Purgatory 2023: The Arts

HugalHugal Shipmate
edited January 2024 in Limbo
I know I am bias in this subject as my OU degree is an arts degree (Humanities with Lit), what do shipmates think of the arts. They bring a lot of money into the countries we live in. The cost of viewing the arts (exhibitions, shows, plays, dance, opera etc) can be prohibitive. That said people who complain about prices of a show say will pay the same price for football match.
Sciences teach us how life works. The arts makes life bearable.
«1

Comments

  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited April 2023
    I don't tend to go to shows or football matches. The former on grounds of cost; the latter on grounds of preferring to eat my own earwax.

    I like some of most arts - I like some musicals - Les Mis, JC Superstar; not so hot on some (most) others. Love some novels (Tolkien, Pratchett, Douglas Adams, H G Wells, Orwell) and not others (Dickens, Austen, Hardy, most of the "Classics").

    My discretionary spending tends to go on things like tabletop RPGs and music equipment. I generally prefer making music (however badly) to listening to it. I don't generally go to gigs because they're just too loud for me.

    Opera and ballet (well, dance generally) are closed books to me. Don't get them at all.

    I think your final two statements are a false dichotomy. Knowing how things work is part of what keeps life interesting for me.
  • AnteaterAnteater Shipmate
    Hugal:
    That said people who complain about prices of a show say will pay the same price for football match.
    If they've got a lot of money. Average fans are excluded at least from the top flight due to the prohibitive price.

    It's also a bit of a vague question. The question of subsidies to promote arts is interesting, as also is the place of art in worship. But as to what I think of the arts, it's too broad a concept to have a coherent thought about such a wide field. It can be anything between wonderful to bullshit, life affirming to life denying, holy to pornographic, and . . .need I go on.
  • I'm a museums man myself. The theatre or concerts means queues (which I prefer not to waste time in), football matches mean senseless boredom. Arts should be supported; professional sport is business so should pay for itself.
  • Alan29Alan29 Shipmate
    I simply could not imagine a world without the Arts.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Alan29 wrote: »
    I simply could not imagine a world without the Arts.

    Depends on the arts in question. A world without dance, paintings on walls and sculpture I can easily imagine; it's the one I inhabit most of the time; one with no story telling or music is rather more difficult.
  • FirenzeFirenze Shipmate, Host Emeritus
    As it happens I was at an exhibition this morning. It was of (mainly) patchwork quilts inspired by the work and aesthetic* of Kaffe Fassett.

    Obviously the tradition of quilts arose out of thrift, recycling and women's labour - so not high 'art' at all. The examples - all modern, though some referencing older designs - were literally dazzling. Incredibly colourful and intricate to the point of sensory overload.

    They are accessible and inspiring - admittedly I will never produce anything similar, I have neither the eyesight nor the decades left - but I return to what needle craft I can do with fresh zest.

    That ISTM is what art is for - to show you what is there, what is possible. Art is not just between the covers of a book, or on the walls of museum, it's in the making and appreciating of all manner of things.

    *which could be summarised as 'when in doubt, add another 20 colours'.
  • Literature and art have been important to me, and art history. I wouldn't say they made life bearable, but reflected back my soul. However, I know that not everyone shares this, as my dad didn't read, didn't look at art, and he was well satisfied with life. Ain't life strange?
  • In Australia, we call this topic theyarts. It's just an ockerism, the joining of the sounds together making the y.

    I love theyarts. Sport can be seen as an art.
  • Sure, I'm.pretty arty all round and so was my late wife. There are issues around it all of course, as with everything else.

    Elitism, snobbery ... and so on.

    I remember hearing Grayson Perry wondering aloud on a Radio 5 programme - or was it a Grauniad interview? - why it was thsf you have organisations and jobs set up to try and encourage more working class people to engage with the arts but you don't get similar initiatives aimed at drawing posh people into stock car racing ...

    Anyhow, The Arts is such a broad topic that we need to break it down a bit.

    Otherwise this thread will become a I Don't Know Much About Art But I Know What I Like thread.
  • PomonaPomona Shipmate
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    In Australia, we call this topic theyarts. It's just an ockerism, the joining of the sounds together making the y.

    I love theyarts. Sport can be seen as an art.

    Ah but can hooning be seen as an art??
  • Meanwhile, pursuing the latter ...

    I can sympathise with KarlLB about sculpture and dance, but have found myself developing a taste for the former. Visits to the Yorkshire Sculpture Park helped.

    I think I could probably develop more of an appreciation for Dance but it would take me a while.

    I think it is possible to have a kind of epiphany with any art form, but generally you have to stick at it for a while until you 'get' it - or not, as the case may be. There are always going to be forms that elude us as well as those we respond to.

    Thing is, there's so much of it out there that it would take several life times to even scratch the surface.

    I've only recently started reading African novels for instance. That's even before we start looking at novels or poetry in translation.

  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited April 2023
    Reality is there's only so much time in a surprisingly (he says as his 50s advance and he realises how true it is) short lifetime. Time spent trying to appreciate ballet could be spent listening to the already appreciated Metallica; hours at the Opera trying and failing to enjoy Wagner is time I'm not working on my own music, or for that matter writing RPGs. In the end you pays your money. I think that as adults we're entitled to decide something's not for us and not to invest time into trying to appreciate it, given our total lack of success up until now.

    And that's leaving aside the fact that there are still a good number of mountains in the Lakes and North Wales I've not been up and Scotland almost totally undiscovered.

    I sometimes feel like Andy Capp in a very old cartoon I recall where he's sitting in front of the telly saying "Oo's uncultured? With yer own eyes yer've seen me 'ere watching ballet an' opera an' all that twaddle!"

  • Sure. I'm in my 60s so am hardly likely to get to grips with the finer points of ballet or even Morris Dancing and am more likely to plough in fields I'm familiar with ... such as poetry, novels and the visual arts.

    My point though, is that while we pays our money and we makes our choice - neither Wagner nor Metallica float my boat - there will be things that grab us that we can pursue 'had we but world enough and time.'

    But yes, we will inevitably be selective. We only have a finite amount of time as you say.
  • While I was aware it was fortunate that I was introduced to concerts, plays, etc in childhood by school, parents, family friends, and tried to do the same for my own children, I hadn't appreciated quite how lucky I was until I discovered that the majority of the boys' school contemporaries had never been to a classical concert or a straight play.

    Pre Covid we had a family outing every year to at least 1 rugby international, a concert (usually classical) one ballet and one opera or play - invariably in the cheapest seats. I suppose what others may have spent on holidays we spent on cultural treats?

  • PomonaPomona Shipmate
    That does seem to be making some assumptions about what counts as 'culture' though. I find it hard to see how for eg a classical concert or 'straight play' (I assume this means as opposed to a pantomime?) is 'cultural' but going to a pop concert or pantomime isn't. Likewise I'm not sure how going to rugby matches counts as culture! It's similar to when people talk about a 'good' education - good according to who?

    It also seems to assume that children would necessarily enjoy such outings - most children would find it hard to sit still at a classical concert or ballet, which is developmentally normal. Running around on a beach is generally more enjoyable for children.
  • Yet there's value in some "stretch" activities, at least as a taste. You get a wider range of pleasures to choose from that way. We handled it with my kid by basically telling him he wasn't allowed to go to Shakespeare etc. because he was too young to handle it and had to wait till he was adult enough to behave, etc. (Yes, this is the old Tom Sawyer trick) and allowing him to beg/wheedle his way into being allowed to go, though with a very stern warning about never being taken again if he acted up, etc.

    Now as an adult he goes to Shakespeare with pleasure and avoids classical concerts, having had a taste of both. I'm good with that. At least he tried them.
  • EirenistEirenist Shipmate
    In some circles there is a strain of inverted snobbery manifesting itself as a distasre for 'elitism' (witness the current culture wars over classical music and opera). Personally I can see nothing wrong will elitism, if regarded as the pursuit of excellence, rather than a desire for exclusivity. What are Olympic-grade athletes if not an elite?
    The Victorians, for all their fault,s had no problem with the Fine Arts - they were all for self-improvement, and the promotion and endowment of them was regarded as philanthropy.
  • Pomona, saying that rugby isn't 'culture' to a Welshman would be like saying that Glyndebourne isn't opera.
  • My husband was a professional artist, and everyone told him he was going to starve, nice hobby but no way to make a living. He gave me and our sons a good life. Both of our children are also artists, one makes his living at it. He is also a musician and does less well income-wise there. The other has art as an added income and plans to do it full-time when he retires. Follow your dreams, and yes many would rather spend on other things and do not always appreciate the work and study that goes into art.
  • PomonaPomona Shipmate
    Eirenist wrote: »
    In some circles there is a strain of inverted snobbery manifesting itself as a distasre for 'elitism' (witness the current culture wars over classical music and opera). Personally I can see nothing wrong will elitism, if regarded as the pursuit of excellence, rather than a desire for exclusivity. What are Olympic-grade athletes if not an elite?
    The Victorians, for all their fault,s had no problem with the Fine Arts - they were all for self-improvement, and the promotion and endowment of them was regarded as philanthropy.

    What culture wars over classical music and opera? I'm not aware of any.

    Someone being recognised as being elite within their discipline - eg an elite athlete - is different from elitism as a form of discrimination. I'm no reverse snob and enjoy both 'high culture' and 'low culture', but I don't pretend that one is more meaningful than the other. Likewise even elite athletes would say that enjoyment of sport is good even amongst people who only do fun runs etc. You can celebrate cultural things without suggesting that different ones are somehow 'not culture'.
  • PomonaPomona Shipmate
    Pomona, saying that rugby isn't 'culture' to a Welshman would be like saying that Glyndebourne isn't opera.

    Yeah but that's rugby in Wales, which iirc wasn't what was being discussed.
  • PomonaPomona Shipmate
    Yet there's value in some "stretch" activities, at least as a taste. You get a wider range of pleasures to choose from that way. We handled it with my kid by basically telling him he wasn't allowed to go to Shakespeare etc. because he was too young to handle it and had to wait till he was adult enough to behave, etc. (Yes, this is the old Tom Sawyer trick) and allowing him to beg/wheedle his way into being allowed to go, though with a very stern warning about never being taken again if he acted up, etc.

    Now as an adult he goes to Shakespeare with pleasure and avoids classical concerts, having had a taste of both. I'm good with that. At least he tried them.

    Which then gets into things like government and other funding for school trips to the theatre etc. Because for many children they are only able to access those things via school, certainly when I was a child it was the only affordable way of doing those things (and it's not something I would be able to afford nowadays).
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Mrs. Gramps and I went to a Jazz concert last night. One of the local universities dedicates the fourth weekend in April for Jazz Festival. I was a volunteer driver. My job was to pick up artists from local motels and drop them off at designated points at the university. One of the groups I picked up included to young men from London, in fact. The festival included kids from the Western United States and Canada. The Canadians seemed to walk away with most of the major awards given out on the final night. In spite of all the cut backs in the humanities in public schools, it is good to see music remains alive and well in the area.

    Both of us have been quite involved in community theatre as well. I started acting when I was in High School. Mrs. Gramps started doing it when one of our children wanted to try out for a summer production. He went on to college with drama as a major, but later moved to comparative religion. He did write the score for that college's production of Arabian Nights Another son also acted in High School and a couple of college productions as well. Plus one of our granddaughters acted in community theatre. You might say it is a family tradition.

    The universities do draw different touring productions which we have seen from time to time. Since they generally subsidized through the student associations, we have been able to purchase tickets at reduced prices.

    Local Casinos also offer entertainment, mostly cover bands that sing songs of national artists. We have two close friends who play in a couple of those cover bands.

    And since Mrs Gramps is a librarian, we always have books to read. We seldom watch television.

    As for me and my family, the arts are a very important part of our lives. We have taken advantage of the affordability of local entertainment. We might not see the big headliners (we did in the past). But if you know where to look, there are great performances for affordable prices.
  • We go to the free stuff like Shakespeare in the Park.
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    edited April 2023
    One thing that turns people off arts is that the forms are not instant. You have to learn the rules. Unlike say football (soccer) here in the UK which around so much that you almost learn it by osmosis, the arts are not generally around as much so you don’t. The arts are in and of themselves no more elite than sport. You have to know the rules in both.
  • jay_emmjay_emm Kerygmania Host
    Pomona wrote: »
    Someone being recognised as being elite within their discipline - eg an elite athlete - is different from elitism as a form of discrimination.
    The arts will tend to blur the two more than sports or science, as they are intrinsically more subjective.

    If I thought I was a better runner than Usain Bolt, I could prove it. Mo Farah and Bolt (different types of runners) we could even compare a bit.

    If I thought Enid Blyton was a better writer than Shakespeare on the other hand, it would basically come down to does my opinion match that of the judges who decided that. And the selection of those who decide is itself selected by... So you end up with an elite who define quality.

    Gymnastics (sport) or Photorealism (art) are somewhere in the middle. If a shadow is wrong, an expert could explain it. And if the 'elite' were really taking the piss, you could tell it and contest it.
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    I sometimes feel like Andy Capp in a very old cartoon I recall where he's sitting in front of the telly saying "Oo's uncultured? With yer own eyes yer've seen me 'ere watching ballet an' opera an' all that twaddle!"

    Problem these days is that you're unlikely to accidentally run into ballet or opera on the main terrestrial channels such as BBC1 or ITV1.
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    Ballet has come up a couple of times. Ballet (and Opera) are expensive to put on therefore expensive to see. Also one reason why classical ballet seems to confuse people is that most of the important information is put over in mime. Point to the ring finger for engagement or marriage. Two closed fingers moving out and up from the heart means eternal love. Of course it gets more complicated than that. In Giselle the fact that The Willis who haunt the forest at night are the spirits of those who’s intended swore true love but was untrue and now they punish men who have done that, is all conveyed by mime. There is a reason the program you buy gives you a synopsis.
  • Baptist TrainfanBaptist Trainfan Shipmate
    edited April 2023
    Agreed, except that programmes are often expensive (£3-5 each), fuller of information about the pieces' inspiration than their actual content, and sometimes difficult to read before the performance.

    Having said that, last Saturday's programme was free to all; and both our national dance and opera companies put synopses free to download on line.

    After many years of watching ballet with my wife, I still often fail to "get it" - although I understand a lot more about dance than she understands (or wishes to) about trains!

    I have to say that, for us, The Arts in various forms are extremely important. And we believe that they enrich and comment upon society as a whole.
  • Pomona wrote: »
    That does seem to be making some assumptions about what counts as 'culture' though. I find it hard to see how for eg a classical concert or 'straight play' (I assume this means as opposed to a pantomime?) is 'cultural' but going to a pop concert or pantomime isn't.

    Does taking them to hear Brian Ferry or ELO count as a 'pop' concert? By a 'straight' play I meant without songs so yes, not a pantomime nor a musical, although they have been to both - loathed the former and loved the latter.
    Likewise I'm not sure how going to rugby matches counts as culture! It's similar to when people talk about a 'good' education - good according to who?
    We're Welsh so rugby is definitely culture, or at least part of our national culture. We also went to the local cricket club when they were little - nice smooth mown grass to picnic on outside the boundary - and to a few football matches.

    What is a 'good' education? Purely subjective but I take it to mean being exposed to as wide a variety of experiences as possible, read, or have read to one, a broad selection of books, listen to many different musical styles, etc. Modern tech is a wonderful tool for things like adaptations of 'great' novels, Shakespeare plays, etc.
    It also seems to assume that children would necessarily enjoy such outings - most children would find it hard to sit still at a classical concert or ballet, which is developmentally normal. Running around on a beach is generally more enjoyable for children.
    They first experienced ballet (and opera) on video: plenty of leeway to explain the action, allow for running about or doing their own dancing, etc. Similar thing with music.

    As for the beach, we lived on the south coast when they were small and the beach was our go-to place for about 10 years.

    My children don't share all of my tastes -one prefers ballet to opera and vice versa - and both roll their eyes when they hear the introduction to Mr tambourine man or Stairway to heaven.

  • I was one of those working class people who was never taken to a museum, art gallery or theatre by my parents. I did, however, go to watch the stock car racing and dog racing. My parents idea of a day trip out was to a local town to fish in the river and have a go at on the putting green. Their evening out was a trip to the bingo.

    School wasn't much better for 'cultural' trips. Plays were shown on TV in classroom; the only trips I had to the local theatre were pantomimes. I do not remember going to a London museum until my O'level years, despite being only 30 miles away. This was a trip to the planetarium and science museum for O'level physics, combined with an evening trip to a rock music laser display at the planetarium, where my group of friends sat in the dark and drank wine from a bottle with straws. This might explain why they never took us anywhere. But school was good at alternative cultural events; school arts week regularly featured BMX biking displays, break dancing and body popping. And the few wealthier students had the occasional language trip abroad.

    Yet when I moved to London in my 20s I leapt at the chance to spend my weekends at museums and art galleries. I loved the ballet and opera, and was lucky enough to sometimes get free unsold tickets which were donated to the hospitals I worked in, usually of modern works I never would have thought to go to. I now have 2 OU degrees, an Open degree in humanities and English Lit, and a History degree, despite never having been to college or studied any A'levels. One of the things I tell my university students, half of whom have never been to college, is that they are not tied to their childhood experiences.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Hugal wrote: »
    One thing that turns people off arts is that the forms are not instant. You have to learn the rules. Unlike say football (soccer) here in the UK which around so much that you almost learn it by osmosis, the arts are not generally around as much so you don’t. The arts are in and of themselves no more elite than sport. You have to know the rules in both.

    Well, although I know the "rules" of both cricket and football, I have to admit then when I watch cricket (I don't even bother with football) I can't tell a good performance from a bad one. People will say "good shot!" or "excellent bit of bowling!" and it looks exactly the same as any other shot or ball to me. Other people seem to see things I just don't see - it happens so fast how anyone can see anything is beyond me. Perhaps I have sensory processing issues.
  • I had little input of arts as a kid, but going to uni I met all these people who watched Godard and went to art exhibitions, and I was like a starving man at a banquet, it was wonderful.

    Strangely enough, we saw a Durer exhibition in Bath yesterday. I had a mixed reaction, aesthetically, his Christian woodcuts didn't move me, except that they were 500 years old. But of course, his picture of a hare is ravishing, not there.
  • EirenistEirenist Shipmate
    Pomona,I am thinking of the cuts in funding for orchestras and the BBC Singers, the defunding of opera companies, the swivel away from arts subjects in education. This has been going on for years. I'm thinking of the 'if people was fripperies like art they should pay for it themselves' attitude of some, not all and not only conservatives.
  • Baptist TrainfanBaptist Trainfan Shipmate
    edited April 2023
    Yet organisations such as ENSA back in the 40s actively worked to bring arts to ordinary people. Yes, there may have been something of a "de haute en bas" attitude behind this, nevertheless it was seen as a social good. There was a brief spell in the late 30s, under FDR, when the same ethos existed in the USA.
  • Eirenist wrote: »
    Pomona,I am thinking of the cuts in funding for orchestras and the BBC Singers, the defunding of opera companies, the swivel away from arts subjects in education. This has been going on for years. I'm thinking of the 'if people was fripperies like art they should pay for it themselves' attitude of some, not all and not only conservatives.

    Art is not fripperies (although individual works can be, of course). It is part of humans being civilised. And, if we believe that we are made in God's image, then the creative urge within us is divine, an echo of the Original Creator.
  • Hugal wrote: »
    One thing that turns people off arts is that the forms are not instant. You have to learn the rules. Unlike say football (soccer) here in the UK which around so much that you almost learn it by osmosis, the arts are not generally around as much so you don’t. The arts are in and of themselves no more elite than sport. You have to know the rules in both.

    Sure, but I bet a lot of people who watch football (soccer) don't understand the offside rule.

    @Baptist Trainfan - yes, plenty of people were introduced to 'serious' drama and the arts through both BBC and ITV back in the day. Nobody would dare commission some of the 'Play for Today' productions these days.

    There were also programmes like 'Arena' and 'The South Bank Show.' Early BBC2 output was extraordinary.

    There was a concerted post-war effort to bring art and culture to 'the masses' after WW2. The growth in repertory theatre was part of that.

    Back in my hitch-hiking days I remember discussions with lorry drivers (truck drivers) about Blake and much else besides.

    There was a similar move to acquaint 'ordinary people' with science too.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    edited April 2023
    Umm, I don't think people here have to translate British terms (football/lorry) for us Americans. It seems you are talking down to us. If we do not understand a term, we will ask about it. Most often, though, we will look it up on our own.
  • I was trying to be helpful not patronising but I apologise if it it came across that way.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Apology noted.
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    edited April 2023
    I was trying to be helpful not patronising but I apologise if it it came across that way.
    This American certainly doesn't think it came across as patronizing, and I don’t think you need to apologize for showing good, basic internet manners. “Football” can mean at least seven different games in different English-speaking countries and regions—Americans aren’t the only ones who call association football “soccer”— and I suspect we all have trouble from time to time remembering where a poster lives, or what might be called “football” in that place. So I appreciate your the desire to be helpful and clear. I think it’s what we should all be doing as a matter of course.

    Yet organisations such as ENSA back in the 40s actively worked to bring arts to ordinary people. Yes, there may have been something of a "de haute en bas" attitude behind this, nevertheless it was seen as a social good. There was a brief spell in the late 30s, under FDR, when the same ethos existed in the USA.
    The North Carolina Symphony was originally founded (as part of FDR’s New Deal work relief program) in 1932. In 1943, the North Carolina General Assembly approved what was popularly known as “The Horn Tooter Bill,” which made the North Carolina Symphony the first state-supported orchestra in the US. The North Carolina Symphony has received state funding continuously since 1943.

    While it is based and has its home concert hall in Raleigh, it maintains concert series in at least six other North Carolina towns. The Symphony as a whole has around 200 concerts a year, and at least a quarter of those are specifically aimed at school students. It regularly travels around the state, giving concerts in school auditoriums or public parks. Each year, it engages in outreach and educational activities in all of North Carolina’s 100 counties; these include performances by smaller ensembles, visits to classrooms by individual musicians and supporting curricula for teachers. It sponsors a youth orchestra and a youth concerto competition, and it regularly opens its rehearsals to students and other members of the public.

  • Wow, that's wonderful to hear.

    In Britain today (or, at least, England) most arts organisations' bids for central funding are likely to be unsuccessful unless they have an outreach/educational programme (although sometimes such programmes only seem to reach the "already interested").

    In Newport, Wales, Ballet Cymru (of which we are "Friends" do a great deal of work in schools, most in deprived areas, and get the children to perform on the public stage as a prelude to the main event.
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    edited April 2023
    Government money for the arts is being replaced with Lottery money.
    There are some legacy groups like The RSC and The National Theatre that get public money, but as I say the lottery is a big funder now.
  • PomonaPomona Shipmate
    It strikes me that all the discussion here is about live arts events but not cinema, tv, or video games (which are undoubtedly arts). Why are live arts considered to be 'more' artistic? Personally I have to say that although I haven't seen a lot of theatre, cinema has been both more accessible and more captivating for me.
  • Martin54Martin54 Suspended
    edited April 2023
    I'm a museums man myself. The theatre or concerts means queues (which I prefer not to waste time in), football matches mean senseless boredom. Arts should be supported; professional sport is business so should pay for itself.

    I queued for half an hour to get in to the Rijksmuseum. Breezed straight in to Curve, the Minack, the Globe. The Night Watch alone was worth it of course. To see Tutankhamen took a good hour.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Pomona wrote: »
    It strikes me that all the discussion here is about live arts events but not cinema, tv, or video games (which are undoubtedly arts). Why are live arts considered to be 'more' artistic? Personally I have to say that although I haven't seen a lot of theatre, cinema has been both more accessible and more captivating for me.

    Me too. I'd add recorded music to that - there are things you cannot do live which you can do in a studio. I can play only one instrument at once, but I have three or four guitar lines alone in some things I create.

    Most of my artistic involvement is TV and recorded music.
  • ArielAriel Shipmate
    “I am one for whom the visible world exists," said someone once and I agree. I can live quite happily without music for months, but there must be things to look at - colours and pictures and designs, even if it's just flowers in a vase. I spend a lot of spare time in visual arts, mainly photography, although I enjoy graphic design when suitably motivated.

    Art is, as far as I'm concerned, essential, especially for a civilized society. One purpose of art is to take things out of context, to make you notice them, see the beauty of them. Another is to make you think, raise questions, give you insights. It's a very broad field, but the one thing all artworks have in common is that they're meant to evoke a response from you: whether it's appreciation, repulsion, mystification, so long as it's not indifference the piece of art has worked.

    If I'm stuck waiting for a train somewhere I will usually have a look at any advertisement posters and think: how would I have handled this subject? Would I have used this background, this typeface, these colours? We take ad posters for granted and these also vary widely, but some of them are really quite inspired.

    I also particularly love the craftmanship you find in museum objects that have survived for a thousand or more years, handmade by long-dead men we know little or nothing about, with extraordinary care and skill - no CAD in those days - and think they'd have been amazed and delighted to find their work had lasted for so long. I'm not sure that many artisans these days would have the skills to create from scratch some of the things you see in museums by hand - intricate metalwork and so on.

    And yes, they are mostly static. But video art and art films are a relatively new development compared to the past.

  • Pomona wrote: »
    It strikes me that all the discussion here is about live arts events but not cinema, tv, or video games (which are undoubtedly arts). Why are live arts considered to be 'more' artistic? Personally I have to say that although I haven't seen a lot of theatre, cinema has been both more accessible and more captivating for me.

    I'm not at all sure they are "more artistic" in anybody's eyes. They're just getting more discussion here because we were on the subject of (non)accessibility to people of some backgrounds--and live arts are almost always going to be less accessible than the recorded kind, both on financial and logistical grounds.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    I would not put down radio, tv, or cinema as lesser arts. I once took an Art of Motion Picture class and I was amazed at how detailed the media can be. Of course, I always look for the goofs in the shows. My kids would roll their eyes when, at the conclusion of a movie I would ask what was the point of the movie.

    Movies, radio, and tv is the medium for the masses. For instance, in spite of its long run, Phantom of the Opera reached a relatively small audience world wide, but when the cinematic version is finally released it will naturally reach much, much more.

    Likewise, if it were not for radio, the Beatles would not have gotten their foot in the door in America so easily, and it was The Ed Sullivan Show that blew those doors wide open for them and other English groups. And now, there are artists from all over the world that can reach audiences instantly.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Is that the Phantom cinematic release of 19 years ago or a different one?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Phantom_of_the_Opera_(2004_film)
Sign In or Register to comment.