Life imitates art. At least that's what I believe. Here is something to support that: The fictional hero of television’s “Star Trek, ” Kirk often talked to his crew through a handheld communicator. Martin Cooper, The man who created the cell phone, Says the show was the inspiration for his idea. Another supportive thing is: Many readers have wanted an invisibility cloak like the one worn by Harry Potter. A Canadian camouflage-design company claims to be developing a real-life invisibility cloak that tricks the human eye by bending light around a person or object. One last supporting thing is: When you are watching Star Wars and wishing you could show up as a holographic version of yourself in a message? Well in Japan, They have a whole pop star for that: Hatsune Miku is a wildly successful performer who consistently sells out concert venues. It’s just that she’s a hologram.
Art touches a sphere of our understanding that is beyond words. It speaks to us in ways no words or thoughts can. And by this, can rise to heights of form that are beyond form or structure, such that what you end up seeing is the spirit behind the work and not the form itself. Like music it soothes the soul or can create untold torment. I say great art inspires and has inspired unimaginable fete's in men - renaissance art did that and continues to do. May our modern artists seek to birth great art, to enliven the spirit of our time
This is because art is a part of life . Nature is already art by itself . Nature does not have to be painted to be art . :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)
A broader conception of life (humans, plants, animals , the cosmos et al) would clearly suggest that art imitates life. However within the confines of the human existance it would seem that art can and frequently anticipates what is to come and brilliantly articulates what has been, and predicts with great accuracy how humans will behave and act. So, ipso facto, life imitates art and we do well to take note of arts ongoing and enduring revelations.
Because of the nature of life and the nature of art itself, it's more of a full circle because life imitates art and art imitates life. One cannot be without the other because they complete each other and are, then, rather just two sides of the same coin. It's just the way you see it.
Hfeifhd hgsigh ghsgihsfi ohre hrioehg orho hagoihg oahgoigh orah oghgoihroihgsio ghoigharoigh ghgoigh oghe ghi hioh ihioh iohg oioih oihioh ioioh ios g dg s grg eh tj tjt jt yj jt k jtj u tyj tk rj yk yuj j tr jkyk m e b nu k kamilah ayana marks egherueh hgherqguhuvh uh ohvo ohgeo ghoeh o
Over the years, art has escalated from cave paintings to canvases and last to modern media and graphic arts. Now debates have arose over whether art is still being imitated by life or is life imitated by the arts? This question has grown over the years especially since the violence initiated by the media from movies like V for Vendetta and Batman the Dark Knight. Some argue that media has not influenced any of the violence or protests within the world, while others reinforce the need to limit the violence displayed on modern television. Even though there are some who still believe in the philosophy of art imitating life, the fact that over the course of time this idea has slowly dwindled until the perception is switched. In modern times, art does not imitate life, instead life imitates art. Taken into moderate consideration, art does imitate life to a certain extent. This perception is supported by several factors; one form of evidence to support this idea is cave paintings. One major and internationally known collection of cave paintings is found in Lascaux, France discovered by a group of boys in the 1940s. According to Yost’s article from the Wall Street Journal, the images were of everyday objects within the Stone Age, for example “’Frieze of Stags,’ which shows several deer from the shoulder up migrating across the cave wall” (Yost, 2013, para. 3). This is a daily image during the Stone Age, during this time period there were no religious or cultural influences that were pressed upon these early artists. Instead, they merely painted what they saw; this is a type of genre painting in its most primitive form. This form of painting supports the idea of art imitating life, because the subject matters of these cave paintings were everyday chores or activities. Another form of art imitating life is the genre painting in western art that consisted of images of ordinary objects. According to Harris, western art of the seventeenth century were “concerned with pictorial representation of ordinary objects within daily life…scenes include. ..Plants and flowers…jewelry, cups, plates…and furniture” (Harris, 2006, p. 131). This statement reinforces the idea that life influences art to a certain degree. Regular and normal tools or images that are seen in a day to day basis that can be turned into a painting or artwork illuminate the perception that art does imitate life. When people do stuff in real life that's inspired by literature, music, film, etc. though many would say that this art was first inspired by real life. So it's a chicken-or-the-egg debate.
Clearly, art imitates life more than life imitates art. People write stories and make movies about the best parts of life and the parts that are interesting. It's impossible for life to imitate art, because life is random and dictated by chance. If life could imitate art, we would have no need to make art in the first place.
In my opinion an art is formed through an author's imagination and thinking which is formed and shaped through his/her experiences and circumstances in life. So, An art can never overdo life in both credibility and originality. Though a person can be inspired by an art but finally life will take it's own turn.
Sure there are some ways that life does imitate art, But that art, Is imitating something from life. Everything that art is, Is based off of life, We see something in life and want it to be know, We make art out of it. Then, People start to notice and do. If that makes any sense. If you take all art, And trace it back to it's origin, It's based off of life.
I believe that art imitates life because the people or beings that create art are inspired by things in real life. In my opinion, It makes no sense that life would imitate art because life itself came first. Art came after life since life creates art. Art is a subjective concept, But it is inspired by things that occur in life. Without life, There is no one to appreciate art, But without art, Life is dull. If I’m being completely honest, Life and art depend on each other. Life needs art to entertain and beautify while art needs life to appreciate it. The reason I don’t believe that life imitates art is because why would it? Life is its own independent being and can survive without art. Art on the other hand, Cannot exist without life. Life can flourish on its own and art is dependant on life more often than not. Therefore, I believe that art imitates life.
Most Artist Especially Realists Like Me (i'm13) need guidelines and reference photos to get started on something. They need to visualize the shapes and break down the body into separate parts. So, In a way art is imitating life, And actually, I think that most art (or at least my art) always imitates life in a way.
In my opinion, The way art it painted or sketched or even photographed imitates art in many ways. The colors represent something like a mood or a feeling. Whatever the picture is it gives you a feeling about something. One picture can mean so many different things to different people. I also think that life can imitate art sometimes, But I feel like art gets its beauty through life.
Since art is such an open ended idea, There is so much in life that can be considered art. Art itself is dependent on the creator of the art. Whatever it may be that you consider art was created based of the experiences or "life" of the creator. Thus art has an imitational relationship with life, Not the other way around.
Art clearly imitates life, because if you were to draw something, what is usually your muse? Something real, something you have experienced, seen, or touched. Something you have a passion for or already know of. However, I can see the other side of the argument, as literature and artwork can inspire people to do said things as well. However, I still stick with my point, that without life, art could not be created as no one would have a muse. And you can't just say that you made a book character out of thin air either, or any concept. For a concept to be made, there has to be a need for it, or you are inspired by something to create it. For a fictional character to be created, you need character traits, flaws, and personality, that you have observed in real life.
What is art but depictions of life and things that happen in life.
Without life, there would be nothing to draw or recreate.
Art reveals to others what touched the life of the artist. Where they have been, what they have seen & the things that meant the most to them. Good or bad, they imortilize that point in their life in their art.
A beautiful tree, birds, a woman, an animal, a sunset.
They are life imitated. While they depict life, they are essentially inanimate. They don't breathe, grow, feel, touch, etc. They can make YOU the appreciator feel these things if the art is good enough. But will never be alive itself.
I think Life is art , that's why when u get to the slightest understanding of that then you rearrange the reason u make art from life of course....So art imitates life most of the art that exist comes from life even if there was art before life. Art imitate life