Whether to resist or embrace the new, the novel, is always a question in the back of someone's mind when the "next big thing" comes out no matter what the subject matter, and art is no exception. In fact, I would argue that art is especially vulnerable to this sort of question. Whether something is or isn't art is the sort of conversation I hear over and over again, particularly in relation to newer mediums. And yet, even when something is largely considered art, that acceptance by the masses in itself may play a part in lessening the message that art sends. Commercialization can only be truly effective in well-accepted media, and the process of commercialization often sterilizes a message in order to make sure it appeals to the masses, careful not to offend or criticize anything that might be well like out of worry that consumers may be lost. If these messages are so sterilized for the public, though, has the medium ceases to be suitable for art? Or is the message itself unnecessary? It would argue that the message is important, at least for art to truly have a purpose rather than simply be a pretty piece in someone's collection. After all, I would argue that one is rarely offended or inspires by a piece of art itself but rather by the meaning one perceives behind it.
The idea of technological art in itself does not sit well with some parts of the masses, but it is when the very definitions of art are stretched in the name of the message that the public gets riled up. It is by acting for the sake of the message and using art as a medium, rather than creating art to express a message, that these norms are stretched, denying commercialism the sterilization it desires in order to make some sort of point. These messages may not always be positive, and the techniques used to express them may not always be easily identifiable as art, but their presence suggests a desire to express oneself in new and unique ways, whether to grasp the attention of the public or simply to gain a new angle of perspective on an issue.
Despite its resistance to commercialization and standardization, guerilla art, as it may be called, is absolutely the art of the masses. It is not art to appeal to the masses but rather to speak to the masses, to express a message they may not otherwise hear about, to show an angle that the masses may not always be able to see in mass media, or to introduce something new that may be perceived as negative or unacceptable by those who would wish to censor it. People identify with it in a way that they do not to mass produced media, as it has more personality and, truly, more genuine and relatable a message. It is the guerilla art movement that has been able to give rise to new media art, giving it a place to begin where such new ideas may otherwise have failed due to poor reception. Readily available tools in the hands of a population eager to spread its own messages and ideas to the world, whatever they may be. This is, of course, in stark contrast to what may be considered the 'fine arts', what you would consider to belong in an art gallery. These fine arts are in no way a bad thing, but they are not necessarily relatable or accessible to everyone in the way that new media art can be.
No comments:
Post a Comment