In my opinion, a lot of the best art out there (whether it be music, literature, paintings) is politically influenced. Of course it doesn’t apply to all art, but it’s fair to say that some of the best art exists through controversy and by responding to controversy. It is essentially a huge part of who we are and what makes us diverse.
My question is, even though art would still exist in some shape or form, would you be willing to sacrifice any future art of the caliber we have experienced in order for global unity? I’d like to think that the answer would be a simple yes, though there is the part of me that realises that at this point all these things represent who I am. There is the other way of looking at it though, which is that we fight for change, not because it looks cool (at least I hope so).
Could art still remain rich and diverse in a world without conflict? Art is beautiful, but part of its beauty is chaotic. I’d choose global unity and focus more on taking art in a new direction.
All opinions welcome :)
Some of the greatest art in the world wasn’t influenced at all by politics or the state of the world, but “intrinsic” things such as being alive, infinity, perception, etc. Most of the major famous artists (in painting at least) broke boundaries and connected to viewers not because of their message, but the means in which they showed the message.
Art would definitely survive, and as far as music goes- I think the best music out there is that fun up-beat jammy style. If there were no conflict, we could all just sing happy songs and dance all night.