what is the primary purpose that artists have for creating paintings
Answers
Answered by
7
Each painting has its on meaning, depending on the picture and on peoples views . Some examples are: .represent an idea .tell a story .record an event .express a feeling .comment on an issue .get a reaction .present an emotional response .capture the display in your memories Pe…
Answered by
2
heyy mate
I am going to get a lot of flack for this, but is the way I see it.... Art only affects the people that see it and understand it, and to understand art you need an education. The problem is that the people that understand art are the ones that are usually better off that the ones that need some change in society and the system. So I don't see art as an agent of change I see art as a companion of change, as a way for people to express their moment as it happens....
Art at the end is a personal expression. It is about what happens around the artist that affects him personally that ends up expressed.
If it is a painting very few will see it, if it is a play it won't be allow to play and if it is a book very few can afford it, or understand it, and that is if it is not banned.
If art was a positive agent of change graffiti would have made a better society out of all of us, just because it was all over the place, but it just amounted to a medium of expression and sometimes protest... Now, again, only the educated understand the Graffiti that has move into the galleries...
The real contributor of positive change is education, and I am not referring to math or science only, I am also talking about moral education and ethics... then Art becomes a medium to reinforce or accompany this change.... ( this could be misinterpreted, because the Nazis thought the same, unfortunately they used the same logic for the wrong reasons)...
Education first then art.... If we are talking about positive change....
HOPE IT HELPS U
PLZ MARK ME BRAINLIST
I am going to get a lot of flack for this, but is the way I see it.... Art only affects the people that see it and understand it, and to understand art you need an education. The problem is that the people that understand art are the ones that are usually better off that the ones that need some change in society and the system. So I don't see art as an agent of change I see art as a companion of change, as a way for people to express their moment as it happens....
Art at the end is a personal expression. It is about what happens around the artist that affects him personally that ends up expressed.
If it is a painting very few will see it, if it is a play it won't be allow to play and if it is a book very few can afford it, or understand it, and that is if it is not banned.
If art was a positive agent of change graffiti would have made a better society out of all of us, just because it was all over the place, but it just amounted to a medium of expression and sometimes protest... Now, again, only the educated understand the Graffiti that has move into the galleries...
The real contributor of positive change is education, and I am not referring to math or science only, I am also talking about moral education and ethics... then Art becomes a medium to reinforce or accompany this change.... ( this could be misinterpreted, because the Nazis thought the same, unfortunately they used the same logic for the wrong reasons)...
Education first then art.... If we are talking about positive change....
HOPE IT HELPS U
PLZ MARK ME BRAINLIST
Similar questions