Does Art Shape Culture of Culture Shape Art?

[Stravo]

One of these blowhard award winners on the Oscars tonight quoted a mentor of his that said Art was a sledge hammer that beats and shapes culture.

I happen to think that's a load of shit as no art movement that I'm aware of has had an effect on culture as shall we say the microchip, WWII, WWI, Industrialism, Astronomy, Democracy, Communism, etc.

What are your thoughts on this matter? A middle of the road answer is unacceptable as the original assertion is an either/or. Either Art is a hammer that shapes Culture or it is a mirror that reflects it. I happen to think it is a mirror and a rather foggy one at that.

[Elheru Aran]

I think it is safe to say that yes, culture shapes art. Even in 'counterculture' art; the fact that they are reacting *against* the culture, is in a way them being *influenced* by that culture.

As for examples-- just look through most of history... Mesotompia, Ancient Egypt, Greece, Rome, China, India, Africa, the Renaissance... in all these cases, the culture shaped the art, because the art is part of the culture, but the culture is bigger than the art.

[Knife]

Art comes from culture. Even if they are rebelling against that culture, they are inspired by that culture. Culture is the sledgehammer that makes artists react to it.

[Darth Wong]

Artistic types grossly exaggerating the power and importance of art? Say it ain't so!

[Knife]

Artistic types grossly exaggerating the power and importance of art? Say it ain't so!

It sales better when they look like 'starving, angst filled artists'. Blah.

[haas mark]

Culture shapes art, to a vast degree. Of course, not only culture but the goings-on of it. In all your previously-stated examples, Stravo, the art of those times reflected what was going on in those times. Naturally, the art eventually went to influence people to do things, and then late influenced other forms of art, but it all stems back to the culture at the time. No more, no less.

[AK_Jedi]

People love to go on and on about how a certain movie, book, or play really changed people's point of view on a certain cultural problem. Case in point is this year's "Brokeback Mountain" and the Gay rights issue.

The fact is, though, that this movie would not even have been made if our culture wasn't already talking about gay rights. Even controversial art like this is a mirror to society.

[Noble Ire]

Actually, I can think of a single instance where art alone has had some major impact on culture. Certainly, sometimes there are books and movies that heighten people's awareness of issues, but the issues and the response are already part of the culture, and would have likely been brought to life even without art's help (for example, Uncle Tom's Cabin and the North/South divison that caused the Civil War.)

[Saurencaerthai]

Art emulates life, not the other way around. That's not to say that art isn't a powerful medium and can have a strong impact on the culture, but last I checked, there hasn't been a composition that stopped any wars recently.

[Pick]

I always saw art as being a kind of piddly little side effect of culture. Sometimes it helps as part of a spiral of stimuli, but little compared to other outside influences.

[Darth Wong]

The assembly line transformed society more than any piece of art ever did or could. Same goes for the invention of TV or the automobile. In the end, the ability of art to reshape society is insignificant next to the power of technology.

[wolveraptor]

Actually, I can think of a single instance where art alone has had some major impact on culture. Certainly, sometimes there are books and movies that heighten people's awareness of issues, but the issues and the response are already part of the culture, and would have likely been brought to life even without art's help (for example, Uncle Tom's Cabin and the North/South divison that caused the Civil War.)

So...what was the single instance?

[haas mark]

Actually, I can think of a single instance where art alone has had some major impact on culture. Certainly, sometimes there are books and movies that heighten people's awareness of issues, but the issues and the response are already part of the culture, and would have likely been brought to life even without art's help (for example, Uncle Tom's Cabin and the North/South divison that caused the Civil War.)

So...what was the single instance?

I believe he meant 'can't.' No one is beyond typos.

[Gil Hamilton]

It works both ways in some cases. Usually, art is a product of culture, but some time culture is generated by art. For instance, David and Ingres and that school of French artists dramatically altered French culture, which lead to a cultural countershift (to which a side effect was impressionism, but that was a symptom of a great cultural movement). And Japanese prints and Oriental ceramic art most definately had a distinct cultural effect on Europe.

[Darth Wong]

It works both ways in some cases. Usually, art is a product of culture, but some time culture is generated by art. For instance, David and Ingres and that school of French artists dramatically altered French culture, which lead to a cultural countershift (to which a side effect was impressionism, but that was a symptom of a great cultural movement). And Japanese prints and Oriental ceramic art most definately had a distinct cultural effect on Europe.

When one says that art affects culture, one should be careful not to be circular, ie- arguing that art affects culture because it affects subsequent art. The real question is: does art affect culture apart from its artistic tastes?

[Gil Hamilton]

When one says that art affects culture, one should be careful not to be circular, ie- arguing that art affects culture because it affects subsequent art. The real question is: does art affect culture apart from its artistic tastes?

I don't mean to be circular. The art and artistry of David and his school after the French Revolution caused a major cultural shift within France. David was an VIP of the French and is in fact on some of their money. That sort of art became basically the great arbitor of taste in France in general, which was broadly effecting society. In their fashion and theatre and writing, et cetera.

The counter cultural backlash that occured was alot of the French rumbling about why should taste and art and publication and polite society should be dictated to them. A visible symptom of this cultural counter shift was Impressionism, but it was happening all over French society in response to the dictatorship of taste that was prominant art community.

[Gil Hamilton]

GHETTO EDIT: I should also mention that the French of the time were pretty prone to dictatorships anyway, with Napolean doing his emperor thing and David being one of his mates. However, art and the art community actively shaped French culture quite a bit, via Napolean's court and outside of it.

[Darth Wong]

I don't mean to be circular. The art and artistry of David and his school after the French Revolution caused a major cultural shift within France. David was an VIP of the French and is in fact on some of their money. That sort of art became basically the great arbitor of taste in France in general, which was broadly effecting society. In their fashion and theatre and writing, et cetera.

This still seems like more of the same: art affects art. Theatre affects theatre. Clothing fashions affect clothing fashions. It still sounds rather circular to me; where are the effects on the way people actually live their lives? The way people interact with each other?

[Gil Hamilton]

This still seems like more of the same: art affects art. Theatre affects theatre. Clothing fashions affect clothing fashions. It still sounds rather circular to me; where are the effects on the way people actually live their lives? The way people interact with each other?

That's the thing, in France, it kind of did. Art didn't just effect art, it effected all those things, because the art community wasn't just defining artistic taste, it was defining all taste, which had definite effects on how polite society interacted.

I suppose that's a major distinction. The effects the art community had on any given individual really depended on your station in society, but that's really true of anywhere, not just Napoleanic France. On the ground, it kind of trickled down, but in the great social circles of the rich, such things as art and fashion (the two things weren't exactly very distinct from each other, fashion was just art you wear) were a big deal.

[Darth Wong]

This still seems like more of the same: art affects art. Theatre affects theatre. Clothing fashions affect clothing fashions. It still sounds rather circular to me; where are the effects on the way people actually live their lives? The way people interact with each other?

That's the thing, in France, it kind of did. Art didn't just effect art, it effected all those things, because the art community wasn't just defining artistic taste, it was defining all taste, which had definite effects on how polite society interacted.

I suppose that's a major distinction. The effects the art community had on any given individual really depended on your station in society, but that's really true of anywhere, not just Napoleanic France. On the ground, it kind of trickled down, but in the great social circles of the rich, such things as art and fashion (the two things weren't exactly very distinct from each other, fashion was just art you wear) were a big deal.

That's like saying that high fashion affects culture because fashion-conscious people choose to follow it. I'm still not seeing anything resembling the impact of, say, TV.

[Lord Zentei]

It's perhaps more that art is a medium to disseminate ideas and that these affect culture. For a radical example, consider propaganda art and political cartoons.

[Gil Hamilton]

That's like saying that high fashion affects culture because fashion-conscious people choose to follow it. I'm still not seeing anything resembling the impact of, say, TV.

It's more than that. The Art Community was everything in polite societies then. Being seen at art shows not approved by the art community powers that be were scandalous and could lead to outright osterization. Manet and his mates in the Impressionist movement weren't just considered bad artists, they were considered downright subversive and borderline criminals to many in society. When Manet, for instance, unvieled Olympia in Paris, there was a huge outroar and it triggered a major controversy. Everyone in society was talking about the how fucking daring and rude and scandalous (and exciting and outrageous and shocking) it was for Manet to not only flout painting tradition is his subject but would dare slap France herself in the face by painting a naked prostitute. People speculated for months whether this was Manet's revenge for the Salon (the huge government sponsered annual art show) rejecting his Luncheon on the Grass, which too depicted a naked woman, though in this case was a known associate of his whom people might have recognized. The Salon accepted Olympia for its daring, but the masses of France who attended the Salon were rather nasty. Manet practically had to leave town because so many people were publically insulting him or worse.

You talk about television, but the art world for high society in France at the time it was the equivlent. It very much effected culture even the high reaches of the government. The Salon was a huge big deal that everyone in the middle class of France and above clamoured about. I gave the example of Manet's Olympia to illustrate this point. Art infused everything in French society, it was practically the core of it at the time. it was something everyone talked about and anyone who was anyone was a patron. Art shows could cause riots and duels. Art effected the culture of France as much as anything. Hell, its effects are still felt today, as part of the reason French are so damn stuffy about French arts (be it culinary, cinematic, paintings, et cetera) and close to banning any others.

[Shinova]

Dunno. I guess Culture mostly shapes art, but there could be some very rare examples where a piece of art shapes culture. If Star Wars could be considered a piece of art, then I could say that it shaped culture, although it too probably was a product of some culture.

[Jawawithagun]

Fritz Lang's 1929 film Die Frau im Mond shaped culture in its own small way - it introduced the countdown.

[PrinceofLowLight]

The fact is that most people get most of their information through their entertainment. The average person's views on nuclear power have a lot more to do with the twelve dozen movies and Simpsons episodes where a bird flies into a cooling tower and suddenly the town (city, country, planet) has three days to live, than with actual research or even propaganda pieces by advocacy groups. It's just easier that way.