Is art still valid if it is manufactured? This subject first occurred to me as I was watching the movie "I, Robot." Will Smith was shooting things, robots were fighting, and I was trying to find some glimmer of Isaac Asimov underneath a thick layer of Hollywood.
I quickly Asimov's iconic book to a new medium, to introduce The movie was a product; its purpose was to make money.
art. Film and music are superlative arts, so I have felt for "Art for art's sake," seems a misnomer When you think of art, do you think of Oscar Wilde?
Charles Dickens? Andy Warhol, perhaps? Would the art of today sit well with them?
If Mozart were here today, how would he feel about the Pussycat Dolls being taken seriously as musicians?
talent in popular culture, and it's even easier to become depressed about the public attitude toward it. This led me to find aesthetic quality in other things, from advertisements to comic strips.
This, in turn, led me to Bill Watterson, creator of the comic strip "Calvin and Watterson has a belief that there is no high or low art, just art for art's sake. He says, and I believe, there is aesthetic in anything. "I, Robot" may have been a radical departure from the Asimov novel, but that doesn't mean it has no artistic aspects, and it also As the German critic and philosopher Theodor Adorno said, self-evident any more.
News RSS