Art is created by humans. Humans are mortal. Is art mortal?

This came up the other day when I was talking to friends. We were talking about the recent theft of the Munch paintings, the loony who took a hammer to the Pieta, the flap over whether or not to clean the Sistine chapel ceiling, etc. Now I am not--NOT--saying that it's OK to take a hammer to a Michelangelo. But here's what I think: Art is made by humans for a world which is populated by other humans. There is meant to be an interaction there, and there's no guarantee that there will never be any friction. Is the Venus de Milo less beautiful because she has no arms? If art changes through age or proximity to people, is it without beauty or value? Specifically, if the Pieta and the Mona Lisa are so well-protected from people (distance, Plexiglass, the works) that people can no longer really experience them, aren't they kind of "dead" as works of art already? Whatever you think about this question, I'd love to hear it. Thanks.

Art is created by humans. Humans are mortal. Is art mortal?
For artists who live and work in the real, mundane, day to day world, art is not relavent beyond the grave. Romanticism seeks to give it relavence beyond the human, but art is no more than a strenuous attempt to communicate an idea. The "great" masters were no better than many other of their contemporaries, but like any age, artists are chosen "tokens" by the respective elite class.


The celebrity status only fosters the illusion that art is something so much greater than human. Truth be known, art is the primal expression of humanism. Even religious art degrades spiritualism into humanism.





"You can hear Beethoven, but Beethoven cannot hear you"





--The Decomposing composers, by Monty Python.
Reply:I think the fact that art can comunicate something long after the artist is dead speaks to spirtuality not huminism. I don't feel any pathos, simply thankfullness that they said the words I was triyng to speak. Report It

Reply:I believe artists keep on making art (as we all mortals keep doing good and stupid things) is because our actions in some way will outlast ourselves. If you are able to see the Pieta nowadays, enjoy it and draw inspiration from it it is obvious that it is not "dead". We live in the memorieo of those we have affected. True artists will live forever, as their art will as well, because they have become part of our collective memory. If a wacko tomorrow destroys the "Gioconda" (unlikely, as the one on display at the Louvre is a copy) the image will still live in you until the day that you die. And even that doesn't mean it won't outlast you, as there will still be hordes of others on this planet who will still be alive and will remember the masterpiece.


Art has transcended all the B.S. we have tried to cast on it. Figurative painting was supposed to be dead in the late 50's. Painting as we know it was supposed to be dead in the late 70's. Art is proclaimed dead every couple of years, and yet the biggest temples mankind has built for the past 200 years are not cathedrals but Art Museums. You still think art will die?
Reply:There is a breakdown in the logical argument, if a = b and b = c then a = c. If the first premise were "all art IS human" and the second were "all humans are mortals", then all art would logically be mortal. The first premise, however, is "all art is CREATED by humans"; therefore no, the argument doesn't hold up. You need another premise or to reword the first one.

Dental Insurance