Given the state of our modern world, with all its attendant horrors and disasters, do we think that surrealism is now redundant? I mean at Hiroshima the clock really did melt, unlike Dali's flaccid watch in the painting. Heironymous Bosch's depictions of hell have got nothing on the scenes we witness daily from Sudan or Iraq. The whole world is now the canvas on which we depict our Surreal fantasies.
2006-10-17 12:52:44 · 9 answers · asked by troothskr 4 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
picasso's
2006-10-17 12:55:38 · answer #1 · answered by Jackie J 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That's not a good question, since it applies not merely to surrealism but to all artistic expression whatsoever.
You might as well argue, what's the point of a painting of a beautiful woman when there are beautiful women out there? What's the point of a novel about someone's life when people have interesting/tragic/comic lives? What's the point of writing music when the sound of children laughing or the wind in the trees sounds perfectly nice as it is?
Life is one thing, art is a slightly different thing. People seem to make art, no matter the circumstances, so to suggest that it's 'redundant' is neither here nor there - it's still gonna get made. Art isn't there to move us the way that a photograph of an atrocity moves us; it's not what art is good at, although personally I think 'Guernica' is an exceptionally powerful picture. To confuse them the way you're doing is either to reduce all art to politics (like insisting that art should make us angry the same way a picture of a screaming Vietnamese girl makes us angry) or, what's worse, to aestheticise real life - 'Look, there's a melted watch, isn't it just like Dali? So therefore why do we need Dali?'
Dali was trying to do one thing when he painted a melted watch, the US Army Air Force was trying to do something a little different when it bombed Hiroshima. Remember that.
2006-10-17 14:57:55 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Picasso's
2006-10-17 22:23:34 · answer #3 · answered by jimmyfish 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hitler's
2006-10-20 05:34:52 · answer #4 · answered by delta9 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
an artist depicts an idea...a feeling...a statement into a canvas...a musical note..poetry.....any audiovisual technique so that others will see and feel his perception of his rendering of life.......
life itself is a canvas in which us humans depict...our inner feelings, thoughts....ideas...statements....our.....frustations...happiness..love..hate.........
this world itself sees that perception and ponders to its creator.....us.
fantasies?..they are not...only expressions...whether good or bad
that are dealt with and felt.....
2006-10-17 13:16:24 · answer #5 · answered by gg 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
picassos was definately the best
2006-10-17 12:57:48 · answer #6 · answered by charlotte66621442000 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
hi,
Pablo Piccasso
2006-10-18 10:54:40 · answer #7 · answered by mrtootes7 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
By the questions you ask in you details, it is immaterial.
2006-10-17 14:17:13 · answer #8 · answered by Sophist 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
you must first define "best"
2006-10-17 14:41:40 · answer #9 · answered by coffeegirl 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋