In class last week our discussion was rolling around the topic of child's play and adults using art as a means of expressing their so-called "inner child". Why is this? Why must adults pretend to be these mature beings that don't roll around in the mud or finger paint or build with blocks? What I want to know is who the heck came up with the idea that adults have to pretend that because they are older, they cannot enjoy the same things as their children any longer. That is totally not fair.
And what is even funnier is in college, it becomes acceptable to do all of these things again. It becomes ok to color with crayons in a coloring book, or to go puddle jumping in the Quad and roll around in the mud and rain, or to have sleepovers and wear footie pajamas.
Our society has set all these standards and rules that make humans as a whole less fun and more boring. And the fact that the only socially acceptable way adults are allowed to "play" is if they call themselves and artist and make something.
A question I will leave you with, though, is if art is supposed to be the adult's way of expressing their "inner child", does this mean that children cannot create art?
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Monday, February 21, 2011
Response to Sean
Sean brought up some good questions last week in his blog:
Should artists be censored? Should kids in school be taught to make sound decisions? Also could art be a dangerous tool?
Censoring art has always been a very touchy subject, and one that is forever being dealt with. It is hard to say that people are free and do and say whatever they want, and then put restrictions on that. It's easy to say that certain things can harm a child or really mess them up in their thought processes, but they will eventually learn to deal with these things. Because of this inevitability, I believe instead of censorship, children should be taught to deal with things and how to look at or listen to things critically. This will benefit them in the end, giving them better judgment on many things.
Sean also asked, though, if art could be a dangerous tool. He used the example of rap artists saying President Bush hated black people after Hurricane Katrina.
Art can most definitely be used as a dangerous tool, and not only in this country. It can be used to rally people against someone or give a group of people a negative opinion against someone or something. Art itself cannot make anyone do anything, but it can most certainly put the idea into someone's head.
Why do people do this, though? What is the satisfaction in making people feel this way? Or is it unintentional?
Should artists be censored? Should kids in school be taught to make sound decisions? Also could art be a dangerous tool?
Censoring art has always been a very touchy subject, and one that is forever being dealt with. It is hard to say that people are free and do and say whatever they want, and then put restrictions on that. It's easy to say that certain things can harm a child or really mess them up in their thought processes, but they will eventually learn to deal with these things. Because of this inevitability, I believe instead of censorship, children should be taught to deal with things and how to look at or listen to things critically. This will benefit them in the end, giving them better judgment on many things.
Sean also asked, though, if art could be a dangerous tool. He used the example of rap artists saying President Bush hated black people after Hurricane Katrina.
Art can most definitely be used as a dangerous tool, and not only in this country. It can be used to rally people against someone or give a group of people a negative opinion against someone or something. Art itself cannot make anyone do anything, but it can most certainly put the idea into someone's head.
Why do people do this, though? What is the satisfaction in making people feel this way? Or is it unintentional?
Response to Gina
Gina asked in her blog:
Is it better to repress our emotions for the sake of societal standards, or should we express ourselves freely through the medium of art?
It is a shame that some feel it is inappropriate to express feelings, and that the only way to constructively express them without receiving ridicule is through art. I do believe that art, in whatever medium is your choice, is a great way to let out feelings, and I am not criticizing anyone who feels it is their way of expression. However, I do not believe that it should be the only way to express oneself.
I think that emotions should be expressed freely in whatever medium necessary, whether it be an art form, or a physical display. There is obviously a time and a place for everything, but in the end, no emotion should ever be repressed for the sake of society.
So my question for all of you, then, is why are there so many "rules" and "expectations" of society, and why has art become an escape from society?
Is it better to repress our emotions for the sake of societal standards, or should we express ourselves freely through the medium of art?
It is a shame that some feel it is inappropriate to express feelings, and that the only way to constructively express them without receiving ridicule is through art. I do believe that art, in whatever medium is your choice, is a great way to let out feelings, and I am not criticizing anyone who feels it is their way of expression. However, I do not believe that it should be the only way to express oneself.
I think that emotions should be expressed freely in whatever medium necessary, whether it be an art form, or a physical display. There is obviously a time and a place for everything, but in the end, no emotion should ever be repressed for the sake of society.
So my question for all of you, then, is why are there so many "rules" and "expectations" of society, and why has art become an escape from society?
Response to Brycen
Brycen asked in his blog:
If 90% of the iceberg is under the water can one argue that about 90% or just a large part of the unconscious mind is completely unknown?
I'm not sure if a specific number could be put on how much of the unconscious, or rather the subconscious, is really known; it is probably different for everyone as well. Also, once it starts to be discovered, it is no longer the subconscious anymore, but rather part of the conscious mind. So really, I think all of the subconscious is unknown, for everyone.
I think the iceberg analogy goes better with the whole mind than just the subconscious. Only about 10% of the whole mind is probably known, and the rest of the inner workings will remain hidden and a mystery.
Thoughts?
If 90% of the iceberg is under the water can one argue that about 90% or just a large part of the unconscious mind is completely unknown?
I'm not sure if a specific number could be put on how much of the unconscious, or rather the subconscious, is really known; it is probably different for everyone as well. Also, once it starts to be discovered, it is no longer the subconscious anymore, but rather part of the conscious mind. So really, I think all of the subconscious is unknown, for everyone.
I think the iceberg analogy goes better with the whole mind than just the subconscious. Only about 10% of the whole mind is probably known, and the rest of the inner workings will remain hidden and a mystery.
Thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)