Several of the art magazines proposed have to do with expanding our perception and appreciation for art and what we think of as art. I think this is a great idea for broadening the definition of art. As you say, art is more than something that can be seen in a museum or a gallery. Although I was originally thinking about this in terms of technological advances that shift the meaning of different mediums, I wonder if that is only one direction this could be taken. From your letter, in which you propose articles on food, cinema, fashion, it seems like your expansion of "art" could be applied to any period? Maybe there is are two ways to expand the realm of art... either the reinterpretation of traditional mediums or the introduction of completely new ones?
I agree with Hilary in that I appreciate your new age definition of what we as a society define as "art." However, where does the definition stop? Where does it start? How can we truly know what is art and what isn't? In a philosophical sense I guess one could say that life is art, but then how could you limit your content in your magazine? (It would be pretty challenging to have a magazine based upon life itself...) It seems like in your letter, you're choosing things that shape our culture as a whole, and I certainly agree that anything that has an influence positively or negatively should be considered an art, or at least "artful."
In following with Cassidy's response, while you claim that "the map has combusted," that "art can go almost anywhere," and that there is no "black or white--art or not art," the content of Medium does not seem to fully promote these sentiments. On the contrary, by incorporating specific areas to be discussed and investigated within your editorial (visual arts, music, fashion, food, and photography), the purpose of Medium lends itself more to dictating a narrow definition of culturally appropriate art. In short, if you present art as boundless and widely encompassing, should not your magazine parallel your case?
In consequence, is there a more befitting way to express your fundamental idea that art is essentially everywhere and potentially everything? Rather than focusing on conventional forms of media as music, food, and fashion, as other magazines have already accomplished, perhaps Medium should illuminate new branches of art? After all, you say that Medium will help “broaden [our] concept of what art is—to think outside the frame,” not highlight already acknowledged forms of art.
Several of the art magazines proposed have to do with expanding our perception and appreciation for art and what we think of as art. I think this is a great idea for broadening the definition of art. As you say, art is more than something that can be seen in a museum or a gallery. Although I was originally thinking about this in terms of technological advances that shift the meaning of different mediums, I wonder if that is only one direction this could be taken. From your letter, in which you propose articles on food, cinema, fashion, it seems like your expansion of "art" could be applied to any period? Maybe there is are two ways to expand the realm of art... either the reinterpretation of traditional mediums or the introduction of completely new ones?
ReplyDeleteI agree with Hilary in that I appreciate your new age definition of what we as a society define as "art." However, where does the definition stop? Where does it start? How can we truly know what is art and what isn't? In a philosophical sense I guess one could say that life is art, but then how could you limit your content in your magazine? (It would be pretty challenging to have a magazine based upon life itself...) It seems like in your letter, you're choosing things that shape our culture as a whole, and I certainly agree that anything that has an influence positively or negatively should be considered an art, or at least "artful."
ReplyDeleteIn following with Cassidy's response, while you claim that "the map has combusted," that "art can go almost anywhere," and that there is no "black or white--art or not art," the content of Medium does not seem to fully promote these sentiments. On the contrary, by incorporating specific areas to be discussed and investigated within your editorial (visual arts, music, fashion, food, and photography), the purpose of Medium lends itself more to dictating a narrow definition of culturally appropriate art. In short, if you present art as boundless and widely encompassing, should not your magazine parallel your case?
ReplyDeleteIn consequence, is there a more befitting way to express your fundamental idea that art is essentially everywhere and potentially everything? Rather than focusing on conventional forms of media as music, food, and fashion, as other magazines have already accomplished, perhaps Medium should illuminate new branches of art? After all, you say that Medium will help “broaden [our] concept of what art is—to think outside the frame,” not highlight already acknowledged forms of art.