Music Philosophy Art Math Chess Programming and much more ...
Hello!
This time we will deal with the issue of imagination and its relation to contemporary art. Is contemporary art the result of imagination, or is it a contradiction of it? Are phenomena such as hyperrealism in art not a departure from the ideal of art? Or maybe he is an extreme example of "mimesis" in art? Another issue worth addressing is the question of the definition of art, i.e. what we mean by the term art. As we know, in the 20th century there was a revolution of the art paradigm thanks to Marcel Duchamp and his famous "fountain". Duchamp changed the way of treating art, becoming a precursor of art understood as "ready-made", i.e. a finished work. According to his concept, everything can be treated as a work of art. Thus, both everyday objects and aesthetic objects,
However, the traditional concept of art lost its meaning, so the criterion of art ceased to be the beauty of the object, and was replaced by another criterion, according to which art is what will be intentionally recognized as art by the artist and the recipient. Is such a concept of art, relativized to the taste of the subject, sensible, or should we restore the earlier concept of art as an aesthetic object? Is the revaluation of aesthetic values not a problem in the authentic reception of a real work of art? Isn't it the role of an artist to show the viewer a different dimension of reality? Why should the concept of art be something arbitrary? Are there not universal aesthetic values? Even if the view that art is an area of creative freedom and expression is right, it does not mean that there are no permanent criteria for the value of works of art. If we oppose the recognition of the universal aesthetic criteria of a work of art, then we will also equate phenomena such as kitsch, i.e. the opposite of a work of art, in the rights to the name of art.
Does contemporary art, which is mass art, not promote phenomena contrary to the categories of aesthetic reason, such as beauty? Has contemporary art not suffered as a result of the abandonment of aesthetic values in favor of freedom in understanding art? Has culture not lost its universal value by promoting phenomena belonging to low art, often contradicting the idea of beauty and harmony, thanks to which, for example, classical music is replaced with techno "music"? Jose Ortega y Gasset in his work entitled "Revolt of the masses" presents the current situation of art, which has lost its elitist value, becoming mass entertainment, often without real aesthetic value. As Gasset writes, abstract art is hermetic or incomprehensible to the ordinary viewer, who is not looking for the development of awareness or aesthetic experiences, but for cheap entertainment or sensation, thanks to which phenomena such as cinema or social media (e.g. Facebook) are fashionable. Contemporary art is no longer superior or elitist art, but mass art that is inferior. What is the value of a work of art? Well, such categories as: beauty, expression, authenticity or originality.
Finally, we will deal with the relationship between the imagination and contemporary art in the title. In my opinion, this is an important issue, because art has a future only insofar as it is true art. If we deprived art of the impact of imagination, for example, leaving artistic creativity to machines, then art would not only cease to have a human character, but we would also deprive it of meaning and value. Art should not serve utilitarian purposes, such as politics, ideology or cheap entertainment. Art is the subject of cognition of the aesthetic mind, but not only, because it is a carrier of universal values that affect the emotional sphere of man. Thanks to art, a person can break away from everyday life, become a discoverer of new phenomena and ideas.
Marek Wojnicki