?

Log in

ziggy_wolf in norpaws

Fictive value of art and literature

This week the one of the headlines in the news was that one on the Scream "skrik" paintings may be sold. These series especially the one Munch painted in an hour of desperation and melancholy as a protest against modernism has become an icon within the art world. As a primal scream of anxiety even outside artistic circles. It is seen as the Norwegian equivalent of the Mona Lisa. The estimated value several hundred millions.

An important question to ask is why do some works by artists reach status as an icon or considered cultural valuable and others not? Is this not just a fictive value attached to an item? I remember in school being forced to read dead, boring literature and subjected to art I quite frankly found In interesting. I recall several hours where we had to analyze bowls of fruit, dull withering gardens, and empty landscapes. Or read about so called social realism, about mundane every day things where there were no conflict to drive the story onward. Who decades that just thees works have more importance than some far more technically skilled artist or writer? Why worship all this mediocrity? Some may argue that these specific works have a greater social value and say something about our culture and the time we are living in. Ironically the same can be said about most pop cultural artistic expression. The reason is the same as war, why there is poverty, why people die so others can live a life in luxury. Money, this is just a way for dealers to place a fictive value on something to fill their own pockets. Again I urge you to think for yourselves and not let yourself be manipulated by the powers that be.

Posted via LiveJournal app for iPhone.

Comments