by Wing Nut » Sun Jun 15, 2003 1:16 am
You know, part of the problem with people today is that their perceptions are screwed up. Obviously, this is a feeble attempt to justify torture by calling it 'art' But why did they think they could get away with that? People today think that they cany justify anything that way.
The purpose of art (and music) is to inspire people; to make them think in a way they never have before. That's why ancient painting mostly all tell a story. But some where along the line we got screwed up. We confused shocking someone with inspiring someone and it's not the same. It's easy to think of a way to shock someone; it is difficult to inspire them. Real inspiration takes thought and planning and most of all, a purpose. Shocking someone with an obscene picture like Mapplethorpe did, or obscene lyrics like Tupac will at best make someone think for a few weeks at most. Then people move on and they are forgotten. Artists like Tupac will not be remembered; artists like Mozart will never be forgotten.
That is not to say all older works were not shocking in their time. My God, look at half the plays of Shakespeare. All the incest, murder, rape, and adultery one can handle and that's in Hamlet alone.
That is also not to say all modern work is without value. I could sit and look at Jackson Pollack, Edward Weston, or listen to the Beatles without end. I even love Mapplethorpe's flowers.
So, 100 years from now, what will people be looking at, listening to, watching (film IS an art form too)? I'll bet the Beatles will still be here, Casablanca will be, and Ansel Adams will be. J. Lo, Dumb and Dumberer, and most all performance art will be long gone.
[img]http://www.simviation.com/phpupload/uploads/1440377488.jpg[/img]
, but would never torture one to death like that
