Aisyah: Response to Hovagimyan's "On ***** Media"

     One of the things that captured my attention in this reading was when Hovagimyan said, "Meaning for any art work is a communication process, a shared tribal agreement on the meaning of any icon, symbol, etc. In this sense, meaning has more to do with language and the evolving nature of linguistic forms. I place art in the category of a language as well." Art is a great form of communication because, generally, it is universally understood. Whether they are paintings, photographs, videos, screen-prints, murals, etc. they tell the history, evoke opinions on social matters, educate us, and many more. They also evolve overtime and improve/expand out of their fields. For example, the Ancient Egyptian architecture incorporated paintings and carvings onto the walls, telling the history of the pharaohs and what life was like back then. In my lifetime, I see photographs and videos being used to teach us history rather than the use of painted walls.

     It was also interesting to read about how the art forms evolved not only as a language form, but also evolve from their initial purposes. One great example that Hovagimyan brought up was the radio – back then, it was used as a political rhetoric and propaganda to incite and terrify people. Nowadays, it is used as social entertainment. Knowing this, it makes me wonder what some of these art mediums’ functions will evolve into after fifty years or so. Will it stay the same, or will it branch out and expand from its capabilities? Everything must reach its limits one day, right?