It's both, in a cycle that's started by life. I agree with Mr. Clark's statement, in that art is life. Without life, without existence, we wouldn't have art. Art is/was created as an extension of the human mind; an expression of thought, imagination, and creativity. And in that way, art is intrinsically connected to life, in that it represents life. No matter how abstract or fantastical, it is grounded in the reality that we know as life. What we feel, think, or do - that is life. And by being an extension of that, or simply of reality or society as we know it, art is representing, and imitating, life. And it is through the creation of these works of art that we are influenced. The work can inspire us to do new things, or we can follow after the work that so affected us, like how Raiders of the Lost Ark was created in an effort to modernize the serials of the '30s and '40s. But in any case, by impacting us in what we do, think, feel, or believe, and making us follow after those works, life imitates art. Philip Seymour Hoffman was incredible. After seeing his performances, I totally understand why he is regarded so highly. He had this magic to him that just made him so appealing to watch. He had this relatability that made you sympathetic/empathetic to him, regardless of what role he played - and he never always played the good guy. I realize that we didn't get to see much of him in Almost Famous - it was William's story, after all -, but when we did, he commanded the screen. So, the question is, was his imitating his art? Or was his art imitating his life? I can see how his personal history would influence how he acted. In Before the Devil Knows You're Dead, he plays a financial worker with a habit of taking drugs. Knowing that he had a history of substance abuse, it's hard not to think that it probably played a part in his acting for that role. So, perhaps his art was, to a degree, imitating his life - the way he was, or used to be. But whether or not his acting took a toll on his life, and bled into it? I don't know enough about him, so I can't say.
Art imitates life, but art is life.
ReplyDeleteMore like art imitates life, but life is art.
ReplyDeleteHey guys :) !
ReplyDeleteIt's both, in a cycle that's started by life. I agree with Mr. Clark's statement, in that art is life. Without life, without existence, we wouldn't have art. Art is/was created as an extension of the human mind; an expression of thought, imagination, and creativity. And in that way, art is intrinsically connected to life, in that it represents life. No matter how abstract or fantastical, it is grounded in the reality that we know as life. What we feel, think, or do - that is life. And by being an extension of that, or simply of reality or society as we know it, art is representing, and imitating, life.
ReplyDeleteAnd it is through the creation of these works of art that we are influenced. The work can inspire us to do new things, or we can follow after the work that so affected us, like how Raiders of the Lost Ark was created in an effort to modernize the serials of the '30s and '40s. But in any case, by impacting us in what we do, think, feel, or believe, and making us follow after those works, life imitates art.
Philip Seymour Hoffman was incredible. After seeing his performances, I totally understand why he is regarded so highly. He had this magic to him that just made him so appealing to watch. He had this relatability that made you sympathetic/empathetic to him, regardless of what role he played - and he never always played the good guy. I realize that we didn't get to see much of him in Almost Famous - it was William's story, after all -, but when we did, he commanded the screen.
So, the question is, was his imitating his art? Or was his art imitating his life? I can see how his personal history would influence how he acted. In Before the Devil Knows You're Dead, he plays a financial worker with a habit of taking drugs. Knowing that he had a history of substance abuse, it's hard not to think that it probably played a part in his acting for that role. So, perhaps his art was, to a degree, imitating his life - the way he was, or used to be. But whether or not his acting took a toll on his life, and bled into it? I don't know enough about him, so I can't say.