The purpose of art

[C Elegans]

Most of us enjoy, use or prduce art in different forms - music, photography, literature, paintings, sculpture, film, theatre or other forms of art. Art can be used a entertainment and recreation, and it can also serve as a special way to approach and view life, society or special phenomena. It may offer a metaperspective on things, and it may also offer personal, emotional experiences as well as stimulating to analytic reflections.

How do you use art? What do you think is the purpose of art, for you personally and for mankind in general?

The oldest paintings we know of, are approximately 30 000 years old (I think, Gwally might correct me on this). Do you think humankind has always engaged in art forms? Do we have an inherent need for expressing ourselves artistically? What purposes might art have had in older cultures compared to the role art fills in human society today?

Your thoughts, please!

[Bloodstalker]

I never claim to be a real deep thinker, or, for that matter an artistic person, but here are my thoughts on it.

Personally, I think it all boils down to emotion and the expression of that emotion. Humans are capable of feeling such a wide range of emotions, and to be honest, a lot of times we find ourselves struggling to express those emotions, and finding that words are restrictive at times. I myself have at times felt emotions that I am incapable of vocalizing, but if I pick up my guitar and start playing, they just seem to come out. Something about the feel and sound of music can conjure up feelings that words never could. It is the same with a painting, a book, it is just a lot easier to express some feelings through those types of outlets, especially if the individual is not that good at speaking to people.

Some people are also uncomfortable relating some things verbally in a conversation. They just don't feel comfortable. But they have no problem painting or writing, because somehow, it just feels different than talking.
At least that is the way I am.

I think another reason is people like to capture the wonder or feeling of a certain moment or place. By painting a picture of something that they have seen, that affected them in some way, maybe they can look at it later and get a glimpse of those feelings again.

I do think that it is inherent in our race to need to express ourselves. We are a very social species. So I think that we also need to be artistic to a certain extent, to be able to fully express and communicate our feelings.

Anyway, that is what I think. it's late, so I may not have articulated myself clearly, but I just wanted to put my two cents worth into the conversation. every once in awhile I feel the need to post something serious. Go figure.

[Aegis]

Art is something that we perceive. Anything can be art, and everything is art. Something as simple as a car parked in a garage is art, or something as complex as a myrad of colours mixed and entertwined together can be art. It is all how people and soceity veiw this things that create art. Nothing is bad art, it is just different art. Because it does not appeal to some people, others may find it exquisit, and vice versa. It's like the saying "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder", and this remains true towards art, though it can be modified for music and literature. It all depends on how we perceive it, and we react to it. But even if we don't think it is art, that doesn't make it something else, it is still art.

[Delacroix]

I also see the Art as a inerent gift of the humans. BTW, based on C Elegans estimative of first paints ocurred in the Hystory, and her question if the humans do Art since they exist, I could say this is the "lost link"(Sorry, I don't know the right word, "Lost link" is the hipotetical being who Differ from the others primates[ Monkeys] and start the path of humanity{I also know this was a process of transformation, and not an being alone, but the start of the Art production is one of the most important diferences in my opinion}). Since the Human is human(a complet human), it is also an artist.

I see Art as form of expression, as Aegis say, the concepts of Art are full of relativism. What is not Art?. I personally prefer the critical and expressives forms of Art. In other hand we have some great Technical based works. But I find this last ones poor in some way. Poor, beause it does not fullfil the role capacity(sense) and purpose of the Art expression. In the hystory we see this dicotomy. Moviments more based in Technique, moviments more based in expression.

Bloodstalker, put a very interesting observation; It is very interesting, and more easily-exactly, analyse yourself from the outside(Artwork). It is dificult to perceive ourself in a auto analisis, but as extern(Not that extern, since you made the Artword) view is possible to comprehend and perceive lots of patterns of your personality.

Art, was very important for me(beside the fact that I work with Art). Today I paint in acrilic and aquarel . It alter all may way to see and perceive everything. And is very terapeutical(relaxing). A cientist should say Art-production put endorfine(hormonne) in your body; we better believe that Art-production canalise your feelings to the Art-work .

Of course, I don't know the full , or even the half, purpose of the Art(the conections with the feelings and society). But Art is undoubtly one of the most importants purposes of my life.

[fugitive]

i dont really think that there is a way to define art... for everyone has a different opinion about it. what i might call art, other people would be thinking of garbage (but they just dunno what they are talking about tho ), if you know what i mean tho, i like paintings of people the old fashioned way. not to have, i mean the are so dark and depressing, however, the new 'types' of art i think are ugly.

anyway, this isnt my opinion. this is someone elses!

[der Moench]

@CE: I was just discussing this in an e-mail with my friend. She just read the Lord of the Rings, and had mentioned some of it's themes. This is what I replied:

"You also touch upon the theme of the book as being one of freedom and liberty versus oppression and evil, and I agree. One of the things that I have always thought about literature is that it ought to portray goodness and heroism. I really like books in which you can read about characters who impress you – whom you would like to emulate. That, I think should be the goal of literature (and of all art), and that is certainly what Tolkien has done. One simply cannot but admire characters such as Sam and Aragorn and Eowyn, et al. You come away from a book like this wanting to do great things. And though there may be no Sauron to battle in this world (thank goodness, for he would find “orcs” enough here!), the honor, the honesty, the integrity, and the bravery of the characters is something that transcends conflict, and has worth even in the mundane world of … engineering! Or administrative assisting!"

So art for me is kind of a "re-fuelling." It helps remind me that greatness is possible, and helps me work towards that goal.

Thanks for another fun one.

[VoodooDali]

This reminds me of one of my old threads. Back into the Joseph Beuys discussion...

I don't agree that art should only uplift or inspire people to goodness. (Although I do love Tolkien and that sort of tale.) I think that art should provoke. It should make you see things a different way. There was a great article in the NY Times about making memorials, and how the accepted type of art for that now is minimalism (the Viet Nam memorial) and not figurative anymore. It's amazing how the general public has come to accept minimalism, when just 30 years ago people had violent reactions to it (think about Richard Serra).

[der Moench]

@VoodooDali: I dunno about the term "provoke." I guess A Clockwork Orange and The Wall were movies which provoked a response, but I disliked them both because - well, they were frightening and unpleasant.

How does this relate, generally, to minimalism? I am not so familiar with the term.

I like the Vietnam memorial, though I do not know that it is "uplifting" or conforms to my previous post about art. But it does achieve it's objective: it presses an understanding of the sheer numbers of lives lost into the viewer.

Lastly, I would say that art doesn't have to be all roses and sunshine to conform to my posted idea of art. Tolkien's books had lots of darkness to them, but the overall theme was one of heroism.

[Aegis]

Art is indescript. No one can really define, it just is there. It can be anything, simple or complex, bright or dark, understood, or studied. No one can tell you what art is, you just know it when you see, and the opinions of others do not matter in that case. Art is very Ambigous, and rightly so.

[Dottie]

I must say that I have never percived LoTR as good art. To me its just a story, a good one i admitt, but still just a story. Good art should in my opinon provide some kind of thesis, interpret the world or yourself in some way. Tolkien's work is so black and white that i cant see any realism or draw any parallels to the real world, to myself or to anything. And that is imo the pupose of art.

[Mr Sleep]

Quote:

Originally posted by VoodooDali IIt should make you see things a different way

We have a poster by Christian Coigny in my office, it is a portrait of a naked woman taken from the back. It really is a brilliant work and it shows off the beauty of the female form very well.

However the amount of customers who come in and comment on it's nature as pornographic is very surprising.

I think that art is - as VDali says so well - often a tool to provoke thought or outrage. I recall the Turner prize being given to many strange artists, they have no skills as painters like Turner had, they barely even create anything, (This years winner was a room where the lights turned on and off ) yet their works are still considered art by many, their works always manage to promote art back to the headline.

There is both a bad and a good aspect to this situation, one ends up with many of the public not truly understanding the complexities of art and merely assuming it is something for the more fruity amongst us.

In my opinion personal art is concerned with expression, art on a larger scale is more interested in headlines and fame. I assume that poets of the Romantic period were not interested in fame, just the same as Van Gogh or any other of the more inspirational artists. Unfortunately there is a fine line between mediocrity through fame and integrity and so many fall into the precipice of the mediocrity.

[Yshania]

I think most forms of art are selfish expression, not that this is a bad thing. Writers that write for their own pleasure, painters that paint what they see.

As observers, we look for the medium that we relate best to, a poem to one, does not say the same as it might to another...including the poet.

We look at a piece of art, and we relate to it...this is what is attractive. We look to find ourselves in that expression...maybe when we cannot portray ourselves the same way in the same medium...I do believe that the human being does need emotional expression, and sometimes it has to be lent to them by others...

[fable]

bump!

[Georgi]

I don't think it's possible to say that all art is a way of expressing emotions for purely selfish reasons - I think a lot of artists aim to bring attention to certain issues by provoking discussion through their art. I guess it depends on the artist

Art also has resonance beyond what the artist intended. Once it's created, it's up to the viewer/audience/reader/etc to interpret it. Like Ysh says, we see what we want to see in it - so even if art is created for entirely selfish reasons, it can have relevance beyond that.

Personally, I use art for many things - relaxation, entertainment, nostalgia, reflection, expressing emotions. I think art is a very personal thing; its only limits are what you want to define it as, and that varies from person to person. Everyday objects and images can become art when put in a different context (and I'm not just saying that because I saw a programme about Andy Warhol this evening... well, okay, maybe a little... ).

From an anthropological point of view... AFAIK (and bearing in mind that I know very little... ) the earliest forms of art (and I'm thinking here of cave painting type things) were commemerative in nature - recording the success of a hunt, or suchlike. More like public works of art than a private way of expressing emotions. The same for things like tribal dance - it benefitted the community rather than the individual. I think as people gained more leisure time, art grew as a private thing. Artists today probably have more freedom to produce what they want, as opposed to what their patron commissions.

Ok, this seems like a good place to stop my mindless ramblings

[Georgi]

Quote:

Originally posted by der Moench [color=chocolate]@VoodooDali: I dunno about the term "provoke." I guess A Clockwork Orange and The Wall were movies which provoked a response, but I disliked them both because - well, they were frightening and unpleasant.

But whether you liked them or not, wouldn't you still classify them as "art"? Art can be thought-provoking even if you don't like it; sometimes particularly if you don't.