__________________
"Let's stop treating models like greyhounds we plan to shoot after a race. We have to remember we are dealing with real people who have real feelings."
- James Scully
I think it's entirely subjective. For me personally, life imitates art. The way I live - constantly evolving on a day-to-day basis - stems from what my interests are at the time; my interests in books, music, film - pieces of art influence my life one hundred percent... Then again, for someone different, the case may be that what goes on in their life influences what they end up seeking in art, and so it's quite the opposite.
i think it is both...i think of the way that people from many cultures tried to recreate their environment or objects in it through visual arts, such as painting, music, dance...and then how the ultimate creative forces can be influenced by humans...and how people imitate each other imitating life's creative forces...it's all so friggin beautiful...
I was just thinking about how life imitiates art in the form of design, like say, a building. But then vice versa is a camera, right? Aren't they both art? But to be fully sure of art, wouldn't you have be be in touch with the reality it depicts? I've never been sure of colors myself, ever since I was a kid. How do I know that oranges are really orange? The orange I see may be yellow to you. So maybe the only things that really matters is your opinion of it, as you could never put yourself in the artists shoes anyway. Let's talk about this more...
I'm always intrigued by the kind of art that tries to break down the boundaries between art and life... or the ppl who's life break down the boundaries between life and art....
I've never been sure of colors myself, ever since I was a kid. How do I know that oranges are really orange? The orange I see may be yellow to you.
Isn't the colour orange known as "orange" because more than two people agreed that it is so? If people saw it differently, I don't think it could even have a name. I figure so long as you agree with me that my sweater is red, then it is. As soon as someone questions it or disagrees, then I think the name becomes nonexistent...
I really do wonder about how in touch one has to be with reality to create art, though... Like for example, if a boy was placed in a plain white room as soon as he was born (let's say he's also blind and deaf, and has no sense of touch - just go with it for a moment...), with no furniture... just a white floor, white walls, no windows, etc... and grew up without education, interaction... Does this boy have an imagination? Can he visualize anything at all? Does he dream?
^^^ the boy would need to interact with his environment in some way to have his needs met. when would such an interaction become art? when would his curiosity (which i am assuming is intrinsic to all humans) about his environment compel him to explore or try to alter his world and when would this become art? hmmm....
__________________
"...buttoned up to the breast, and made with wings, welts, and pinions on the shoulder points, as mans apparel is for all the world...and though this be a kinde of attire appropriate onely to man, yet they blush not to wear it..."
I really do wonder about how in touch one has to be with reality to create art, though... Like for example, if a boy was placed in a plain white room as soon as he was born (let's say he's also blind and deaf, and has no sense of touch - just go with it for a moment...), with no furniture... just a white floor, white walls, no windows, etc... and grew up without education, interaction... Does this boy have an imagination? Can he visualize anything at all? Does he dream?
I'm stumped
__________________
happiness is the fat girl dancing in the corner
i imagine they reflect each other - it's subjective - everybody sees or/and have a choise to move in order to see different reflections - like being between two staying face to face mirrors...
^i agree.
i'd say that art is translating or 'raising', exaggerating certain aspects of life ... not so much imitating. and if life is imitating art? there are of course ideas shaped by a cultural interpretation of beauty that everyone inherits and therefore strives to accomplish in one's life...
but in both ways there's always this moment of translation for me.
I really do wonder about how in touch one has to be with reality to create art, though... Like for example, if a boy was placed in a plain white room as soon as he was born (let's say he's also blind and deaf, and has no sense of touch - just go with it for a moment...), with no furniture... just a white floor, white walls, no windows, etc... and grew up without education, interaction... Does this boy have an imagination? Can he visualize anything at all? Does he dream?
It's unlikely his visual system would develop at all, without stimulation. He would likely be functionally blind. Probably the same goes for his aural system. He would have no language. He probably would have some internal sense of his own joint position in space, and so would probably engage in stereotypic, repetitive movements. But otherwise, I suspect his inner life would be utterly bereft of content. His neurons would have no stimulation to form useful connections with one another, and so a mind would be unable to form from his brain.
Autistic children have an impaired ability to interact with their environments. However, a few of these impaired individuals are able to produce stunning artwork, perhaps because their abberant brain wiring makes them see the world in a way that's very different from what everyone else sees/experiences. And that is one role of art: to reflect the world through a novel point of view.
So, I think one has to have some interaction with reality in order to form any sort of meaningful inner life. However, different perspectives on what constitutes reality are part of what contributes to art.