What does it mean to approach art as an event? To be honest, every artist and his supporters would hope that the artwork being held (exhibits, performances, screenings) could be an event for those who enjoy it. Open catalog or exhibit or show synopsis. There we will be convinced that the art that will be held will surely be part of life events, both artists and the common people. What events? We do not know. What is clear, from one side we secretly expect art can be an event of life. Without being an event, art can become a tedious routine. But from the other side we are still swaying what kind of events we are really looking for in and through the arts. It is precisely this "type of event" that should be thought of by artists and artists alike.

Art and social change is one of the oldest topics ever discussed in the history of aesthetic theories. The theme was even debated in Classical Greece, around 500 - 300 BC. People in those days typically assume that good works of art are works of art that teach good moral values. So art is perceived didactically as a means to create a better social order. In this kind of didactic framework, beauty can not be evaluated apart from social utility. A beautiful work must also be socially useful. There, the arts and arts cases of social change are not separate things. It is in this tradition of didactisis that the history of art in Europe flourished until the Renaissance in the 16th century.

This consensus was dismantled from Romantic times (the 18th and 19th centuries). At that time, a number of opinions emerged that would release the artistic beauty of all aspects of its usefulness.

From the growing consciousness that artwork can no longer be interpreted as an object but more primarily as a set of social relations behind objects, then the impulse to read the relationship between art and social change in a new way. The old conception that reduces the notion of art on the material aspect has resulted in a dilemma between form and content, between intrinsic and extrinsic aspects. With the shift to a new conception that means the work of art is nothing more than a social relationship that includes an object, there is no longer a dichotomy that can be built between intrinsic and extrinsic aspects. Since art is a matter of social consensus about an object, the intrinsic aspect of the thing (all its formal-compositional aspects) is nothing but the embodiment of its extrinsic aspect (the whole system of division of labor that promotes the formation of all such formal-compositional aspects). Once it is realized that artwork is nothing more than a product of social consensus, then intrinsic becomes an extrinsic effect. This situation encourages a new relationship between art and social change.

Remember to Follow, Upvote, Comment, Resteem, @idun