Should art imitate life or should life imitate art?

Question

Should it be the aspiration of man to create that which is in his image, to aspire to form the highest he can with his own hands, or should it be to embody that which he dreams in a surreal sense, to become the poetry that he cannot verbalize?

Great answers so far, but just for clarification: think a little more metaphorically.

Answer 1

Post-modernism and beyond! The definition of art is pretty much useless nowadays. After art was beaten down with different -ism's, countless arguments about what is beautiful, and a single neverending debate of what it actually IS; isn't it about time we just let it be whatever, no matter what people think. History shows us that there is a good chance that today's regected art will be tommorows most cherished, but I don't really know.

My point is: everything has already been justified as art and the if's and's and how's of the way art should be treated simply become arbitrary aguments that, although deeply thought provoking, become almost useless. These talks are also only reserved for a certain crust of culture, as if art is out of reach or too intelectual for the general public

F*ck it. Art is what you make it or what it makes you. There are differing opinions on beauty and it's only fair that we pick our own and just decide for ourselves.

Answer 2

As an artist, a painter, I definitely believe art should imitate life. I don't mean for example that a painting should look like a photograph, but in some interpretive way it is inspired by the world around us. Otherwise, art imitates art and becomes a string of cliches. As for life imitating art, how would one become the poetry one can't verbalize? Your poetry would have to be the kind that includes details like washing the dishes and sweeping up dead flies, or you won't cope very well.

Answer 3

I think it could go both ways. In a sense art should imitate life, become something people can relate to and enjoy. Art can show all of the pain and sorrow as well as the cheerful and playful. However, life can imitate art just as easily. Art is there to inspire and to express the artist's imagination. It should be open to every interpretation possible and affect everyone differently.

Answer 4

Well, let me think...The very definition of art tells me that art should imitate life. After all without life there would be no art. Art is any form of human activity that is the product of and appeals primarily to the imagination.
Great question Zu for it makes you think

P.S..The arts are civilization's storehouse of felt values, the rendering of what has seemed important to those of powerful imagination and profound feelings and great mastery of expression (Harper's).

Answer 5

The Artist creates what he sees, whether it is his art imitating life, or life imitating art. He just creates what he sees and feels. At least that is what I do.

Answer 6

Art shouldn't be an imitation of anyting; it should be a representation of the artist's dreams, fantasy, values, and observations from life.

Answer 7

Art is a reflection of life, or our perception of it which is necessarily colored by who we are individually. Those who may be closer to a "naked" understanding of life (i.e. existence, feelings, death, place in the universe, etc.), that is, who have shed the trappings of the system of illusions that we build for themselves, may be able to get that reflection more "right" than others. Examples include some Buddhists, Sufis, Toltec mystics, certain aboriginal tribes, and so on. Anyone to "does" art, though, is building a reflection of life as they see/feel it. My two cents...

Answer 8

I believe that art should imitate life because how would we not have art if it were not for life?

Answer 9

life is art and art is life
--> i read dis on a mural at my school buildin.

wat to imitate? imitate wats d best!

Answer 10

art should imitate elvis instead maybe he'd make some extra money at vegas.