First Question on Weitz

As we discussed in class, do you really think that some of the great revolutions in art happened because of strict, closed off definitions by artists trying to go against the grain?


I can understand this premise, and I would certainly argue that this was indeed the case. Artists have always been inclined to go against the grain and try to rebel against the confines of definitions and rules through art, and without these strict rules and definitions I wonder if we would have some of the great art/techniques that we have today. In fact, many revolutionary actions have been taken through art. Even during the American Revolution, there were many comics and the like to go against the government, and this has appeared all through history during many different politically/socially strained times. Times such as the World Wars, the Red Scare, you name it. Statements of all sorts have been made through paintings, movies, theater, novels, poems, you name it. Artists are simply inclined to make statements through that which they know best: art, and if that means that they are going to rebel even against those rules that supposedly govern their own profession, then they'll do it.


Be this as it may, I still do believe in openness of art and creativity and question the validity of closed definitions in the art world.