Social Role of an Artist - Report Example

Social Role of an Artist Introduction: Artistic and philosophical dis s from different times of the human civilization have provided evidencein support of the observation that there is a strong connection between art and society. An artist is considered as such an individual, who sorts out different layers of interpretation and perception from the society and provide those layers with an aesthetically appealing dimension so that common people feel an urge to provide adequate attention to each of those aspects that are under requirement to undergo certain changes so that a better existence can be enjoyed within the social system. The politics of existence is dependent on different social, political, cultural, economic and psychological factors. History provides adequate evidence in support of the observation that in different phases of the development of human civilization, systems of governance, social institutions and powerful communities often have mould or have attempted to mould these elements in such a way so that people fail to realize their trapped existence as an instrument in hands of the system and keep on ignoring the essential aspects that need to be addressed or protested against in a collective manner to ensure a better future. Starting from the earliest human civilization to modern times, literary figures, philosophers, painters, song composers and artists from different genres of art have chosen such issues of crisis as their subjects of treatment. Through this method they have pointed out the real situation that inhabitants of a particular society are undergoing and also have appealed for collective actions, implicitly or explicitly, so that necessary changes can be introduced. Thus, artists and their creative impetus are regarded, since early dawn of the human civilization, as noble, benevolent and inspirational approaches, responsible mainly for introducing changes in an existing situation. Social Evaluation of Creativity: Robert J. Sternberg has opined that artists have a tendency “… [perhaps] more than any almost any other members of society, … to question and rebel against established norms” (Sternberg 278). In the same line with the observation, artistic creativity can be interpreted as a process or phenomenon that is spontaneous and cannot be restricted by any kind of conventional, established or orthodox norms. The traits of creativity are also responsible for inspiring and motivating common people to introduce required changes within the domain of social, economic, political and cultural aspects of common people. As creativity is also interpreted generally as a benevolent approach, thus, it is also perceived that artists would initiate such changes from an entirely non-commercial purpose. People always have a natural tendency to go against any kind of institutionalized approach; consequently, fusion of antiestablishment traits of creativity and common people’s anti-institutional approach ultimately create a situation of collective struggle against all forms of anarchy and social confinement. One of the main reasons that creativity or artistry is considered traditionally non-commercialized mainly due to the reason that commercialization is considered to have a close association with capitalism, which in consequence also finds a close link with economic dominance, resulting in social oppression. Thus, commercialization of an art work automatically relates artistry or creativity with that of capitalism, an instrument of oppressing spontaneity. Additionally, such perception of an artwork also degrades it from its actual aesthetic value: “… it may be possible to destroy a work of art by converting it into a pure commodity” (Hyde xviii). However, keeping in mind the post structuralist analysis of art and creativity, as it also has taken commercial perspective of artistry into consideration, it can be said that in the present situation of socio-economic standard, the commercial aspect of an artwork cannot entirely be separated as the modern artists, for both purposes to carry on with their livelihood and to support their artistic career. In the book, The Gift: Creativity and the Artist in the Modern World, the author has made quite a logical and pragmatic observation that “I do not maintain that art cannot be bought or sold; I do maintain that the gift portion of the work places a constraint upon our merchandising” (Hyde xviii). Thus, under light of such observation, it can be said that compared to the earlier times analytical observation regarding creativity has undergone a great deal of transformation; however, in general perception, the non-commercial romanticism regarding art and creativity is still prevailing. Artists are still perceived as such individual entities and geniuses, who can transcend all social, cultural, economic and political barriers and irrespective of all these obstacles they are still capable of producing revolutionary pieces of work without any commercial interests. Representation of Creativity in Modern Times and Life in Modern Mills: Inception of the 20th century and the consequent cultural-intellectual revolution have introduced several reforms within the domain of socio-cultural existence. It is interesting to see that such reforms were not limited to any particular dimension of social existence, rather scope of such changes enhanced and entered into all the layers of social existence to such an extent that the interdependence between each of the social factors were realized in the most conspicuous manner. While in the earlier times economic purposes and creative aspirations were widely regarded as two different and antithetical issues, 20th century showed that it is not essential to discriminate both of these issues; rather proper development of in both these arenas is possible if both of these can complement and supplement each other. In the year 1920, Western civilization witnessed that industrialization is using creativity for promotion of products and advertisement emerged as a strong platform behind this fusion. However, it cannot be said that alliance between industrial approach and artistry was proved to be perfect equally effective in future, especially from the creative perspective. There are several such instances that promise of creating immortal artworks was drowned entirely due to overindulgence of the artist in material aspects; on the other due to lack of proper exposure many promising talents have simply been faded into oblivion. Exploitation of creative capacities of an individual was random in the hands of entire social system: Charlie Chaplin’s Modern Times and Rebecca Harding Davis’s Life in the Iron Mills are important creative works that have dealt with the theme of altered face of creativity. How to define an artist under such a dynamic socio-political and cultural scenario and how he is socially acknowledged as an artist: these are two basic questions that have yielded a great deal of debate among most of the scholars. While coming to a conclusion regarding artistry and creative aspiration of an artist becomes quite confusing under the diverse range of opinion shared, in a quite simple manner, however, an artist or social acknowledgement of an individual as an artist can be defined as: “…the artist of enduring gifts would be one who managed to define himself against all temptations to commercializing his calling” (Hyde 356). Keeping this observation in mind, if an attempt is made to interpret creativity within the context of Modern Times and Life in the Iron Mills, it would be found that both these works though have focused on the theme of common human being’s plight, being trapped within the confusion of modern social existence, but artistry as a form cannot entirely be ignored. Though artists of both these works have shown that how the grind of modern social machinery engulfs creative and natural self of an individual (Gehring 140) or how creative impetus of people is turned to smoke and fades into air by reflecting the idiosyncratic feature of the town (Davis, and Olsen 12), however, in order to represent such confusion and helplessness of modern life, creativity has been the only resource. Common people’s confinement within modern monotony and so-called randomness may have remained unobserved during earlier times but those are actually taking shape of an institution resulting in existential crisis among individuals. Both artists, Charlie Chaplin and Rebecca Harding Davis have realized that in order to make people aware or to churn out their reaction against such process of institutionalization can only be materialized if the audience can be realized about seriousness of the situation through sharing of the “gift” or the ingeniousness that the work of art actually encompasses (Hyde 356). While in Modern Times, Chaplin has attempted to show quest of an individual to triumph over the confined existence through search for spiritual bliss of which a “forlorn girl” becomes an essential symbol of receiving the state of eternal or spiritual bliss for the individual (Ulm 376), Davis’ representation of the quest for betterment both from material and spiritual perspective is clearly existential: “There is a secret down here, in this nightmare fog, that has lain dumb for centuries: I want to make it a real thing to you. You, Egoist, or Pantheist, or Arminian, busy in making straight paths for your feet on the hills, do not see it clearly, - this terrible question which men have gone mad and died trying to answer” (Davis, and Olsen 13-14). Conclusion: Creators of both the works, Modern Times and Life in the Iron Mills, have clearly reflected on the aspect that how materialism and economic aspects are viciously wrapped around social existence of modern men. In both the cases, we see that protagonists have certain individuality, what Hyde has referred as “gift”, proper exercising of which could have contributed to a better survival, freed from comic pathos or nihilistic existential inhabitation. However, as they have failed to recognize their gifts and responded to the trivial trait of commercialization, rather than managing themselves, respectively they only have remained as typical representatives of modern existence. At the same time, through them, it also has been represented that creativity is suppressed widely and unless an artist knows how to manage the commercial temptations, not being secluded entirely from the benefits of commercial traits, it would be extremely though to retain the artistic or creative self in the ongoing trend of socio-cultural, economic and political existence. Works Cited Davis, Rebecca Harding. and Olsen, Tillie. Life in the iron mills, and other stories. (2nd ed.). New York: Feminist Press. 1985. Gehring, Wes D. Film clowns of the depression: twelve defining comic performances. North Carolina: McFarland. 2007. Hyde, Lewis. The Gift: Creativity and the Artist in the Modern World. New Delhi: Vintage. 2007. Sternberg, Robert J. Handbook of creativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1999. Ulm, Gerith Von. Charlie Chaplin - King of Tragedy. READ BOOKS. 2008. Read More