The relationship between art and society. | Ashay Deshpande - francinebavay.info
The most basic relationship is that the arts are concerned with emotions; with our Lecture 3 – FOUNDATIONS OF THE ARTS (Man and Society). FUNCTIONS. Humanities 2 (Hum 2) Art, Man and Society Faculty-Marked Assignment I Bachelor relations. But we mostly view art as an object rather than than digesting its. The person who first articulated this belief effectively was Oscar Wilde. Speaking about the Art's influence on society: propaganda and censorship. Throughout.
He knows himself and his fellow beings within the framework of society. Indeed, man is social by nature. The social nature is not super-imposed on him or added to him rather it is inborn.
It is said that needs and necessities makes man social. Man has many needs and necessities. Out of these different needs social, mental and physical needs are very important and needs fulfillment. All his needs and necessities compel him to live in society. Many of his needs and necessities will remain unfulfilled without the co-operation of his fellow beings. His psychological safety, social recognition, loves and self-actualization needs only fulfilled only within the course of living in society.
He is totally dependent for his survival upon the existence of society. Human baby is brought up under the care of his parents and family members. He would not survive even a day without the support of society.
All his basic needs like food, clothing, shelter, health and education are fulfilled only within the framework of society. He also needs society for his social and mental developments. His need for self-preservation compels him to live in society. Individual also satisfy his sex needs in a socially accepted way in a society. To fulfill his security concern at the old age individual lives in society.
Similarly helplessness at the time of birth compels him to live in society. A nutrition, shelter, warmth and affection need compels him to live in society. Thus for the satisfaction of human wants man lives in society. Hence it is also true that not only for nature but also for the fulfillment of his needs and necessities man lives in society.
Society not only fulfils his physical needs and determines his social nature but also determines his personality and guides the course of development of human mind.
Development of human mind and self is possible only living in society. Society moulds our attitudes, beliefs, morals, ideals and thereby moulds individual personality. Man acquires a self or personality only living in a society. From birth to death individual acquires different social qualities by social interaction with his fellow beings which moulds his personality.
Individual mind without society remains undeveloped at infant stage. Thus, from the above discussion we conclude that Man is a social animal. His nature and necessities makes him a social being. He also depends on society to be a human being. He acquires personality within society. There exists a very close relationship between individual and society like that of cells and body. Relation between Individual and Society Human cannot survive without society and societies cannot exist without members.
Likewise can competition with other societies strengthen the social system, while wearing out its constituent members? This idea was voiced by Rousseau who believed that we lived better in the original state of nature than under civilization, and who was for that reason less positive about classic Greek civilization than his contemporaries. The relation between individual and society has been an interesting and a complex problem at the same time.
It can be stated more or less that it has defied all solutions so far. No sociologist has been able to give a solution of the relation between the two that will be fully satisfactory and convincing by reducing the conflict between the two to the minimum and by showing a way in which both will tend to bring about a healthy growth of each other.
Aristotle has treated of the individual only from the point of view of the state and he wants the individual to fit in the mechanism of the state and the society. It is very clear that relation between individual and society are very close. So we will discuss here Rawls three models of the relation between the individual and society: His most telling argument against the utilitarian position is that it conflates the system of desires of all individuals and arrives at the good for a society by treating it as one large individual choice.
It is a summing up over the field of individual desires. Utilitarianism has often been described as individualistic, but Rawls argues convincingly that the classical utilitarian position does not take seriously the plurality and distinctness of individuals . It applies to society the principle of choice for one man. Rawls also observes that the notion of the ideal observer or the impartial sympathetic spectator is closely bound up with this classical utilitarian position.
It is only from the perspective of some such hypothetical sympathetic ideal person that the various individual interests can be summed over an entire society . The paradigm presented here, and rejected by Rawls, is one in which the interests of society are considered as the interests of one person. Plurality is ignored, and the desires of individuals are conflated.
The tension between individual and society is resolved by subordinating the individual to the social sum. The social order is conceived as a unity. The principles of individual choice, derived from the experience of the self as a unity, are applied to society as a whole.
Rawls rightly rejects this position as being unable to account for justice, except perhaps by some administrative decision that it is desirable for the whole to give individuals some minimum level of liberty and happiness. But individual persons do not enter into the theoretical position. They are merely sources or directions from which desires are drawn.
Justice as Fairness The second paradigm is that which characterizes the original position. It has already been suggested that this is a picture of an aggregate of individuals, mutually disinterested, and conceived primarily as will.
While not necessarily egoistic, their interests are each of their own choosing. They have their own life plans. They coexist on the same geographical territory and they have roughly similar needs and interests so that mutually advantageous cooperation among them is possible.
Thus, one can say, in brief, that the circumstances of justice obtain whenever mutually disinterested persons put forward conflicting claims to the division of social advantages under conditions of moderate scarcity . Here the tension between individual and society is resolved in favor of plurality, of an aggregate of mutually disinterested individuals occupying the same space at the same time.
It is resolved in favor of the plural, while giving up any social unity which might obtain. The classical utilitarian model and the original position as sketched by Rawls provide paradigms for two polar ways in which the tension between the plurality of individuals and the unity of social structure might be resolved.
One resolution favors unity and the other favors plurality. It is described as a good, as an end in itself which is a shared end. This paradigm is distinct both from the conflated application to the entire society of the principle of choice for one person and from the conception of society as an aggregate of mutually disinterested individuals.
The idea of a social union is described in contrast to the idea of a private society. A private society is essentially the second model as realized in the actual world.
It stems from a consideration of the conditions of the original position as descriptive of a social order. Over against this notion of private society, Rawls proposes his idea of a social union . It is one in which final ends are shared and communal institutes are valued.
Man and Society
Marx and Engels on Relationship between Individuals and Society The direct elaborations of Marx and Engels on relationships between individual action and social process can be divided into three categories for purposes of discussion: Besides, the relationship between individual and society can be viewed from another three angles: Functionalist, Inter-actionist, and Culture and personality.
Everybody performs certain functions in a group. Take, for example, the production team. Here people are joined together by other interests as well as those of production; they exchange certain political, moral, aesthetic, scientific and other values.
A group generates public opinion, it sharpens and polishes the mind and shapes the character and will. Through the group a person rises to the level of a personality, a conscious subject of historical creativity. The group is the first shaper of the personality, and the group itself is shaped by society. The unity of man and society. A person's whole intellectual make-up bears the clear imprint of the life of society as a whole.
All his practical activities are individual expressions of the historically formed social practice of humanity. The implements that he uses have in their form a function evolved by a society which predetermines the ways of using them. When tackling any job, we all have to take into account what has already been achieved before us. The wealth and complexity of the individual's social content are conditioned by the diversity of his links with the social whole, the degree to which the various spheres of the life of society have been assimilated and refracted in his consciousness and activity.
This is why the level of individual development is an indicator of the level of development of society, and vice versa. But the individual does not dissolve into society. He retains his unique and independent individuality and makes his contribution to the social whole: The individual is a link in the chain of the generations. His affairs are regulated not only by himself, but also by the social standards, by the collective reason or mind.
The true token of individuality is the degree to which a certain individual in certain specific historical conditions has absorbed the essence of the society in which he lives. Consider, for instance, the following historical fact.
Who or what would Napoleon Bonaparte have been if there had been no French Revolution? It is difficult or perhaps even impossible to reply to this question. But one thing is quite clear—he would never have become a great general and certainly not an emperor.
He himself was well aware of his debt and in his declining years said, "My son cannot replace me. I could not replace myself. I am the creature of circumstances. What tribunes of the people were lifted by the tide of events of the French Revolution— Mirabeau, Marat, Robespierre, Danton. What young, some times even youthful talents that had remained dormant among the people were raised to the heights of revolutionary, military, and organisational activity by the Great October Socialist Revolution.
It is sometimes said that society carries the individual as a river carries a boat. This is a pleasant simile, but not exact. An individual does not float with the river; he is the turbulently flowing river itself. The events of social life do not come about by themselves; they are made.
The great and small paths of the laws of history are blazed by human effort and often at the expense of human blood. The laws of history are not charted in advance by superhuman forces; they are made by people, who then submit to their authority as something that is above the individual.
The key to the mysteries of human nature is to be found in society. Society is the human being in his social relations, and every human being is an individual embodiment of social relations, a product not only of the existing social system but of all world history.
He absorbs what has been accumulated by the centuries and passed on through traditions.
What is art man and society
Modern man carries within himself all the ages of history and all his own individual ages as well. His personality is a concentration of various strata of culture. He is influenced not only by modern mass media, but also by the writings of all times and every nation. He is the living memory of history, the focus of all the wealth of knowledge, abilities, skills, and wisdom that have been amassed through the ages.
Man is a kind of super-dense living atom in the system of social reality. Art in any society is then an appropriate reflection of the sum total emotions, beliefs, fears and power of its people. If anything relates to the citizens, it is art and society.
Art and Society
Art being eternally connected to society and its subjects, it inherently political in nature. It symbolises the holistic opinion of society, making any art created as a reflection of society, essentially propaganda for that particular society.
As each community holds some beliefs dear, morality eventually takes its place at the heart of any society, taking into account the average judgement that its constituents pass in response to any incident or action.
Today, most of the world believes that morality is non-contingent to individual society and a deeply reduced version of it is common to all the human beings on the planet. Being an important part of societal frameworks, morality seeps into art as well, burdening the artist with the added responsibility of being a moral individual who creates moral art. The artist is then required to equip themselves with skills beyond those required to physically make their art, they are required to understand right from wrong and isolate good from bad.
However, since their morality only holds true in the framework of the society they serve, their art can bring tears of joy or pangs of hatred to an observer, depending on their affiliations. Propaganda created during WW2 by all participating countries was notable for its openly hateful and ideological tones.
When discussing Page 1 of 4 Ashay Deshpande LE Introduction to Aesthetics morality in the context of the war, one generally attributes the Allies with upholding world peace while the losing Axis forces are portrayed as manifestations of evil.
Does that mean that the artists from Japan, Germany and Italy were immoral beings for propagating the imperialist and Nazi ideologies and that the American, Russian and British artists were moral for their demonization of the Axis forces?