In the past, art was admired and revered from afar. Today, there
In the past, art was admired and revered from afar. Today, there is more of an interactive relationship between the art and the person who admires it.
In the ancient days, art was seen as a divine mystery, a gift bestowed by the gods upon mortals. Issey Miyake reflects on this when he says, “In the past, art was admired and revered from afar.” These words call forth the image of sacred temples and royal courts, where paintings, sculptures, and garments were treasures to be gazed upon in silent awe. The people did not dare to touch or engage, for art stood as something higher than themselves, untouchable and eternal.
But the world has shifted, and with it, the relationship between the creator and the beholder. Miyake declares, “Today, there is more of an interactive relationship between the art and the person who admires it.” This speaks to a new age where art is no longer confined behind glass or guarded by distance. It now lives and breathes among the people, inviting them to become part of its story. In this way, the boundary between observer and creation dissolves, and the experience of art becomes shared and alive.
The interactive relationship Miyake describes is a union of energies. No longer is the admirer a passive spectator; they are a participant, shaping the meaning of the work through their engagement. Whether through wearable designs, immersive performances, or digital creations, art now responds to the individual, reflecting their emotions and presence. This mirrors the ancient belief that all things are interconnected, that beauty is not a solitary force but a living dialogue between souls.
The origin of this transformation lies in the changing tides of society. In the past, art belonged to the elite, held in palaces and sanctuaries. As knowledge and access spread, art moved into the hands of the many. Technology, too, has opened doors once locked, allowing people not only to see but to interact, to leave their mark upon the canvas of creation. This is a return, in a modern form, to the earliest human rituals, when art was a communal act of storytelling around the fire.
Thus, let this teaching be remembered: art is not merely to be seen, but to be lived. As admirers, we are not separate from the masterpiece; we are threads woven into its fabric. To revere art is noble, but to engage with it is divine. In this sacred exchange, both the creator and the beholder are transformed, and the spirit of beauty is renewed for generations yet to come.
BDTrong Bui Dinh
Issey Miyake’s perspective on the evolution of art is thought-provoking. The idea that art is no longer something to be admired from afar, but something to be experienced interactively, opens up new ways for people to engage with creativity. However, I wonder—does this shift also affect the authenticity of the art? Are we moving from art being a medium of personal expression to something more transactional and consumable?
TTnguyen thanh thuan
I find the shift from admiring art from a distance to engaging with it more actively quite fascinating. It seems that today’s art invites more participation, allowing the admirer to almost become a part of the work itself. But does this make the experience more genuine? Or does it turn art into something more performative and less profound? Is there a risk that the beauty of passive admiration is being replaced by a more consumer-driven interaction?
CTCuong Thinh
This quote by Issey Miyake highlights an important shift in how we experience art today. The line between artist and admirer has blurred, especially with the rise of interactive installations, virtual art, and social media platforms. But does this make art more accessible, or does it dilute the experience? I’m curious how this shift affects the role of the artist—does it change their relationship with their work, knowing their audience can interact with it so directly?
THHoang thu huong
Miyake’s quote got me thinking about how art has evolved over time. The idea of art being admired from afar seemed to create an air of mystery and respect. Now, with the more interactive relationship, does that mean the value of art has shifted as well? Are we losing something by being so close to it, or does it make art more personal and meaningful in today’s world?
PMHang Pham Minh
I love the idea of art being more interactive today, but I also wonder if the digital age has influenced this shift. With social media and technology, art has become more accessible, and people can now engage with it directly through various platforms. But does this change the way we appreciate art? Are we still able to experience the same depth of admiration when we can interact with it so easily?