Artists are the most important members of the society because they help us to envision our thought that may not be tolerated in the social and political paradigm of our society.
“Art is the queen of all sciences communicating knowledge to the generations of the world” (Leonardo da Vinci). This statement aptly represents the power of art and its meaning in our society.
It appears that the general consensus of the word artist is confined to painters, sculptors, and the like and not music or any of the other fine arts. So, to continue in this vein, the consideration of the impact of art is contained in the old question "Does art imitate life, or does life imitate art?" If this question has validity, as it certainly does, then it seems foolish to say that art is not all that important to society.
One only needs to return to the prehistoric paintings on cave walls to understand the tremendous importance of art. What about the Bayeux Tapestry which records the Norman Conquest? Or Picasso's Guernica?!
Art in the form of architecture, Victor Hugo states in his novel Notre-Dame de Paris, is man's first way of recording his thoughts, feelings, and history. Art educates people about a culture. Art is the expression of the souls of nations.
I do think that artists are tremendously important for society, but I do not feel that they are the most important mediators of society. They do have a very important role to play, and we only have to look at various works of art to see the way that artists capture what is going on in society in various ways. I don't necessarily think that this means they automatically shape society. They may do to some extent, but they clearly play a valuable role in recording the changes of society.
I agree with #5. Art certainly is impacted by events in society, and members of society are impacted by the art around them. I'm not sure I can agree with the thesis that art and artists are the most important communicators or shapers of society, however. I would like to think that thought and logic and reflection interprets the impressions that art may present.
I think that to a certain extent artists interpret and reflect society. Art movements are often in concordance with social movements and developments. Art often reflects the way people feel, and what is going on around them.
An artist could be a mediator, but I don't think they are the most important members of society. As a mediator, art generally allows us to see a different perspective while still making it our own. We take what we want from art because it is abstract and not spelled out like a written work would be. In that sense, art can be a type of mediator between an idea and the public. However, I don't think I can agree that art is the most important member of society for the exact same reason. We take what we want from art. Therefore, it is less concrete than other works like writing, speeches, etc. I think if you wanted to make either art as a mediator or art as the most important member of society a thesis, it would be difficult to have a truly strong paper. There's just not enough evidence to support such a grandiose claim.
"Mediators" has a different meaning than "Members." You might want to check your source for the term you want to inquire about.
I would question the thesis; it is true that art is capable of reaching a wide, but does it truly educate anyone? We see art -- in whatever form -- and we are "changed" by it... but what part of that change is concrete and what part is just abstract? I have had more knowledge imparted to me through discussion and debate than by art.
On the other hand, if you cram books into the category of art (I generally don't; I love reading but my purpose is entertainment, not enlightenment) then I have to agree with the thesis. I've learned more through reading than from all the paintings and sculpture in the world.
I also agree with #5. Art often reflects the way people feel, and what is going on around. A vivid example is a painting or scultured portrait of figure as so many hidden informations or history beneth starting from the material used to the texture of the work as son. Artist are indeed mediators to our society.
i wouldn't say art imtate life but gives social awareness of life which is happening around then or possible outcomes !
Maybe I proposed my interest incorrectly. I did mean mediator but perhaps I should have used a stronger term? Quote “We see art -- in whatever form -- and we are "changed" by it... but what part of that change is concrete and what part is just abstract?” A rather contradictive statement regarding the initial statement? Already art has had an impact, as you are change, art is a subject which gives one time to reflect and question the subject matter, as to whether it is concrete or just an abstract it has made an impression. Contemporary art of today asks to query its concept. It causes controversy and has to ability to address socially unacceptable issues such as genetic engineering by the Chapman brothers, Zygotic acceleration 1995. Possible predicted outcomes of future genetic testing?
And what of the Dada movement which infiltrated the continent during the first world war, Their aim to high light the hypocrisy amongst the elite and the political powers.
Artists have a very powerful political tool that they can use to inform society, without chastisement. As society is dictated by, politics, then therefore is it not true that the artist is an important member of society?