What do you think of the value of art?
 

In light of the recent CH issue and all, it got me wondering, what does art mean to perhaps non-practioners of it(I'm a pianist personally). Of course art in this case, could be taken to mean not only music, but other forms like painting etc.

So anyway, do you think the arts is useless? Just a plaything of the rich( i'm not rich:p though!)?
Or perhaps do you think it holds the key to the secrets of mankind...

Define "art," define "useful," and the answer will be obvious from those definitions. That's it.

I hate to bring up Scott McCloud, but I like his definition of art as: "something which does not directly arise from the two basic needs of survival and reproduction." Of course, this brings up questions like: Does the professional artist make art for the sake of money? Or does he make art, and thereby make money for it?

I would say in general that art is indeed "useless" in a practical sense, i.e., you can't use it to do anything. However, I would say that the value in art is taking whatever materials are available to us (as humans), and using them to create an expression of self more direct than words, based on how one uses them. It's a much more gripping way of communicating one's personality, which is naturally and unavoidably reflected through how one handles their material of choice, be it painting, music, sculpture, etc.

Why is that?

I'm afraid you've lost me.

Also, you know Warhol wasn't a surrealist, right?

Salient, I was using the word "useful" in a purely practical sense. Perhaps I didn't clarify that. What I meant was, art is not strictly necessary to life in the same way that oxygen or water is. One can live without art; one cannot live without oxygen.

By the second quote, I meant that whatever medium an artist chooses, due to their personality, what they create from it is unique to them. No other person would handle the same material in quite the same way. How they treat the material reflects their beliefs about how to use it, and through that, their personality.

And yes, I know Warhol wasn't a surrealist :p. I just like the juxtaposition

As for McCloud, I personally like him, but from what I've seen, he gets a bad rap some places, and I didn't want to start anything.

Well, as the saying goes, "culture" make life bearable, I guess?

Gorgeous! Delicious ! Deculture! (?)

Is "art" useless? I don't know, I personally considered "art" in a larger context of "culture", what what is culture use for? In some sense, culture is a product of leisure, only available when when we are not spending almost all of our time looking for food.

I am not sure where I am going with this. There is something about art and culture in the context of anthropology that I read a a while back articulates some of this point better then I do.

More or less what I got out of it are the following: The value of art comes from its ability to communicate ideas, to organize thoughts, to inspire emotions, to provoke dialogues and perhaps to acculturate, to spread "culture".

There are very few objects that I see around my house that isn't touched by "culture", or being "design" according to certain aesthetics. While generally it isn't considered "a work of art", those objects that were design often were informed by the principles that were explored in the academic arena. Principles of 2 dimensional composition, color theories for example.

Who is to say that those isn't the product of our culture, and that the pioneers that first explored those concepts, their work have no value? Of course, this is entirely subjective, as one might agree what art is, or weather if it is good, then that's also a debate which makes life interesting.

Edit:
I guess I couldn't say I am a none-practitioner of "art". So my perspective might be a bit skewed. Although I believe that nobody is excluded from the influence of culture, or unable to influence it.

That's a good point, Magi. I hadn't thought of it that way. It'd be interesting to see what purpose art serves if you look at it from different perspectives.

Speaking as a musician, i can tell you right now that i make no money doing shows, or recording the music we (the band) writes. But me and the rest of the band i play in keep on going because we want to.

Any scientist or mathematician who tries to cut down artists because of a lack of usefulness or practicality should then eschew all movies, novels, all forms of music. Perhaps this is just the rant of a practicing musician but i can't see the world getting by without art, and frankly, seeing people who do successfully ignore all the art forms i listed above make me very sad.

Make you sad because they show people don't actually need art to live a happy and fulfilling life?

Mostly because i can't possibly relate. Yes, what you said is correct, but only to the extent that i can't believe they wouldn't at least try to appreciate the other side of the coin.

I sort of agree with Glenn Gould's sentiments as he voiced them in the documentary "The Art of Piano"...

People can live a happy and fulfilling life believing in God or Allah or whatever but it still makes them wrong. Wrong, Wrong, Wrong, Wrong, Wrong!!!

Other than somehow making you unhappy, what difference does it make if they're wrong?

As for art, I'm a cultural neanderthal. In college, I worked for a large theatre group that had big opening nights and managed to attract a few recognizable names for their productions. I could have gotten into any of the shows for free, but I only went to one (as part of a class assignment). It made me feel bad, being around all these people with obvious passion, but watching live theatre just doesn't do anything for me.

It's the same for art. I have no desire to wander around a free art museum, and I'd certainly never pay to go to a place like the MoMA in NYC. I can appreciate art to a point, but I can't justify spending a large amount of money on a painting or sculpture.

This is a good topic for intelligent people to debate. One has yet to show up.

Between Kolba, yevheniy and the person who started this thread, someone should close this before another no-wit throws in the five cents he got back from recycling a bottle.

I just found it interesting that Glenn Gould had that opinion almost 50 years ago...

I myself do sort of believe that music, and possibly the other fine arts are in a way sort of losing their original meaning and becoming trivialized in today's society. Just go to a classical concert or visit your local art museum and you will usually find yourself surrounded mostly by elderly people from a dieing era. I'm also constantly hearing of Concert Halls and Museums losing their funding -- some to the point of even closing entirely. A recently case in point I know of is the King Tutankhamun exhibit that visited my local museum recently. Based on what I read in various news paper articles and other media they didn't seem to meet anywhere near their projected turnout; I think they even ended up taking a loss on the whole exhibit. I also believe I read somewhere that at least one of my local concert halls has somewhere around a $2 million dollar deficit.

I'm really hesitant to think about what the future holds in store for the fine arts...

I'll just spell it out for you.

That "original meaning," whatever you think it is, is already dead. Art died with Duchamp and Fountain. Without standards, without God to define aesthetics, there is nothing but commodification. There is nothing discoverable in a work that can be pointed to and said, "Here! Here is what makes for beauty and meaning!"

How fitting that there's a Warhol avatar in this thread. Silkscreens, consumer products, mass reproduction, the "Factory"--the whole point of Warhol's work (his gimmick, if you will) was to flip Duchamp's conclusion on its head and turn commodities into art. It might have been very clever and very successful, but there's really nothing to say about the meaning, secret, or study of aesthetics after that.

You are yearning for something that is long since buried. And believe me, the fact that you're talking about music and not paintings doesn't make a dime of difference.

Give the guy a kewpie doll.

Too late?

I don't know - you were here first?

Considering I was already in the thread, how could I be another person to join it?

Obvious answer - you're a dupe account for Styphon.

So I guess it raises the issue of "Public Funding for Arts".

I've heard a few points for the abolition of funding for arts personally.
If the art is popular, then people will pay for it. Government subsidies would unnecessary wouldn't it?
If art is not good enough to be popular, then the government should not reward it for its failure.
So we have the unsubsidised pop music industries floating around. One evident example would be Britain's. However it is interesting to note that their film industry(heavily subsidised) failed to take off.
----why should london have <insertbignumber> symphony orchestras if there is not enough demand to justify them all?-------

Art is elitist.
Just like , CH vs CH-haters, some individuals view CH-ers as elitist snoobish people, its often argued that why shouldn't the government fund more popular pastimes of the people like soccer or pop concerts. Why should it be just the favourite leisure pursuits of the elite who staff the government?

but..

Perhaps through subsidies, art can be made more available to the general public, that is, elite culture would reach out to all, and slowly breakdown into a part of the normal society.

I think there is actually very little people left to maintain a diverse and extensive artistic sector. So the arts would not survive, and ultimately maybe quality of life would degrade.
I guess it wouldn't be very clever to subject the arts as a commodity like when we study oil prices in economics. So by exposing it to the ups and downs of the business cycle, things lost during recessions could very well be gone forever.

But in the end, I think living in the 21st century, although the Arts are the soul of society, perhaps artists should strive to be commercially viable as well. However it does, of course, come with its trade-offs.

The only thing I know about the value of art is that I wouldn't pay millions of fucking dollars for a painting of a Campbells soup can.

Think about this for a second; all those old pieces by the masters made hundreds of years ago would not be worth much. With past renditions of styles/themes no longer in demand nothing would be preserved since they are no longer commercially viable. It'd be like eight track tapes, ditched for the new hotness.

Art should be preserved. If for no other reason then to offer insight and inspiration for the future. Or something.

I couldn't agree more. But I guess if you're an arts group that depend on your public performances as a source of income, it is inevitable.

You create something for now. In future its almost all forgotten. But you get cash for now. You don't worry about your basic necessities.

Then again you could say, "Is this really art?"
I mean you create not for art but as a means of living?

But I guess even the great masters then, like Mozart or Beethoven, they had to create new works for money. Were they not art? I would think not.

But its a difficult question.

Pardon me if I sound silly at times. I consider myself to be quite naïve at this subject.