Is Art Limited?

[Vanraw]

....
I asked him "so you are saying if we don't live in a world where we aren't always worrying about starving, dying at age 28 from the pox and being oppressed, raped and always in fear of our overlord we can't be good artist? He said "no, you can still be a good artist but the one thing you can't do is appreciate art like someone who lived 1000 years ago. Basically the importance of a good meal is lost on someone who has never really been starving. The importance of all artistic mediums means less to society so the craving to create something unique dies with those cravings.

The more modern and civilized our society gets the less importance art has on society and the more sterile it becomes.

.....

This is a really good point. Sort of an "eye of the beholder" view of the question "what is art"?

Art moves people. The more you see a similar thing the less moved you are by it. I think perhaps that is what your saying original post, is there is nothing new that moves you as much as the first time you experienced the genra.genre. I would agree then.

The first time I saw Ansil Adams work,I was wowed. But now, it's been done. Many others have done similar work, some trevally better, but the wow factor belongs to Adams.

So here is a question. Were the people who followed Adams techniques copy cats? Cashing in... Or were they artist so moved by what they saw, they were motivated to explore deeper? Certainly Adams wasn't the first to publish black and white photos that used light the way he did. So he to was motivated by other muse.

I would say that Hitchcock presented some very original Art, but also built on other influences. You could probably say this of every artist dating back to a cave man painting on a cave wall or beating a stick on a hollow log.

So perhaps the success and originality of art, is defined not by the artist, but the viewer.