Wasting time on art
January 10th 2007 15:55
A copy and paste of something I wrote in 2004...
So ethicists like the idea that people should live more intensely, should think about waste, should worry about the clock ticking.
On this line of thought, before you watch a movie you should ask yourself, How will this change my life? What is this to me? Why should I spend time here rather than elsewhere?
What, in fact, is the point of art?
Well, I’m going to give four sorts of responses (though the categories blur).
Response 1. Art is about enjoyment, pleasure, contentment, desire fulfilment. What is the point of art? Well, we're simply drawn to it. What is the point of a massage or a warm shower?
Response 2. Art is useful like brushing your teeth, or like having periodic breast examinations. Art is physically and physiologically useful. Into this category would fit ideas about catharsis, if the implication is that it’s good to (create and) release emotions, or bad to keep them pent up or to avoid them. Into this category would also fit ideas about art exercising mental faculties or developing associative powers.
Response 3. Art is socially useful, for whatever reason.
Response 4. Art changes you. It’s not just about orgasms, or enemas, or bonding.
-- One side of this change is factual. Cavemen knew art was communicative, or served the transmission of knowledge. Ancient lit crit talked about educative or moral functions. And much modern criticism treats art as thematic, as making assertions.
The question could be asked “Doesn't that point to pointlessness? Why can’t you state your ideas more simply and clearly?” -- And most of a novel is thereby written off as rhetorical padding.
But let it be said that the reply “It’s not possible” is sometimes available. It may not be possible, for instance, to convey a particular psychology or take on the world more succintly than novel-length.
-- The other side of this change is that art is an event, like any event. Why do you want to see the water crashing over Niagara Falls, or the sun setting on the Taj Mahal? Whatever is the function or consequence of experience at large, that is the function or consequence of art.
***
So ethicists like the idea that people should live more intensely, should think about waste, should worry about the clock ticking.
On this line of thought, before you watch a movie you should ask yourself, How will this change my life? What is this to me? Why should I spend time here rather than elsewhere?
What, in fact, is the point of art?
Well, I’m going to give four sorts of responses (though the categories blur).
Response 1. Art is about enjoyment, pleasure, contentment, desire fulfilment. What is the point of art? Well, we're simply drawn to it. What is the point of a massage or a warm shower?
Response 2. Art is useful like brushing your teeth, or like having periodic breast examinations. Art is physically and physiologically useful. Into this category would fit ideas about catharsis, if the implication is that it’s good to (create and) release emotions, or bad to keep them pent up or to avoid them. Into this category would also fit ideas about art exercising mental faculties or developing associative powers.
Response 3. Art is socially useful, for whatever reason.
Response 4. Art changes you. It’s not just about orgasms, or enemas, or bonding.
-- One side of this change is factual. Cavemen knew art was communicative, or served the transmission of knowledge. Ancient lit crit talked about educative or moral functions. And much modern criticism treats art as thematic, as making assertions.
The question could be asked “Doesn't that point to pointlessness? Why can’t you state your ideas more simply and clearly?” -- And most of a novel is thereby written off as rhetorical padding.
But let it be said that the reply “It’s not possible” is sometimes available. It may not be possible, for instance, to convey a particular psychology or take on the world more succintly than novel-length.
-- The other side of this change is that art is an event, like any event. Why do you want to see the water crashing over Niagara Falls, or the sun setting on the Taj Mahal? Whatever is the function or consequence of experience at large, that is the function or consequence of art.
| 120 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
Comment by postmoderncritic
Postmodern Critic
Relativity Watch
Padsoc
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
Comment by katyzzz
Photography Tips
MS Paint Art
Really well written post, see mine on "What is art"
We appear to be in full agreement for once,
Wasting time on art, "you talking about me,dave?"...what's it 2 ya?
Great thoughts,
katyzzz
Comment by Damo
Art for has no rational purpose that I can prove.
However try to imagine a world without art and you have a functioning organism that acts more like a machine. A world devoid of art and creativity becomes a static existance and frozen culture. Our words should be reduced down to accurate computer speak and images little more than schematics to explain our work functions. The purpose of our existence is reduced down to continuing our existence. Do we exist just to exist?
Art cannot be rationally justified any more than our own future survival. Art only has value because we give a value to it in our lives. We give it value because we want to be more than just an efficient machine.
Comment by Ash
Australian Traveller
Flashes of memories
Ash
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
Dear Damo, two things.
-- A world without art seems like it'd still have flowers, love, soccer games. So it seems there'd still be more than existence for existence' sake. -- Unless you're saying that the impulse/ability to create or experience art is indivisible from these other things, or from their pleasure. If so, I think this is an interesting suggestion, and I don't know what the truth of it is.
-- To me, it's not that hard, in one sense, to rationally defend art, and my post was an attempt to do this. Art does achieve such purposes as pleasure, information, social change; and it is therefore rational if these things are rational. -- But could art have an intrinsic worth, and not simply a for-the-sake-of-something-else worth? I do not know... And it's probably true that no intrinsic good is rational. -- And how much money should a government spend on art instead of on education or healthcare or military defence or infrastructure...? I do not know.
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
Comment by Ash
Australian Traveller
Flashes of memories
I would take the 30 seconds to defuse the bomb and spend half an hour staring at the painting to calm my shattered nerves afterwards!
Comment by KylieW
Celebrity Obsession
But imaginng a world without art is hard. I can't imagine what I'd do if I couldn't read 3 or 4 books a week, or see movies and plays etc.
Probably I'd be more productive!! But not so happy
Comment by Art
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
Just a random thought: I think the trend, these days, when a government spends money on art, is to defend the decision basically in terms of "national identity", national morale, giving Australians something to cheer for.
Having an indigenous art form is one of the trappings of nation, like having a unique language and symbols.
Similar justifications are probably given for spending so much money on sport.
Dear Art,
Thank you for speaking. I personally reckon that after your creator has created you, you're free of them -- your purpose is no longer their purpose.
I look forward to hearing from you again.
Comment by Anonymous
Response 2: Yeah...I mean just think about it...POWERS!... I want to be an X-Man too!
Response 3: Hmm...socially usefull...for whatever reason...hmm... I'm minoring in sociology so I should know this... oh wait... I don't... society for the most part is stupid. Problem solved =)
Response 4: What!!! Not about orgasms?!?! When did this happen!
"The question could be asked “
"art is an event, like any event. Why do you want to see the water crashing over Niagara Falls, or the sun setting on the Taj Mahal? Whatever is the function or consequence of experience at large, that is the function or consequence of art"--- function... consequence... experience... art. To say something so simplistic, one needs to say it so complexly. Like everything has to be complex... unless it is me obviously who is doing the talking... than I can be as complex as I want. I am always the exception of the rule. Oh yeah. Go me. I'm #1. Unless if I clone myself multiple times out of the depths of my egoism, than the I becomes We... or do I stay an I if all my clones are basically me.... oh shitza. A contradiction. Oh no, can't have none of those. Contradictions is the devil you knows... as if it is something tangible within reality! Hahaha.... Oh shoot what was I saying again...
Warning: All previous comments may have been made by a temporarily insane conformitive member of an indoctinated society and thereby is shallforth declared non-binding and irresolute on the writer of such slanderous and obviously such drasticly horrible comedic attempts at obtaining which can be intermediatably called laughter (in the third degree). Therefore under no thereby consenting or unconsenting or non-consenting or un/non/nil/re-consenting circumstance will the undersigned of the undersigned known as Mark be held in any reasonable or unreasonable, rational or irrational, biased or unbiased, tempered or illtempered manner that which he/she/it/ or the he/she/it that once was at the time this message was or was not written.
Thank you for not un-cooperating. I thank you for letting me thank you for not un-cooperating. And I also thank you for thanking me to thank myself for think of this thought... to.... shoot what was I thanking again?
--- Mark, the terminally ill Zombie from a post-apocalyptic philosophical hell where Socrates is satan and he torments you by asking you questions for the rest of your eternity.