Mid-term questions!
1) Would art exist independently of human existence? Why?
2) Do limitations on art stimulate or hold back creativity?
Privacy Overview
This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.
2 comments
2. Maybe both. In a way you aren’t allowed to do everything you want because of the restrictions, however, it somewhat forces the artists to think of something new within the constraints and pushes them to think in a different way than they would have gone. Think Judson! Like the 500/200 words that was switched on us.
1) This is kind-of like the well-known question, “if a tree fall in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?” Do we define sound and it’s existence based on the human perception? If we do, the the sound doesn’t exist (I am in no way attempting to answer the paradoxical tree question because that is way beyond me). The same technique could be used in defining art. If art exists and no one is there to perceive it, does it really exist? Is art independent of people’s perception, feelings, and emotion? I think it most definitely is not. Art is a very subjective thing that requires a feedback loop. I think for it to be art, people have to create it or see it. So without human existence, I don’t think there would be ART.
Also there is no way to prove it logically, because we, as humans, cannot test if art exists without us. That would be impossible. But it is a very interesting question to wonder about.
Thanks Alex!
Leave a Comment