In what ways do artists act as agents of change (or can they?), and what kinds of aesthetic choices do they make to express their ideas

 

Artists have always been agents of cultural change; they can sway opinions, direct resistance, or reform. The aesthetic culture has a notorious ability to illustrate political truth about complicated structures of a social culture. As a political cartoonist, Thomas Nast wielded more influence than any other artist in the 19th-century; civil rights artist Emory Douglas designed the iconic symbol of defiance with his image of the raised fist; feminists initiated the art of resistance performances. Students are nearly always surprised to learn this history and come away inspired by it; activist and rebellious artists stand as models for their own ideas.

The nature of art has been described by philosopher Richard Wollheim as "one of the most elusive of the traditional problems of human culture." It has been defined as a vehicle for the expression or communication of emotions and ideas, a means for exploring and appreciating formal elements for their own sake, and as mimesis or representation. More recently, thinkers influenced by Martin Heidegger have interpreted art as the means by which a community develops for itself a medium for self-expression and interpretation.

Sometimes beauty is not the artist's ultimate goal. Art is often intended to appeal to, and connect with, human emotion. Artists may express something so that their audience is stimulated in some way—creating feelings, religious faith, curiosity, interest, identification with a group, memories, thoughts, or creativity. For example, performance art often does not aim to please the audience but instead evokes feelings, reactions, conversations, or questions from the viewer . In these cases, aesthetics may be an irrelevant measure of "beautiful" art.