Something You Might Find Uninteresting

This was my Reaction Paper to Alice Guillermo's Art and Society for my Art Stud 1 class. You guys should take this class if you're from UP. Medyo hassle sa prof ko dahil laging may quiz na pagkahaba haba pero worth it dahil marami talaga akong nalaman 8D. Ito yung unang unang paper na pinagawa sa amin. I guess the kind of people who'll be reading this are those who are really curious and those who just need an essay to copy for his/her paper. Some parts of this essay were taken from Wikipedia.

A Perspective on Art and Society

The meaning of art has always been vague that there is not really a considered definition for it. But one thing is certain, art and society, for one, must not be divided. Guillermo states that art is a mode of perspective and a process of signification that is also produced in various settings, societies, and periods. Society then plays an important role in so, for artists, as a part of society, depend on the demands of nature.

Art, as well as aesthetics, is not universal. Society, in order to fully understand the meaning of an artwork, views art, in whatever form it may be, within its context. The context of art considers a wide range of factors such as the period in history when it was produced, the artists, and the reason for the creation of such piece. These factors shape society’s perspective of the world. With so, art is also considered as a tool for the reflection of society towards reality.
Studying art also takes note of national conditions- social, political, and economic conditions. Various social groups in the Philippines from different periods in history have been producing Philippine art for varied reasons; when one has knowledge of these when viewing an artwork, a much deeper understanding comes into mind. There are urban artists that attained their training in fine arts schools influenced by Western styles and techniques. There are also traditional artists such as carvers and weavers that have been creating their products to meet their communities’ needs and rituals. When viewing their artworks one must understand the social setting behind these traditional artists, as well as producers of folk art, that they are most likely victims of prejudice in the country.

Part of art being interconnected with society is how the artist seeks to convey meaning behind his artwork. With so, further support may be given to such piece to flourish in society.

The Industrial Revolution marks a chief turning point in human history; almost every aspect of day-to-day life was eventually influenced in some way. Machines became the main deal for these were used for their capability to give out huge outputs. This made people, instead of moving on to their function as skilled farmers and craftsmen, were led to work at factories. The industrialization made a great deal of profit to the middle-class owners but a painful burden to workers. As this revolution took hold some artists were at differences with the principles which it adopted. Karl Marx believed that the only changes in this power structure would occur through revolution- alongside other forces were the artistic movements advanced. Neo-classicism, Realism, Romanticism, Impressionism, and other artistic movements were used to encourage individuality, liberty, and emotion. Painters made artworks that featured the people who are set to work for industrialization- peasants, merchants, and workers. This provided a new subject matter to the painters and an awareness to society. This also led to the rise of the art market and of the bourgeois system.

The bourgeois or capitalists, as defined by Marxists, are a social class that owns the means of production in a capitalist society. They are marked by a concern of material interests and respectability. With this, not only was art alienated, it also passed into commerce. Everything was used for exchange and brought to the market to be evaluated at its truest worth. The “art for money’s sake” or “art for man’s sake” rose as art was no longer a tool for revolutionary change but, simply put, a decorative product catering to market values.

European artists believed that art lost its force as a meaningful expression because of the bourgeois system that is why by the 19th century, Theophile Gautier came up with the phrase "L'art pour l'art" ("art for art's sake”) to preserve the purity of art. The art for art’s sake theory states that art can never be used for any moral or utilitarian function. Art is believed to be “complete in itself” and that any form of so that is or will be used for any reason is not art. Gautier argued that art does not serve any moral or didactic purpose, nor does it need justification because art in itself is already justified. With so, art and society became divided. The force for revolutionary change is taken off with this theory. Art was no longer used for its previous purposes, rather it stood alone.

This theory, of course, was given tremendous amounts of criticism. Throughout the debates, there comes the statement that the greatest moments of art were attained with the fusion of high artistic form and human liberative meaning. H. Benac stated that the artist is responsible for whatever work he creates, just as how all men are. Besides being a tool for social awareness, art is also known as a form of knowledge that branches out to other disciplines. With so, a lot of artists claimed that art is not just art in itself; it is rather something that plays a very important role in society, may it be a tool for revolutionary change, or simply an instrument for a reflection on life.

As a reaction to Alice Guillermo’s “Art and Society”, I found it pleasing to learn how society’s view of art changed throughout the years. One thing I can never disagree with is Mao Tse-Tsung’s statement regarding how art reflects life. I do not believe that art is always for art’s sake or in itself. I think an artist cannot just create an artwork without having a reason for doing so. Not that I am saying that the art for art’s sake theory is completely selfish, but I still think that an artwork can be “pure” even if it is used in any way for a cause. Paintings made a great deal of change for society through the years and to say that these artworks are not worthy of being “pure art”, in my opinion, would be totally wrong.
I have nothing against political and ideological art. Art is encouraged to certainly become the great pool of concepts from which ideologies and their particular propaganda will extract and recreate new facades. Artists can create a work of art even if it serves as a tool for propaganda, but not to the extent that it no longer applies to what values the society looks up to. Revolutionary art has been a great part of our history, whether it was against imperialism, communism, or something else, I think it’s a great step for society in aiming its goal.

Aesthetics, in my thoughts, is too limited. Yes, the essence of art can also be based on the formal unity of an artwork, concerning such features as structure, balance, harmony, and truthfulness but besides these I can say that the meaning and function of the artwork should be taken into account too. Yes, the beauty of a painting may consist in the relations of color, line, and form or in sculpture, beauty consists in may also consist in the rhythms and symmetries of line and plane but I think what shows the beauty of an artwork even more is the expression it creates.

What is art to me then? I believe art is anything that has been applied with creativity and meaning. I love seeing artworks that, besides being wonderfully crafted, are also given emotions with every detail that I can grasp to understand more of our world. Besides being something I may relate to in any way, I believe an artwork should also take us, in some way, out of reality.