purple wrote:
> On Mar 16, 2:02 pm, "SODDI the Unclean" <n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> The media IS art.
>
> "It is quite literally true that since printing it has been the poets
> and painters who have explored and predicted the various possibilities
> of print, of prints, of press, of telegraph, of photograph, movie,
> radio and television. In recent decades the arrival of several new
> media had led to prodigious experimentation in the arts. But, at
> present, the artists have yielded to the media themselves.
> Experimentation has passed from the control of the private artist to
> the groups in charge of the new technologies. That is to say, that
> whereas in the past the individual artist, manipulating private and
> inexpensive materials, was able to shape models of new experience
> years ahead of the public, today the artist works with expensive
> public technology, and artist and public merge in a single experience.
> The new media need the best artist talent and can pay for it. But the
> artist can no longer provide years of advance awareness of
> developments in the patterns of human experience which will inevitably
> emerge from new technological development." - H. Marshall McLuhan,
> Re****t on Project in Understanding New Media, Part VII(Exhibits), p.i,
> 1960.
>
>
> "The new art form of our time is the media themselves, not painting,
> not movies, not drama, but the media themselves have become the new
> art forms.... I write cartoons.... I have wanted to write a play, for
> a long time, on the media. And the media themselves are the avant-
> garde area of our society. Avant-garde no longer exists in painting
> and music and poetry, it's in the media themselves. Not in the
> programs. Avante-garde is not in hockey, not in baseball or any of
> these entertainments. It's in the media themselves." - Marshall
> McLuhan, Forces Magazine, Hydro-Quebec, No.22, p.68, 1973.
>
>
> The GREAT Bob Dobbs
>
>
>
Interesting. One could say that art is only defined as such because it
is what people see. Shakespeare, Dickens, and Da Vinci are all famous
only because their works were, and are, seen by the masses. Now that the
media is seen by the masses as well, it has become a new form of art.
So, in my opinion, the media is not "killing" the Arts, only replacing
some of them with something else. Whether this is good or bad is up to
individual preference.
|
