In Response to Brandon's Question

I think that there are several paintings or movie scenes that could be argued as considered better than those which exist in the natural world. Artists may be inspired by the natural world, but chose to alter it in a way in which their painting adds something to the natural world which does not exist in reality. Paintings or movie scenes based off of the natural world but altered to add something that does not exist can add an element of mystery or wonder which is enjoyed by the viewer. Many artists take into consideration what is appealing to the majority of the audience when beginning their creations. In the world of dance, dances are often created on the basis of what the audience has best responded to in the past and based off of this knowledge new dances can be created theorizing about what the audience would like to see because of their reactive history. Painters could easily do the same with their paintings by seeing which of their past pieces created received the most enjoyment and taking that into consideration when creating a new painting (one which may even be considered to be an improvement of their previous works). Here, imitation is not a bad thing because it could help with improvement. Should painters keep their viewers perspective in mind when creating a new painting, or does this hinder the possibilities that could arise if the painter paints without thinking of the viewer’s reactions to the work?