Art is a universal language that surpasses words, unearths emotions, ignites imagination, and unites people together regardless of our differences. Art could be painting, music, sculpture, poetry, movies, novels, designs, and the like, and one of the recent bones of contention is if art needs to have a deeper meaning or message before it'll be acknowledged or appreciated. I, for one, think this is a complicated and yet unique conversation, and today I'll shed light on why I said so.
As art is a universal language, it can be anything; a simple dance can be regarded as art, and when you dance to tunes, it is quite difficult to pick it to one hidden meaning or message, so can we then say the dance isn't art enough or has lost its essence? Of course not; in my opinion, depending on what revolves around the art, we can be the judge and appreciate it in other means than just the message it carries; you can just appreciate art for the depth and complexity, or for how it resonates with our emotions, or its cultural significance, even though to us it might not have meaning; those who worked on it invested their time into it, and that on it can be appreciated.
I remember several years ago when I was still an undergraduate at the university, my friend was watching a particular series, and after about four episodes into the series, he got angry and said he regretted wasting his time watching the movie because it was mean. That statement hit me in a way, and I decided I'll watch the movie to prove him wrong, and so I began to watch the movie, and after 9 episodes into this particular movie, I had the same thing my friend said on my lips; it was annoying, and I wished I could take back the hours spent watching the series.
Fast forward to a few years later, I was having a conversation with my league of friends, and the topic we were discussing revolved around the old English people's traditions and a particular history revolving around the English men. While the argument was going on, I was able to input points that everyone opposed, that it can't be right, but after vetting the authenticity of my statement on Google, it turns out that I was right, but when I learned about that information I couldn't recall it until later that night when I remembered it was one of the storylines in that series I was angry I wasted my time upon.
Now I know this doesn't justify how uninteresting the movie is, but then it makes me believe that every single art has a meaning behind it; it's just easier for us to notice some because they resonate with our life experience or with the type of movie or music we love, while we'll see those that fall outside the genre of what we love as being meaningless.
The drawing, painting, music, or movie that you think isn't significant, in the sight of someone who can resonate with it, would be seen as probably the best art they've ever come across, so we should learn to respect art regardless of how terrible it is, at least appreciate the effort invested in making it, and leave a positive influence on people. Don't be the reason why someone quits; be the reason why they'll believe in themselves or be willing to do better. The way we lay down our reviews will either make or mar the artist behind the art's career, so think twice.
Now I understand some art can be so terrible, but your definition of terrible is, to another person, awesome. Take, for example, a religious Christian who will not see the essence or any good in songs from some artists such as Naira Marley, but the same Naira Marley in the club would be hyped as one of the best club jam singers.
So in conclusion, my take is that if, per adventure, you don't enjoy it, see the message in a particular art, whatever it may be; if you can't appreciate it, then it's best you leave it be or give mature criticism that'll make the artists sit up and do better, not criticize in a way that'll make them depressed.
All photos are taken and edited on canva.
Posted Using InLeo Alpha
