Should artists have a social responsibility?

Question

As a kid I always thought to be an artist like a painter or sculptor was not just to be creative and technically excellent but also to send a message of the human potential to reach beyond the ordinary. With much of the art from picasso onward i dont see that message at all. I know many people will say different but what does abstract or conceptual art really do for the human spirit. It doesnt fill me with hope, more depression than anything. And whats the point in having art that doesnt bring out the best in humanity, how can anyone justify morbid "art".

Answer 1

The "should" part of your question is the heart of your question. The answer is No. But it's OK if they do. But why limit the question to artists...Do bauxite miners have a social responsibilty? Converse shoemakers? Fast food restaurant owners? It would be a better world if Everyone had a social responsibility, but we don't demand it in a free society.

Answer 2

Hard question..... furthermore, there are many layers to it. Without citing an Art History text, I will try to accommodate you.

Art has always bean humanity's way of expressing itself.....and recording its history. Painters and sculptors of the past, whether they were cavemen or geniuses of the Renaissance period had one real task though - to record the events and images of their time. For the first 10,000 years, or so, of humans' artistic expression, there was no other purpose for their art than to represent what was in the world around them.

That all changed with the advent of PHOTOGRAPHY. When one could record images on film or plates, in "real time", one did not need to expend so much effort on the creation of an oil painting to make visual records.

So, painting also changed. No longer were the painters the only ones capable of recording peoples' faces, local events, landscapes, etc.

Since then, painters and other artists needed to find out what they were supposed to do, since they no longer had to record what they saw. So they turned to sheer expression. That is partly why artists like Monet, Manet, Picasso, Man-Ray, Steiglitz, Johns, and other "modern" artists began to create works that had less to do with reality, and more with the imagination.

The "message" became that one could create art strictly for the sake of making art. The limits of their creativity were removed. They expanded the limits of what they had previously been allowed to do.

What abstract and conceptual art does is express the human spirit in a most primordial fashion; true, unadulterated expression, no longer concerned with the expectation that what they created had to simply reflect what was actually seen in the world. They could truly create their own, new world, and let us appreciate what the imagination was really capable of.
The point is that there no longer has to be a point. Art is art. Leonardo was an exceptional painter, technically a wizard, but could he possibly seen what Pollock saw? He was able to show much of his mind in what you may call paint scribbling. But, if it weren't for the invention of photography, he may never have painted anything. No one would have pushed the limits, and art would be pretty stagnant by now. Art has become the manifestation of the human spirit and potential.

As for social responsibility? Their responsibility is to create that which makes us look, wonder and admire what the human psyche can make up, from the most aesthetically pleasing to the "morbid". Not everyone will admire every piece, but there will be a piece for everyone. The wide array of modern, expressive , and conceptual art is truly amazing. The responsibility that today's artist has is to keep on keepin' on. With out it our world would be a pretty boring place. If you are offended by some of it, look at something else. Don't be closed minded; rather let art expand your mind.

Answer 3

The message any artist conveys is a strictly personal one.

If the artist is socially conscientious, then the message will be conveyed as such. But if the artist's personal statement only goes as deep as, say, schmaltzy bland nostalgia, or leaps beyond the mainstream into pornography, well - that's what makes artists make art in the first place. And if those kinds of statements speak to enough buyers, then it's art to them as well (whether our neighbours like it or not).

Quite honestly, it's difficult enough to be an artist without having to concern oneself that our work is socially and morally acceptable to everyone who views it. What speaks of hope to one viewer may just be porridge to another. Or terror.

Please keep in mind that until the 20th century, art was commissioned by rich folks to cater to their own personal egos. Artists were not encouraged to show or sell art that expressed their own emotional statements. Thank goodness we have broken free of the constraints of the ruling class (or have we??)

In conclusion, it is not art's purpose to "Bring out the best in humanity". At most, it's a Social Commentary that describes current culture... and has been exactly that (and nothing more) since the first human drew on a cave wall with a burned stick.

Answer 4

Finally, someone who isn't ga-ga goo-goo- over picasso. I feel that much of picassos art is too intellectualized-- which overpowers any aesthetic quality the art may have. However abstract art was a powerful movement in art. I find alot of it to be very moving-- the only real problem I have with it is that I feel it has allowed people who(without abstract art having extisted )may not have artist inclinations yet can now-- due to abstraction; and providing they understand teh mechanics of this style-- can now call themselves painters. As a result abstract art has been on it's way to becoming more decorative than emotive.

Answer 5

I personally believe that fine art is created for the benefit and expression of the creator. As long as the artist feels achieved and satisfied with what he has done, he has achieved his goals. it is up the artist if they wish to be 'socially responsible' with their work or not.

That being said, a lot of more modern art does serve a purpose to enrich humanity. You might want to take a closer look at the works of Picasso, because many of his works reflected happenings of World war two, and his outrage against it.

For example, Picasso's Guernica was painted as a symbolic expression of outrage against the bombing of the Spanish down Gernika by the Nazi Luftwaffe

Answer 6

Only in a totalitarian state.

An artist can have 'social responsibility' if it comes naturally, The Mexican socialists e.g. Rivera come to mind. But Dali and Miro will never be socially responsible.

Answer 7

each and every individual must have social duty, yet artists like different celebrities are appeared as function fashions with the help of consumer-pleasant people, so that they prefer to set sturdy examples as socially to blame people.