Do the arts have a responsibility to accurately portray history?
Post with the most interesting/compelling/insightful part of your response that you formed in class. Please comment/constructively critique another response as well.
Arts do and also don't have a responsibility to accurately portray history. I say yes, arts do have responsibility because, arts are a medium of expression and are very mainstream nowadays when it comes to kids and teens learning about the world. Movies and books are the most vital mediums to portray history and should therefore talk about it accurately. There have been countless amount of times in which childrens movies have been based on historical events, but dont go about it correctly. The movie National Treasure: Book of Secrets, claims many facts about historical documents and events as part of the script... however in 9th grade, my AP World history teacher proved those facts to be false. On the other hand, arts shouldn't have the responsibility to portrary history accurately because art is a form of entertainment, which is used as a distraction from reality aka history, politics, the economy, work etc.
I think arts shouldn't have to be an accurate portrayal of history. Art is created by the individual and that individual has the freedom to show to whatever they want. Art is often used as a way to express emotions, no matter if there is reason behind it or not. Such as Salvador Dali's work. It is obviously not realistically accurate but is open to interpretations and meanings felt at a personal level. Also, in contrast to mathematics, art has no set rules or standards of what can or can't be done. However, if art did accurately portray history, it could be used a great tool. There would be no room for different views or arguments over what really happened. The usefulness of this type of art comes from how knowledge can be derived from it, such as in the early cave paintings. These were the only source in finding knowledge about the indigenous knowledge systems.
In some ways art does not necessarily have to accurately portray history. Art that recounts history can show different perspectives, different emotions, and different aspects of the event. In this aspect the portrayal isn't a full representation but it is one side to look at t from. In this sense it doesn't have to be accurate (full and analytic of both sides). Roman art works show Roman conquest and victory in wars. These triumphant art works record much of Roman History however from one point of view. They do not show the perspective of the war from the conquered. In this example art does have the responsibility to accurately depict history but to an extent; there is only one perspective
Arts do and also don't have a responsibility to accurately portray history. I say yes, arts do have responsibility because, arts are a medium of expression and are very mainstream nowadays when it comes to kids and teens learning about the world. Movies and books are the most vital mediums to portray history and should therefore talk about it accurately. There have been countless amount of times in which childrens movies have been based on historical events, but dont go about it correctly. The movie National Treasure: Book of Secrets, claims many facts about historical documents and events as part of the script... however in 9th grade, my AP World history teacher proved those facts to be false.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, arts shouldn't have the responsibility to portrary history accurately because art is a form of entertainment, which is used as a distraction from reality aka history, politics, the economy, work etc.
I think arts shouldn't have to be an accurate portrayal of history. Art is created by the individual and that individual has the freedom to show to whatever they want. Art is often used as a way to express emotions, no matter if there is reason behind it or not. Such as Salvador Dali's work. It is obviously not realistically accurate but is open to interpretations and meanings felt at a personal level. Also, in contrast to mathematics, art has no set rules or standards of what can or can't be done. However, if art did accurately portray history, it could be used a great tool. There would be no room for different views or arguments over what really happened. The usefulness of this type of art comes from how knowledge can be derived from it, such as in the early cave paintings. These were the only source in finding knowledge about the indigenous knowledge systems.
ReplyDeleteIn some ways art does not necessarily have to accurately portray history. Art that recounts history can show different perspectives, different emotions, and different aspects of the event. In this aspect the portrayal isn't a full representation but it is one side to look at t from. In this sense it doesn't have to be accurate (full and analytic of both sides). Roman art works show Roman conquest and victory in wars. These triumphant art works record much of Roman History however from one point of view. They do not show the perspective of the war from the conquered. In this example art does have the responsibility to accurately depict history but to an extent; there is only one perspective
ReplyDelete