| august 2007 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| sun | mon | tue | wed | thu | fri | sat | ||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |||||
| 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | ||
| 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | ||
| 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | ||
| 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | |||
Why is Dark Art mostly dark? I mean, seriously.
Why are so many modern [Western] visual artists still using certain hues and looks
to show darkness, evil, pain, misery and enigma? Generally speaking, most Dark Art
and "Alternative" Art has a dark look that responds to conceptions of colour (colour
biases) created hundreds of years ago. I'm talking about Western societies, clearly, in
which Religion was ove-powering and religious dogmas were structured around a
'dyptich' that opposed evil/dark/black/left to God/clear/white/right.
Shouldn't the modern artist be subverting terms?
Shouldn't the modern artist re-think the look of his/her work and express "darkness"
in a completely different way, in a bright or -even better- white way?
Send a message
Search for members