiration and educational values for the good citizen, while Plato viewed it as an unhealthy and corrupted enemy of reason. To him art could only move man away from truth inciting passions and fitful behaviour.
During the 18th century with the invention of the concept of aesthetics, art begin to be seen as a conductor of morality, improving emotional and spiritual awareness. This was when art galleries became temples and art a new form of religion.
In the 19th century a new philanthropic philosophy of art begin to be established; art was considered a way to improve society by arising the spirit of every man, including the poor. It therefore could lead to social cohesion and democratisation (and maybe keep down the malcontents of lower classes that were starting to claim their rights and threatening the hierarchy with strikes and riots).
However new scepticism and criticism on the power of art on man, made their appearance from the 20th century, until now. While theorists of the Frankfurt School in the 1930s and 40s considered art as a tool of unity and social formation, others like Berger start to point their fingers to Western history of art, accusing it of only exploiting and reinforcing the political power of the upper classes. Marxist critic Pierre Bourdieu, conducting a research in the 1960s in French museums, concluded that taste in art is just a maker of class distinction, reflecting the difference of educational and economic status of people.
What can we say about art today?
Where do art museums stand?
Are they a positive tool in our society or are they still deviously "elitarian"?
a.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Feel free to say what you think!