*scroll down right to the article if you're uninterested. (I would if i were you. lol.)
Firstly, i spend the last couple of days at my school's orientation; the School Of Business Management (aka. SBM) at Nanyang Polytechnic (aka. NYP) where I enrolled in Diploma for Media Studies and Management.
The past two days were memorable. My social circle expanded as I met new people and naturally, made new friends in the process. With that, through various games, cheers, tours around the school and the time spent together, my class and I bonded well.
MS0801, you guys are great!
We're easily the best OG!
The grand finale was simply epic; everyone was freaking high and dancing around. Evidently, everyone had their fair share of fun. Now let us work hard together and strive for the best academically! And once again, cheers to the new friends I made during the past 2 days or so. You guys are simply awesome.
That's that.
Well, as you're able to tell, I've been pretty busy for the past couple of days socialising amongst my new mates. Though this is no excuse, I didn't really think of topics to write about during the duration of the orientation.
However, at the band meeting held today, I chanced upon an interesting piece of argumentative topic that our Bassist had to complete for his GP (General Paper).
"Commercialism distorts the value of art" Discuss
The title caught my eye like a light in the dark and obviously, I wanted to give it a shot. He (the Bassist) was more than happy to let me help him complete his piece of homework. But seriously dude, you owe me lunch or something lol.
In the case of an argumentative topic such as this, I feel that the topic itself has to be carefully and extensively scrutinized, word for word for one small misconception or misinterpretation will mean that the article will render utterly useless.
In this case, the word "Commercialism" would be properly defined as an adjective which means something that is "organized principally for financial gain" (as cited from dictionary.com). The keyword here is "financial gain", take note of it.
The word "distorts" means to ruin, destroy, defame or strip of the true meaning and beauty in this case or art; general degradation in this case.
However, there is a choke hold in this notion in the phrase "value of art" partly because the phrase is vague and that there are many degrees of definition to it. It also largely depends one's point of view on the phrase. To some the "value" of art might be its material price, the person who draws it or how old it is for example and to others, this "value" might refer to the quality or the technique used in the art.
We stand before another grey-area for the definition of the word "art" is vague. A sane and logical definition in this context would probably be "The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a medium" (as cited from dictionary.com again). The definition itself is vague as there are many grey-areas in between however, in this case, it isn't needed to fully define the term "art" or segregate it for we are able to treat it as a generalisation.
The next step is probably to piece the pieces together and formulate a simple yet effective definition of the entire notion. From my perspective, all it means is that the title is asking if one agrees or disagrees that the act of Commercialism of Art is only in the interest of financial gain and in doing so, defeating the true purpose of Art, thus degrading it to a level.
Commercialism of Art is something that has been done for quite a period of time in our modern society. This is evident on three fronts of art, which I will be focusing on in this article; Audio, Visual and Physical.
Audio art basically refers to Music, songs and various auditory related mediums. Commercialism is especially evident in this aspect largely due to the fact that there are many different genres and classifications for audio art. Music, itself has different genres. From Rock to Blues, R&B to Jazz; the list goes on.
Commercialism has indeed affected music in a way as there are certain segregation from the genres. The Rock genre, for instance, has a sub genre classified as "indie rock". No, Indie Rock has nothing to do with Bollywood or Indian films; its defined as an artist or a band that is unaffiliated with a larger or more commercial organization. It basically means that its a certain type of music that is uncommercialised.
In comparison, many die hard Rock fans will tell you that they prefer Indie Rock to their mainstream counter parts.
Why is this so?
Content. The content of mainstream music as compared to indie music is largely different probably due to the fact that mainstream music is controlled by a certain authority in terms of content. Instrumental-wise, the unique sound of the indie music scene is the missing ingredient that fans are looking for. Many feel that by commercialising, the true essence of music is lost as is it replaced by the need for more money.
But is this true?
I personally feel that obviously, there's a difference between commercialised and uncommercialised music, but not all artists or bands lose the "essence" of music as they make the transition from indie to mainstream. Only a number of them will suffer a distortion in terms of their artistic value and in fact to some, mainstream music would appear more appealing as indie music doesn't cover a wide spectrum of thought in their content; it caters to only a limited capacity.
Let us move on to the aspect of Visual art-form. When we say visual art, things like paintings and drawings and sketches comes to mind. Commercialism is actually the key in marketing and that is especially prominent in the field of visual art.
Not alot of people enjoy works of visual art as it is often concluded that it takes a certain degree of understanding and appreciation to fully immerse oneself in visual art. And it is due to that fact which makes commercialism an advantage in this aspect.
Through commercialism, the masses will be able to be exposed to various works of art and henceforth, develop and cultivate an interest and appreciation for it. They will begin to understand the true meaning of a particular piece of work and the complexity behind it.
But how about the quality? Will it be compromised in anyway?
No. In this case commercialism, as mentioned, is an advantage. We see examples like Leonardo da Vinci's "Mona Lisa" and controversial piece "The Last Supper", or Vincent Van Gogh's beautiful piece "Starry Night" or even Michelangelo's "The Creation Of Adam", all of them awesome and intricate pieces of art that have undergone commercialism to a certain extent; they are now world famous pieces of art.
The point here is that the beauty of visual art pieces such those mentioned above isn't in anyway compromised as these works of art are not fabricated solely for the purpose of commercialism and therefore in this case, commercialism is considered an advantage.
Physical art basically refers to various landscapes, structures and revolves around the beauty of the natural environment. Places like Mount Everest, The Great Pyramid Of Giza, The Great Wall of China, Easter Island Statues, Aztec Ruins, The Stonehenge and The Col0sseum are just some of the beautiful examples of physical art we have on Earth.
The effect of commercialism on physical art pieces such as those mentioned however, isn't that beautiful. Commercialism means promotion and financial gain (as mention earlier) and in this case, tourism comes into play due to the fact that it is a major source of income to many countries and businesses.
Having tourists in the area would mean destruction or degeneration in the quality of these physical art pieces. Pollution will soon follow due to the fact that with the arrival of tourist; relevant infrastructure would have to be built to accommodate.
Clearly, physical art will not benefit much from commercialism as it will lead to distortion and over time, complete destruction. The value will drop and eventually perish. This is a case whereby commercialism will not benefit the value of art as only financial gains are thought of and as a result, the quality will deteriorate.
Like a coin with two different sides, an advantage and a disadvantage is obvious in the topic of Commercialism and the effects it has on the value of art.
However, I personally feel that Commercialism doesn't distort the value of art and thus disagree with the notion. Yes, the fact that Commercialism might bring harm and pollution to various art forms (like physical art), Commercialism is also a boon in certain aspects. Commercialism doesn't defeat the whole purpose of art but more rather, refines it into a modern context; to increase exposure and audience.
Thus i conclude that Commercialism is not the bane of Art.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment