A thought that comes to mind after watching “This is Modern Art: Shock! Horror!” would be bizarre. I wouldn’t consider this type of art to be horrifying or gruesome, but I do notice the shock. I believe these artists portray their lives to a certain extent. Their art consist of their beliefs, and lifestyles or fetishes. The video mentioned that Goya (the Father of shocks) probably suffered from a nervous breakdown, or some type of anxiety disorder. He was more of a realist and his work drastically changed towards the end of his life after he endured the loss of his wife, along with a disease that left him deaf. The video states Francis Bacon stated he “loved shocks because shocks were a part of life.” This just demonstrates that all these artists were portraying their own life, not creating a new genre for the sake of art. The role of art I would closely relate with Horror Art would be that it helps see the world in a new innovative way. There have always been unique people, but these artists actually brought attention to themselves and their types. It allowed normal people to experience what these artists see on a normal basis. Now as far as using public funds to purchasing this type of art, I don’t know. Art is meant to be debated, art is meant to be seen from different perspectives, so anyone can argue whether or not public funds should be used to purchase it. I believe the best question is to consider if the art is appropriate for each location. If it is then I see no reason to display it with public funds.
A very well thought out post! The work in the video most definitely shows us the world in a new albeit shocking way-I guess how shocking it is actually depends on the viewer and their own experiences.
ReplyDelete