Good Art = Societal Change?
I never did get an answer from anduril on whether or not "good art" must lead to "societal change." Can "good art" simply create in a viewer a strong, impression of emotional feeling just a "Mona Lisa" might or "The Blue Danube" used in "2001: A Space Odyssey?"
Re: Good Art = Societal Change?
Quote:
Originally posted by tabuno
I never did get an answer from anduril on whether or not "good art" must lead to "societal change." Can "good art" simply create in a viewer a strong, impression of emotional feeling just a "Mona Lisa" might or "The Blue Danube" used in "2001: A Space Odyssey?"
Actually, tabuno, I did feel I answered this question when I wrote: "I'm not sure, however, that I can agree with your claim that there are movies that do not seek change or influence. Simply because a subsequent aspect of my discussion, especially with Johann, delved into politics does not mean I limit it to that sphere either nor do I think my initial post belied that limitation. You brought up a fine list of movies that attempt to influence people in alternative, also very important ways. The list only engages and supports my original point, i.e. film needs to be seen; if it isn't seen, what good is it?"
In other words, all art attempts to influence people's perceptions and in this way tries to effect change... this is inevitably a type of social change. Good art, in this process, must communicate Truth. As I stated before, "artists are compelled by their own craft and their gift in filmmaking (or music, painting, etc.) to communicate Truth... the failure to do so is a travesty against themselves and their audience!"