In the last six years, there has been a rampant growth of modern art buildings as well as improvement of the old ones through renovation. There has been major transformation of old buildings. A good example is London where Swiss architects Herzog and Meuron transformed the old bankside power station into ultra-modern. To top on that, the Tate Britain was elegantly extended recently and it extended along the banks of the river. This was done by the John Miller, a British architect (Tusa 2007). Other architectural structures include the impressive glass roofing on top of great court of British museum and this was done by Spencer de Gray and Norman Foster. Jones and Dixon have involved in infill extension of National Portrait gallery. There have been several other architectural developments recently. In short, there has been renovation of old buildings as well as development of new ones. This trend is not only in London but rather it is in many parts of the world. Several individuals have been behind this architectural design (Tusa 2007). Money from the national lottery has fuelled much of this cornucopia of building - this is independently allocated by free-standing, independent lottery boards, not by the government. Matching funding from private individuals, corporations and foundations has played a vital role too. Britain's capital stock of arts institutions has not been better for a century since the last great flowering of municipally driven arts building.
The paper argues for and against the worship of Arts in early ages. It states on how art influenced some religions in early ages until now. In the argument, some of religions used to worship Arts and as explained in the paper instead of their creator. It further elaborates on the ways worshipers were forced to respect different types of Art for they symbolized the presence of the Holy Spirit.
According to my argument, such concerns have space in policy of arts creation. Criticizing might be legitimate for it has dilatory when addressing Art. Nevertheless, the issues in new primacy might be shifted closer to the centre of policy making when art is involved. Therefore, it might not be helping us to carry out the main or core activities accordingly and this is creation of the art.
In some sense, we can see such challenges as flattering, for instance, a government that is belated and also recognizes that arts is not always possessed by the minority who are privileged, instead, they are integral parts of life. They also have potential or ability to shape and further improve the society in a very special way. This attitude may ascribe to arts and power that we thought they do not have. Additionally, it acknowledges on how they can be of great influence. Moreover, it recognizes the under utilization of art as a social asset with full economic and social potential which is yet to be discovered. According to this view, when such social and economic demands are imposed on arts, it provides an opportunity of seize on places in democratic sun in the manner that they never had before.
Nonetheless, it is less beguiling and more complex than that. I also believe that the socioeconomic demands are being imposed on arts with the aim of disintegrating their reach or not expanding their reach or increase inclusiveness, instead, they plant surreptitious doubts on what to do through introducing the considerations which are, strictly extraneous, speaking to activity.
Probably, an art is seen as the instruments that improve social characters, they also act as the agents for social change, for community harmony, or for social equality. However, each of the instruments always demand singly, and further, they all demand collectively, they then set a challenge list that is not intrinsic to the arts and is distant from its nature, also, all is antithetical to basic functions and the purposes.
To be precise, the instrumental ways in which arts policies are challenged may be elaborate way of slithering the question that has been avoided by the government for example; can arts be quantified or it cannot be quantified; why is arts justified only to suit their terms; also, regarding the attempts that are repeated to tie them through some of the policies and the indicators that are more likely to be squeezing life and the purpose from them instead of nourishing them?
What I think is that, there is more to it as thought. The scenes of art are littered with formulae which has outlived their stay and their day. If great art retains its freshness, also, the capacity is shocking, perhaps, it is less familiar. Maybe today’s indifference always stems in parts from over-familiarity which has blunted edge of surprise of excessive art; it also reduced its beauty.
Such strategy is involved in withdrawing the traditional and the cultural ramparts. It will never attempt to be convincing the ones beyond conviction, involving those with indifferent or aggressive. Furthermore, the ones who reject education are supposed to be educated. This will live within exiguous means where there is a set of populist oriented governments throwing their way. This will endure reduction of massive activities rather than alteration of the essence in the experience, revelation and understanding that western artistic canon offering and it has accumulated. This is like a group of believers who are suffering from indifference and persecution. The arts then lie low; they remain true, and also stay poor until the society realizes what it rejected at large, what the society lost and the riches which awaited the rediscovery. At the best, arts is creative test bed whereby the best in past is mixed or combined with the openness of present for production and transformation of the new. As we all know, not everyone will be convinced and not everyone needs that. If the required number can be convinced, therefore, we have a good chance to find ourselves to live in best of times.
Either, the statement by John Tusa that art should be appreciated for what they are, should be held with high regard. Art plays vital roles in the society and therefore should not be left to waste as has been the case. Art can be used to present different ideas associated with different time periods. To indicate a past time period, primitive art in the form of artifacts can be used. It shows a time period devoid of modernization. It can also be used to represent the present time period where drawings, writings, performances or even buildings and monuments associated with present occurrences and developments can be used.
Buildings such as theater rooms represent current time period and in addition can be used to preserve past works of art. An example of past art work that have been preserved are those of Lilian Baylis of the 1930’s. They were meant to provide entertainment for those who were of a working class. These works are still evident the English National opera and the ROYAL ballet. Their preservation has been necessitated by their state of creativity and the fact that they have benefited a majority since they have been infused in many art works through transformation.
Either, art should be preserved as they are used to show meaning of certain things or events. To signify love’s existence art can be incorporated in the form of drawings. Drawings of flowers, nature or the skies are usually used to signify love and happiness. Boredom can also be represented in terms of art. This can take place in the form of dark drawings. Creativity, on the other hand, can be promoted through art. People can be creative by not merely looking at the pictures and other artifacts and giving the shallow meaning but having a deeper analysis of what is represented by the art works. This will activate people’s mental capability so that they may independently seek to interpret the art work based on their ability to think and reason. This leads to learning as art is sometimes used to preserve cultural practices that are passed down in the form of performances, drawings and objects. The younger population that did not exist at the time the events took place is able to learn about the events themselves.
People too depend on art as a source of their livelihood. The publishers of books, magazines and newspapers are able to sell them in order to sustain themselves. The performers in theater too are able to get tips in the form of chargers paid for their performances. Art is also be used to show passage of time. In the olden days, the primitive human beings did not used writings to pass information. They relied on objects and carvings that aided them in communicating. In the recent times, proper writings have been developed and are used to pass information.
In conclusion therefore, art should be preserved for what they are and what they stand for. This is evident as the art work acts as means through which social improvements and changes are ensured.