The eternal question is, does the artist lose control of his art the minute it leaves his brush, pen, or mold? Does the audience have a right to interpretation? Can the art take on a life of its own? More importantly, should it?
Art is a living form of an artist's thoughts, feelings, and emotions. With the freedom that individuals have to express themselves, artists can use any form of art to convey what they have inside of them. Whether it is through drawing, painting, or photography, the possibilities are endless. As they create their work of art, they hold the power to do whatever they want to it. In a sculpture, they can mold the piece in any way or cover up blemishes that they did not want to be present in the final piece. In photography, photographers can edit their images through the use of any editing program. With whatever the artist chooses to use as their medium, they still have control over how they express their art. However, with the eternal question, I believe that the artist does lose control of his or her art once it leaves their brush, pen, or mold. The reason being is because art can be replicated, damaged, or stolen. Thus, when an artist loses sight of their art, they lose control over it as well.
Art is a living form of an artist's thoughts, feelings, and emotions. With the freedom that individuals have to express themselves, artists can use any form of art to convey what they have inside of them. Whether it is through drawing, painting, or photography, the possibilities are endless. As they create their work of art, they hold the power to do whatever they want to it. In a sculpture, they can mold the piece in any way or cover up blemishes that they did not want to be present in the final piece. In photography, photographers can edit their images through the use of any editing program. With whatever the artist chooses to use as their medium, they still have control over how they express their art. However, with the eternal question, I believe that the artist does lose control of his or her art once it leaves their brush, pen, or mold. The reason being is because art can be replicated, damaged, or stolen. Thus, when an artist loses sight of their art, they lose control over it as well.
At this time, the audience of the art can look at the art in any way they choose. Even if the artist had a certain vision in mind, people have their own thoughts and feelings. Since the artist is their own person, other people cannot look into their minds, especially if the artwork was made at a different time period or place as the people who are viewing it. Thus, viewers of the art cannot be limited to what they can imagine or interpret about the piece of work. They have the free will to think or say whatever they want about the art, whether it is through what the artist felt or what they wanted the public to see.
Furthermore, once the artist lets go of the art, the art can and should have the power to take on a life of its own. The reason being is because, even though the artist is the creator, things in the world have the option to free will. If the art were not allowed to take on a life of its own, it would be stuck within the creator’s image. For this reason, I believe that the art should have control over itself. Art should not be limited to what the artist wanted it to be. If this was the case, people in the world who believe in God will not have the freedom that they practice. If God made every person do what He wants, people would not have the chance to learn from their mistakes or repent for their sins. Luckily, God made his son, Jesus, die for His creation’s sins so that we can live our lives the way we want to.
In regards to Pygmalion, Higgins loses control over Eliza after he wins the bet. Since he no longer had anything to improve with her, she gained control over her own life and was able to form her own feelings and act out against him. In her defense, I believe that her decision to lash out against Higgins was a good decision for her to make because he did not respect her nor treated her as a lady. He saw her as his property and creation, instead of the wonderful and kindhearted human being that she was. Thus, this supports my belief in which the art should take a life of its own because in the case of Eliza, it was for her benefit. By turning against Higgins, she was able to make a life for herself and not be controlled by an arrogant man.
Furthermore, once the artist lets go of the art, the art can and should have the power to take on a life of its own. The reason being is because, even though the artist is the creator, things in the world have the option to free will. If the art were not allowed to take on a life of its own, it would be stuck within the creator’s image. For this reason, I believe that the art should have control over itself. Art should not be limited to what the artist wanted it to be. If this was the case, people in the world who believe in God will not have the freedom that they practice. If God made every person do what He wants, people would not have the chance to learn from their mistakes or repent for their sins. Luckily, God made his son, Jesus, die for His creation’s sins so that we can live our lives the way we want to.
In regards to Pygmalion, Higgins loses control over Eliza after he wins the bet. Since he no longer had anything to improve with her, she gained control over her own life and was able to form her own feelings and act out against him. In her defense, I believe that her decision to lash out against Higgins was a good decision for her to make because he did not respect her nor treated her as a lady. He saw her as his property and creation, instead of the wonderful and kindhearted human being that she was. Thus, this supports my belief in which the art should take a life of its own because in the case of Eliza, it was for her benefit. By turning against Higgins, she was able to make a life for herself and not be controlled by an arrogant man.