An Ode To Art

A synopsis of Bertolt Bretcht's thesis on art, if Art shapes the essence of society. Bretcht's is a German playwright in the beginning of the 19th century.

When breaking down Bertolts Brecht's thesis on art, it is evident that he’s confident in the assumption that art is used everywhere and supported by everything. When its all said and done, what separates the subpar individuals from the great ones is the ability to create and innovate. From a retrospective viewpoint, art doesn’t shape the foundations of modern society, but it’s rather a tool to channel creativity and ideas. I understand Brecht’s viewpoint on art, and I believe just like art, the word is subjective and always up for interpretation. There couldn’t be a more subjective topic than art and its total entirety. Art can be classified as anything that requirers creative reasoning like a symphony, songs, poems, paintings, and photography are all subject to the term “art”.

Bertolt’s opinion on art is also left up to the subjective. Just like art, anything can be an interpretation in the eye of the beholder. I don’t agree that art is the ‘’ , but he isn’t wrong. Yes, many of society's greatest accomplishments were achieved by the artwork of the masses, however, it’s a bit of a stretch to claim that it is the basis of how we dictate and do things. There are plenty people out there that live creativeless, artless lives that can’t correlate what Bertolt is referring to on all instances. Shakespeare shaped the works of modern literature, the Greeks came up with archetechial designs that dates back centuries, socrates and plato used their artistic brains to write the Republic which is the base of today's modern democracy. Even though the creation of each item served a close divine purpose in the formation of modern society, and even though most would consider them artists, it’s not a strong enough argument to say that art chiseled reality.

It is a very strong point, but analytically, you can’t attribute the entirety of the physical reality to the success of art. looking deeper, “art is not a mirror held up to reality” can be interpreted as art being a reflection of everyday life, which in many instances is true. From the clothes we wear, to the way we speak, art is a reflection of our creative choices. In every single writing piece, painting, and photography u will find a part of the artist attached to their work. This is where the subjective part of art comes in. The art is a reflection of the artist, which is where I think Bertolts got it wrong.

“but a hammer in which to shape it.” is the punchline section of Bertolts Brecht's infamous quote. I guess you could say that we (ourselves) can be our own individual form of art. In case of which I could agree to that, but saying that art shapes what is real and what is not is an inaccurate statement in my eyes. It’s not clear if which definition of reality Bertolt is referring too, but breaking down his opinion just makes the answer all the more foggy. If anything, art is used as a way to escape reality and form your own. I'm an advocate for art and artists, but there is definitely a subjective part of art that needs to be addressed.

If I point to a rock and call it art, is it really art? it may be art to you but is it art to me? Maybe Bertolts created his own paradox version of word art itself. One of my favorite quotes reads “modern art is a conspiracy made by rich people to make the poor feel stupid”. Anyone can create art and anyone can critique it, but does art really shape the essence of reality? Maybe sure, but my reality is made upon how I view it, my art is different than yours, and yours mine, that is why we call ourselves artists.