Can it be plausibly argued that art is brought into being only in the response of the audience, that a work is created anew each time it is viewed, heard or read? Art is a subject of great discussion and perspicuous disagreement. It comes in numerous different forms, each unique in its own way. Nevertheless each of the different forms of art share one common element; their success is based on the outcome they produce, which is the influence of the audience’s opinion. Art can be expressed in an infinite number of ways, by an infinite range of individuals who earn the title of “artist”.
Forms of art aren’t solely sculptures and paintings but involve all of our senses such as musical forms of art, literature pieces, photography, dance and so on. Nowadays the term “art” has assumed a broader meaning and is often associated with elements that meet disagreement among the audience. Art comes down to the response of the audience. If an artistic piece is appreciated then it will receive the financial aid to progress in time and the artist will gain from it. If it doesn’t receive positive feedback it will not be successful and won’t manage to gain fame.
It can be argued that art is based mainly on the response of the audience. The music industry works around the audience response. Nowadays an artist isn’t merely represented from his talent as an artist but to be successful there are a number of elements the artist is required to have. A new musician always has to be something new and valid for him to last in time. The artist must go under a process or remodeling before he can affirm success. If one’s voice or songs aren’t particular or different from what’s on the market than their appearance most definitively will be.
There are an infinite numbers of examples, Lady Gaga perhaps, who if listened without all the technological modifications to her voice has extraordinary talent, but not particularly ear catching. When she puts on her over-the-top wardrobe decisions she becomes an icon to millions of fans. This process one artist must undergo is all in an end for the approval of the audience. The judgements the audience come up with in accordance to an artist then go to define him giving him an “amazing artistic talent” or he will simply be a passenger to the audience who won’t pay attention to him.
This is all a system in direct relation to the audience, where they make the artist or they proclaim him “not talented enough for success”. It is arguable to what extent the audience actually does create the art. It is possible that the artist makes himself and isn’t in fact made by his audience. Even though an artist may not receive positive feedback from a supposed audience, he could still consider his music, art. It is plausible that he doesn’t necessarily need the presence of an audience; instead he could be his own audience, and decide through his musical skills he could create masterpieces in art.
Consider his success infallible but keep on hoping in its external success. Success besides, he will still be able to consider his personal talent “art”. One might say that the audience`s response is not as important as the art piece itself, nevertheless the audience is the means who have the power to determine the success or failure of the form of art. Another example that validates the statement made previously can be made by taking into examination a northern Italian man who lived in the early 1800s.
He was a very peculiar man who dedicated his whole life to the intellectual aspect of it, reading and learning possibly as much as his human mind could handle. He lived a miserable life; unwanted and constantly mocked. Even his astonishing writing skills weren’t acknowledged. Even so today his poems are world famous studied by millions of students around the world. L`infinito is his most famous and even that one hadn’t earned the slightest consideration at the time. His poems were merely scribbles on a notebook during his life and solely after his death the audience started responding positively to him.
This doesn’t necessarily mean that his work wasn’t art, but that it wasn’t considered art at the time. This process of the formation and acknowledgment of his art is based restrictively on the response of the audience. If it had been considered art while he was alive he would have gained surely more from it. It can be argued, similar to the musical industry that he considered his work artistic and didn’t need a public opinion to validate his poems. Nevertheless the audience is what makes a poem real, what gives it the excellence or simply doesn’t give it more than a glace.
His poems could have been the best ever written up until then but without the audience’s response nobody would have never come to know them. This leads to an extremely famous philosophical question: If a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it, does it still make noise? A similar approach can be applied to this case of art; if the poems had remained on his bookshelf they might as well be considered art but there wouldn’t have been anyone able to acknowledge it. Like in the forest the tree most definitively fell but nobody was there to hear it so the noise it made is absolutely uncertain.
The audience is indeed the creator of art. It is absolutely brought into being by the audience. If they didn’t have the same influence the art would remain solely in the artist’s possession but wouldn’t go far ahead. It may as well be considered art but won’t really be brought to serve its actual potential. In both the examples made above the audience has a determined importance. Their response is what manages to bring the art alive and, according to its magnitude, acknowledge it in front of the whole wide world.