English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Has the industrial revolution (mass production) contributed to the downfall of how arts/artists are perceived? This is a hypothesis of mine (http://theaestheticelevator.com/2007/01/04/mass-production-and-the-artist-a-hypothesis/) which I've been exploring for a year or more now.

2007-01-04 02:37:20 · 5 answers · asked by The Aesthetic Elevator 1 in Arts & Humanities History

5 answers

Absolutely. People don't value craftsmanship like they used too. Art students are encouraged to go into graphic art for goodness sake. I work at a store where we sell original glicee's (sp?). If you know what they are, you know they are expensive to make and by their very nature rare, but people always wince at the price and ask why they are so expensive. Because they are worth it! They are beautiful!

2007-01-04 02:42:41 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Before the Industrial Revolution, every piece of furniture and every set of dinnerware was a work of art, created by an artisan who had been training in their profession since they were children. With the Industrial Revolution, many everyday items ceased to be works of art, becoming mass produced and generic. However, when you look at today's markets, the most prized items are those that were made by artisans, because they are the best quality and the most aesthetically pleasing, usually. In some ways, the Industrial Revolution has made society put more value on art, as it becomes more rare in daily life. Something to note, in almost every area, it is socially preferable to have a "designer" item rather than a similar one from Target. Though this also reflects economic situation, it is also related to people's perception of what art is.
The fine arts have also benefited from the Industrial Revolution. With advances in technology, it has become possible for everyone to listen to music or watch a ballet. In previous centuries, many of the fine arts were restricted to the highest echelon of society. The only downfall of how artists are perceived is that they are no longer viewed as something only the elite can enjoy, a very positive development in my opinion.

2007-01-04 03:37:33 · answer #2 · answered by violingrl07 2 · 0 0

the industrial mechanisms have only confused people about what is worth while the woman who spoke of giclee is a classic example of people who know little of the art market giclees are simply photo mechanical methods of producing work you can print as many 1000's of the same image over and over which devalues the methodology so that it becomes a joke. new tools come along constantly and each can be adapted for use in some art form most people on the outside don't see that craftsmanship has little to do with art art is about expression and an attempt to communicate that expression thru the use of materials when those materials change then the artists needs new tools to work that material the very word craftsmanship contains the word craft in it not the word art these are two different things. The only way that technology has changed art is that it has made it easier to mass product some things into worthlessness and produce other art pieces much easier the people who abuse the technology are those who only see it as a way to make money those who correctly use that technology use it to make art. as for the precption of the public the same snow job that the white house now uses on us all thru the media is being used on people whose entire world exists thru soundbites with no research on their part whatsoever, no self-education and no investigation into anything..... they just blindly accept what they hear on tv as gospel and go happily down the road to total clone slaves

2007-01-04 03:05:48 · answer #3 · answered by doc 4 · 0 0

hi Somdyuti, Hahahahaha the jokes have been incredibly humorous. anyhow... As for why the KKR have accomplished so badly this 12 months...all 5 components which you listed have performed a factor. yet i think the single bihhest root reason for it incredibly is that KKR does not have reliable gamers in its rank. Their bowling is amazingly susceptible as they have not got a real celebrity. sure they have Ishant Sharma and Murali Kartik who're ok yet they are not great. and that they have got the Bombay Duckling of their midst besides - i do no longer understand why they picked this former India speedy bowler who will stay a former India speedy bowler. yet another factor against them is they have not got any thrilling youthful Indian batters of their group. Chennai have Raina and Badrinath; Rajasthan have Yusuf Pathan; Deccan have Rohit; etc. yet in the KKR, the only reliable Indian batter is Ganguly. The group has to compliment 7 Indian gamers and regrettably not one of the different I6 ndians gamers are reliable batters. Brendon McCullum has no longer clicked the two this 12 months. final 12 months he started out with a bang with that century. That grew to become into because of the fact he grew to become into freed from any captaincy rigidity. yet that's no longer the case this 12 months. He has been shoved into the vanguard in a set he does not understand lots approximately. Brendon's a reliable WK and participant yet he incredibly is untested as a captain even for NZ - so why did Bhooka Naan make him Skipper, i do no longer understand? i do no longer consider you that if Ganguly grew to become into captain, each and everything would be very nicely. Ganguly grew to become into captain final 12 months and KKR did no longer do this extra constructive ending in 6th place. in the top the captain purely strategises and its as much as the persons to accomplish - regrettably for KKR, the gamers including Ganguly have not accomplished. purely Chris Gayle and Brad Hodge have accomplished nicely. The at the back of the curtain drama has heightened a majority of those issues by skill of dividing gamers and it style of feels like the gang is fidgeting with out plan and technique. This further with the reality that the gamers (different than Hodge and Gayle) have not been performing and likewise that the gang's composition is defective are the basis reasons.

2016-10-29 23:39:03 · answer #4 · answered by pour 4 · 0 0

Absolutely Not.

Nowadays everyone with a little money can purchase the instruments
of his or her choice and with a minimum of involvement...
peruse hundreds of books, films, videos and tapings of all disciplines
and make a choice of
mode of expression
style and medium
dimension and volume
to use and work with so as to express their life and soul.

and so, the Market has followed and exploded.

if that is what you choose to call a Downfall...
maybe you are very Beaux-Arts
( i do not mean to insult or categorize anyone and you...
the least)
and the Fine Arts as they existed until the mid 19th century
were not a very good expression of the concerns and
everyday experience of the
ordinary person.
...to say the least...

this is my opinion
but i agree....times have gotten Rough and so has Art

2007-01-04 03:00:00 · answer #5 · answered by Claudius 2 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers