Art essay Essay

Does art imitate life or is it the other way around? Traditionally, we have believed that art imitates life. The painter represents what he or she conceives by producing a scene on a natesvas. The sculptor does the uniform with bronze or stone. A photographer or bourgeon maker does it heretofore more(prenominal) directly. A writer describes life in his or her books. This simple concept is screwn as mimesis. only both(prenominal) have questioned the one-way nature of mimesis by arguing that art excessively tilts the way we view the world, and in particular, life some periods imitates art preferably than the other way around.The person who first articu modernd this belief effectively was Oscar Wilde. Speaking ab dress out the foggy conditions in London in the late 19th century, he wrote that the way we perceive them changed because of art. Referring to the wonderful brown fogs that go far creeping down our streets, blurring the gas lamps and turning houses into shadows he argued that poets and painters have taught population the fairness of such(prenominal) effects. According to Wilde, They did not exist till craft had invented them. picAnd you dont have to look too far to see anti-mimesis in our lives. To what extent is our outlook on life altered by thoughts we read in books? The portrayal of people in films? The styles we see in fashion photography? One great example of this is the TV serial The Sopranos, and how it affected both the Mafia in the USA and the FBI. Arts influence on society propaganda and censoring Throughout history, it has always been the eccentric person that art has the power to change society, especially when new media are employ to express an idea.During the First homo War, for example, movie cameras were use for the first epoch to record trench warfare when the film was shown in cinemas in Britain, audiences ran out screaming. This led to the government censoring further such use of such a powerful medium. And in government censorship, and use of art as propaganda, we see how seriously governments take the effect of art. All of the major dictators of the C20th mute the power of art to influence the population. In Nazi Ger many an(prenominal), Hitler set up the Ministry of Propaganda and National Enlightenment.It was headed by Goebbels, who made sure that nobody was published, performed, or exhibited without his approval. picWhen this happens, you know there isnt going to be a happy shutting And what Goebbels approved, of course, only fit in with Nazi ideology and ideas. In terms of art, this meant no modern and abstract art, certainly nothing hostile to the regime, and nothing that featured images other than the stereotypical blonde-haired, blue eyed set in idyllic pastoral scenes of blissful happiness. pic picIn Stalinist Russia, there was overly a keen understanding of the power of art. Art portrayed comfortable peasants, industrious workers, and Stalin himself. In fact, Stalin w as shown god-like in many paintings, a phenomenon known as the Cult of Stalin. Just as in Germany, gigantic architectural projects evince the power of the state. pic pic However, there is no doubt that in Russia there were great artistic achievements than in Nazi Germany. Composers worked with fewer hindrances as seen in the deeds by Prokoviev and Shostakovich, and film-makers such as Eisenstein emerged.Arts influence on society the trial of gentlewoman Chatterleys yellowish brown But even under less oppressive governments, the artistic expression of certain ideas can be subject to control. One great example is the book Lady Chatterleys Lover by DH Lawrence, which was deemed offensive on many levels. In this book, Constance Reid, a woman from a progressive liberal middle break family marries a minor member of the aristocracy, Lord Clifford Chatterley, and takes the title Lady Chatterley. But her husband is injured in the First World War, confined to a wheelchair, and left imp otent.Despite this, he becomes a successful writer and businessman. It is more his obsession with financial success and fame rather than any physical difficulties which come between him and his wife, and she begins an affair with their gamekeeper, Oliver Mellors. The largely aristocratic establishment of Britain at the time the book was published in Italy in 1928 were shocked by many aspects of the book. First, there was the fact that the book was obscene, in the way it went into diaphanous detail the affair that took place (see below).Second, there was the fact that a women was faulting her marriage vows, something considered far worse than a man behaving in the same way. Finally, it represented an intimate relationship between a member of the deject classes (although it emerges during the story that Mellors is actually well-educated, and became an officer in the army during the First World War) and the upper classes, a concept that was totally taboo in Britain at that time. T he book was duly banned. pic But the book was republished by Penguin books in 1960.The lawyer general, Reginald Manningham-Buller (dubbed Bullying-Manners by the journalist and author Bernard Levin) had to read only four chapters to ascertain to prosecute Penguin books for publishing it. What annoyed him was not just the content, but the fact that the price of the book meant it was affordable to women and members of the lower classes (remember that only few women worked at this time, and husbands were generally in charge of family finances). The trial was a disaster for Manningham-Buller and the prosecution.They had failed to take chances any experts to support their case, in stark contrast to Penguins defence force team, which had brought in authors, journalists, academics, and even members of the clergy to defend the book. Manningham-Buller and his team had very little idea of what Lawrence had been trying to express in his book, regularly being caught out by the superior insig ht of the witnesses they were trying to catch out. And although they tried to shock the panel in his opening speech, Manningham-Buller announced The word turn in or rump appears no less than 30 clock . . .Cunt 14 times balls 13 times shit and arse six times each cock four times piss three times, and so on. they were ineffectual to prove that the book would have a negative influence on the readers it was aimed at. According to the Guardian No other jury verdict in British history has had such a deep social impact. everyplace the next three months Penguin sold 3m copies of the book an example of what many historic period later was described as the Spycatcher effect, by which the attempt to cut back a book through unsuccessful litigation serves only to move on huge sales.The jury that iconic representative of democratic society had presumptuousness its imprimatur to ending the taboo on sexual discussion in art and entertainment. Within a few years the stifling censorship of the theatre by the lord chamberlain had been abolished, and a gritty realism emerged in British cinema and drama. (Saturday Night and Sunday Morning came out at the same time as the unexpurgated Lady Chatterley, and very before long Peter Finch was commenting on Glenda Jacksons tired old tits in Sunday Bloody Sunday and Ken Tynan said the first fuck on the BBC.) Homosexuality was decriminalised, abortions were available on reasonable demand, and in identify to obtain a divorce it was unnecessary to prove that a match had committed the matrimonial crime of adultery. Judges no longer send on black caps to sentence prisoners to hang by the neck until dead. bath we say, though, that it was art in this case that changed society, or was it an interaction between serviceman sciences (ie, the law) and the arts (the book) that led to change? This is from the same Guardian article the depicted object of Lady Chatterleys Lover, half a century after the trial, is that literary works in itself does no harm at all.The damage that gets attributed to books and to plays and movies and cartoons is caused by the actions of people who try to suppress them. See The trial of Lady Chatterleys Lover The effect of art presentation pic What other piece of art has deep changed the way we view the world? And was it the art that did it, or the way it was used that made the impact? Use the link below to help you claim to us an influential piece of art. Think about the type of change it wrought, for example, ethical, social, metaphysical, etc.