Paul Prudence
@paul-prudence
Art should *not* be made accessible to the mainstream. Art is the antidote to the mainstream. Unless you are confusing art with marketing.
13 replies
0 recast
22 reactions
tim/vortac
@vortac
Normally I'm on par with everything you say and do, Paul. But I'd question that statement. Dealing with art is an important form of cultural and educational mediation, it promotes (critical) engagement with topics that transcend the banalities of everyday life. I would even say that it can help people learn to reflect on personal, societal and political changes and developments and at the same time promote emotionality and creativity. Art in general should not be something exclusive, reserved for and cultivated within a certain group. This may not be true for certain movements within the overall art spectrum, as they are often an identifier, outlet and catalyst for social exclusion and a means of expressing the struggle for recognition. So certain art forms and movements are definitely antidotes and their assimilation into mainstream culture is often purely superficial and meaningless, but "art" in general is not.
2 replies
0 recast
2 reactions
Ryan
@ryanthompson
Good catch Tim, I didn't read it that way and it's a good reminder to ponder different perspectives. Funny how the interpretation of one word changes everything. In my mind saying 'accessible' was more about the process of producing the art to appease mainstream appetites not the access to the work.
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
tim/vortac
@vortac
Now that you offer me that perspective, Ryan, I believe even more that I misinterpreted Paul‘s statement. I read it more in terms of making it available in the sense of introducing the mainstream to art. I’m no native speaker so sometimes I miss the nuances, also not being able to use these nuances in a sophisticated manner is often a drawback for me.
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
