In the past, according to experts, art was defined as the tangible expression of beauty.
However, since the beautiful is considered by many to be subjective - and this is relative - the generally accepted definition of art remains pending and, I would say, ballast of various professional, commercial, etc. prejudicial circuits that serve organized interests and expediencies.
Why, if works of sexual obscenity, which reduce e.g. the woman into a love object of commercial exploitation, or directly or indirectly impose paranormal dimensions of organized self-marginalized groups, or spread any uncontrolled violence and anoint the world with such patterns that divide, denigrate and defile societies {I refer more to 7η art and in the media}, then perhaps we should revise the concept of beauty and distinguish art into good or bad, beneficial or harmful art, etc. And in the final analysis, who decides?
If we accept the position that art is purely subjective, then there is no room for more general education, sequels, etc. that dictate rules and goals and simply everyone expresses themselves spontaneously, according to their artistic DNA, and is not interested in any general purpose in their artistic expression, but simply for self-satisfaction. I never understood what some "artists" say "I write or paint or play music for myself". That is, do some people create out of narcissism, are they self-satisfied by snubbing or ignoring others, or are they afraid of others' judgment and comparison?
But as, it is assumed that the genuine artist has social sensibilities, listens to the social becoming, is interested and actively participates with his artistic creation, reflects, envisions, opens paths, horizons, inspires action. Great creators believed and proved it in practice with their own state, that the artist lives and creates for society, for its good, offers purification. And it's a matter of experience, education, not "must". Every era is expressed in and through art.
Consider the two World Wars and how they were depicted artistically. Or civil wars, famine, refugees, etc. On the contrary, times of material prosperity, consumerism, etc. they create other sources of inspiration, which the creators use accordingly. But the seasons are not born from parthenogenesis, but are created by human actions, activities. Therefore, humans are responsible for the "seasons." "A Man of All Money"!
Therefore, social systems also influence art and the so-called "spontaneity" or "inspiration" is a function of stimuli from the general environment.
Today's system of rigid competition, fragmentation, speculation, debauchery, debauchery, naturally causes the "art" that we "enjoy" on TV, in the cinema, etc., which, with exceptions, contributes not to purification but to the perpetuation of tragedy, to the rigidity , competition, in violence, in social exclusion, in social excess, in the exploitation of man by man, which constitutes the worst decadence democracy and culture.
Psychologists - not para-psychologists - have a say, as well as sociologists and political scientists.
photo tiemaoanh, https://pixabay.com
