What is art for?

[azekeil]

I've been having an on-and-off discussion with one of my minions about art. Earlier this morning he asked me what art was for. I gave him an answer that makes sense to me, but I'd be very interested to hear what you lot would have told him..

EDIT: It might help if I gave some context. We were talking about these telephone sheep and this concrete-filled wardrobe.

Comments

[tar0r.livejournal.com]

IMHO, it has many purposes.

1) To make a corporate environment look attractive to visitors/clients. Attractive could also be replaced with "comfortable", "relaxed", and various others.

2) To express something that you hold close to you - so you might buy a painting that completely sums up your favourite place, or of something that captures a beautiful moment.

3) For pretentious snobs to add to their mansions to impress.

4) It may have been created by a loved one or friend, or highly valued by a loved one or friend.

5) Given as a present.

They're the top 5 off the top of my head, I'm sure there are more :)

[azekeil.livejournal.com]

Yes, there are many. I think I'm driving at the deeper underlying reason(s) though - why do humans create art?

[tar0r.livejournal.com]

oh, Create.. I was thinking purchase!

Creating.. hmm. That is an interesting one. I'd go with expression.

[azekeil.livejournal.com]

But many people choose to express themselves by being destructive. Is that still art?

[tar0r.livejournal.com]

I think it certainly can be. Look at body modification. A lot of people would think it pointless and destructive, other would think it as art. Also Banksy is a good one - some would say it's just graffiti, and in most cases, graffiti is considered destructive within the law if on public property (sometimes even not!) but hell, he's practically become a hero. I suppose, a lot of it is down to perception.

[azekeil.livejournal.com]

A more macabre example would be Hitler. He chose to express himself in a very destructive way, yet I doubt many people would choose to describe what he did as art.

[tar0r.livejournal.com]

I see what you're getting at.

I don't thing that a form of expression is always art. I guess motive is a big thing too. Was Hitler's destructiveness really expression? or was it more concentrated on the motive? Was he actually trying to be a utilitarinist? It gets into moral grounds pretty quickly here.

That said, I don't think art is always a form of expression.. I suppose it's just the one I'm most familiar with :)

[azekeil.livejournal.com]

Interestingly we're getting into defining what art is, rather than what drives humans to create it. Still, it's a valid question that needs to be answered if we hope to nail down why people create it..

[eleanorb.livejournal.com]

To tell a story or evoke a feeling or to capture the magic of something or because they can.

[azekeil.livejournal.com]

So what's the urge that underlies all of that?

[eleanorb.livejournal.com]

Why do we need to have an urge?

[azekeil.livejournal.com]

I believe there is one or a small group of closely related things that can be defined as an urge that drives humans to create art to do the things you mentioned. I believe that without an urge people would do very little. I want to understand what other people believe drives humans to create art.

Or you can tell me you disagree with my belief that people need to have an urge to do things, but I'd like to understand your reasoning...

[eleanorb.livejournal.com]

Thinking about it a bit more I don't think you can have one single urge/reason to create what is now known as art. The reasons we tell or depict stories are grounded in our need to communicate knowledge, dangers and moralities. Our reasons for using art to evoke an emotion are tied in with a sense of community and empathy. Capturing the magic is part of a mystical/religious approach to understanding the world which is a hangover from the pre-scientific age.

And because we can is part of our ego, our need to be recognised/appreciated/seen as an individual.

There may be individuals who feel they are driven to create art - closer to what you might be thinking about in having an urge - but I think the majority of art (rather than formal named Art) comes out of a variety of reasons.

I wonder, do you think that if the 'artist' does not realise they are creating 'art' is it still art?

[azekeil.livejournal.com]

Your last is a very interesting point, and comes down to definition of art, which as I mention to someone above is a valid point - how can we say what drives people to create art if we don't have a clear definition of what we mean by art?

One way to answer your question would be to say that art is art if it is perceived as such by a viewer. If you go with this definition, then there can be no underlying urge as art could be created by accident and not by design.

If you take the other main view that art is created with a purpose then we can begin to nail down what urge lies behind that purpose. I think I must have been thinking along those lines - someone has clearly done something with the purpose of creating art - so what drives people to do it?

[eleanorb.livejournal.com]

someone has clearly done something with the purpose of creating art

I'm not sure people sit down an think this. They may think they are creating something or representing something but whether they think they are creating art is another matter.

I think art is an external term separate from the creation of things. Art is what we currently choose to define by that label. At different times an in different places some of the things that have been created have been called art and other creations have different tags attached (engineering, gardening etc.) I mean, it wasn't long ago that photography wasn't considered art.

As I said before I think we create for different reasons depending on what type of person we are and what need there is for the thing we are creating but I don't think we create in order for something to be Art.

[azekeil.livejournal.com]

Sounds like we're getting tied up in the definition of it. That's probably the crux of the argument to be fair, but see what you think of what I said to him which I will post shortly.

[leopardspice.livejournal.com]

Awareness

[azekeil.livejournal.com]

That's a very succinct answer. I quite like that :)

[robinbloke.livejournal.com]

To give you pause for thought.

[azekeil.livejournal.com]

Yes.. but thought about what?

[robinbloke.livejournal.com]

"Whatever it was the poem was about"
~Douglas Adams

[azekeil.livejournal.com]

Heh. Made me chuckle ;)

[katieastrophe]

Art used to be about the aesthetic - it was nice to look at, and had no substance aside from that. Some still is, but much contemporary art is "about" things - often political.
I've mixed feelings about that: when the art actually works to get across the political message the creator had in mind, it works, though many artists will claim their work is about something and it really doesn't make that much sense to a lot of people. (For example, many people attack the work of Tracey Emin, particularly My Bed, because they don't understand it.
As a general rule, I don't like Tracey Emin - I think she's lazy, like many other contemporary artists who take something and call it art without putting any work into it, but I do get what she was trying to say with My Bed, having spent days at a time in my bed feeling insecure and scared and all the negative emotions she associates with that piece of 'work'.

A good piece of contemporary art to look at, with substantially more effort put into it, is Rachel Whiteread's House.

Contemporary art usually comes with something from the artist telling you what it is 'about', though I'd not recommend reading it, especially when you see it in the context it was made to be in, until you've already made a decision about what you think the artist is 'trying to say'.

[azekeil.livejournal.com]

A variety of answers, all just as valid.. it's difficult to pin it down to why someone has created something, but I think what I'm driving at is why do humans create it in the first place?

[katieastrophe]

That's difficult. Historically, people seemed to make art that looks nice, makes you feel something. In recent* years it has transformed from being aesthetic over content/meaning, to the other way around, and contempoary art is often conceptual art. Conceptual artists, certainly, make their work because it has a theoretical/political meaning, rather than emotional/aesthetic, though there are still a lot of artists who make work for the aesthetic (though none who are actually still making work spring to mind immediately).

* relatively speaking: contemporary art as we know it at the moment has existed for anything between 40 and 50 years now.

[azekeil.livejournal.com]

That's an interesting analysis on the history of fashion for art but I'm not really sure it gets to the nub of my question. I'll create a new post in a bit with what I said to him.

[ev1ldonut.livejournal.com]

For the creator of the art, it's an expression of a thought or feeling, a way to communicate (even if it's just communicating with themselves). Or simply for the pure joy of creating something.

For the viewer, it's stimulation of the senses (and possibly the mind as a result). Humans are incredibly sensory animals and constantly crave stimulation, art provides this. What specific kind of art works for you is entirely a personal matter and largely irrelevant in this context, everyone is different after all. :)

[azekeil.livejournal.com]

I agree with you. The answer I gave was more on the underlying reason that humans in general create art.. one reason I posted this was that I want to see if others feel the same way.

[oedipamaas49.livejournal.com]

I won't answer your question (because if I did I'd not get anything else done for the next half-hour), but the telephone sheep are pretty!

[azekeil.livejournal.com]

But you'll be thinking about it. My work here is done :)

[eggwhite.livejournal.com]

To my mind, there are several different reasons for art.

To highlight - Artists will often bring things to the foreground that might otherwise go unnoticed. Art is a constant reminder that there are other points of view, and that other people see different things as important.

To provoke - Nothing progresses unless people think differently once in a while. Even art that you don't like will force you to think if you take the time to look at it - even if it just makes you think "Why?" or "What the hell were they thinking!". Conceptual art in particular is generally there make people think about whatever the hell it's about... to try to interpret it and to twist the brain in new dimensions. Science twists brains in one way, art in another. Both kinds of twist lead to new ideas...

To inspire - Sometimes art just requires a level of skill so great that others think "I wish I could do that", and so strive to learn. Even if they don't achieve the same levels, as with any discipline, there are knock on effects in that you learn other things along the way. To be a photorealistic painter you need to be able to see and understand light, distance, perspective, texture and all these things. You also need precision with a brush, the ability to match colours, etc... All these things are useful for a great many things outside of photorealism. Likewise an abstract artist has to think about what they are representing, and why they represent it the way they do. A performer has to understand the role they are playing, and the audience they are playing to.

To entertain - Art often makes people happy, either by viewing it, mocking it, discussing it, arguing about it, feeling self important because you could do better, feeling clever because you'd do it differently.

I could probably go on for a lot longer... but I should probably do some work...

[azekeil.livejournal.com]

That's all fascinating and very true, thanks. If you have time, have a look at the other comments on this post :)

[theeighth.livejournal.com]

The purpose of art?

For the artist, probably to get them laid, or to alleviate some pressing need to express themselves that they cannot do in a conventional manner. Possibly for the purposes of getting money and power in a "cool" way, though not a particularly good way of doing it.

For the patron, an investment that will potentially see a substantial return while simultaneously receiving the societal benefit of doing something worthwhile.

For the collector, to assuage their greed or some collecting impulse, or perhaps to improve the aesthetics of their environment.

For everyone it provides some aesthetic stimulation while reinforcing a public image of sophistication, intelligence and culture, even if this is entirely fraudulent.

[azekeil.livejournal.com]

I used to think like this too. See what you think of the answer I gave him, when I post it (which will be shortly).

[gerald_duck]

Pleasure.

[azekeil.livejournal.com]

Hm. Whose? The creator or the viewer?

[gerald_duck]

Whomever it's intended to please. If I play the piano at home with nobody else listening, I'm creating art which pleases myself.

Actually, I think I'll wider my answer: art is for evoking emotion. Although pleasure is the most common one, lust, envy, admiration, awe, terror, revulsion, etc. are also possible.

[azekeil.livejournal.com]

Hah. This actually ties in to what I've just posted - see if you agree.

[gerald_duck]

I've now made a poll to try and discover more specifically what people do and don't regard as art. I'll be interested to see the results. (-8

[oholiab.livejournal.com]

I think you can really take your pick of a variety of reasons here, as you can with anything which has become so intrinsic to civilisation.

The first and foremost idea that comes to my mind is "a picture says a thousand words." This encompasses more than paintings of course, sculpture and "found object" etc. art too, and to me it says that a concept can be conveyed fully yet without being explicit in a visual medium. By this I mean you can explore an idea without specifically saying what aspect of said idea you are focussing on, and allow interpretation with a direction laid down by the artist.

Also the celebration of imagination and technical skill. "Look at what I just thought of" and "Look how well I drew this," because the act of producing art is inherently (I might be wrong about this but as a rule of thumb...) narcissistic, yet is rewarding for both the narcissist and the audience; if you are good then people enjoy your art then they tell you.

And also, it all ultimatelyhas to include some level of aesthetics... you do it because it LOOKS pretty, and people LIKE it because it looks pretty.

Eventually you have to get onto the dubious subject of "Art must provoke a response," the master of which would be Damien Hurst... EVERY time he pickles a diamond or sticks a load of sharks to a skull people get pissed off. You'd think that everyone would figure out by now that he's partially doing it (and making so much money out of it) because the public fall for it every time, and when they complain he gets publicity.

However, this last point takes me onto a subject that my dear old Granny put to me and I think is very profound... What we call art (or fine art) these days is inaccessable to the people. Whilst they get pissed off at Tracy Emin for wetting her bed and then sticking it on a podium, it lacks respect for the artist because a lot of the public either don't care because they see a lack of effort, or don't care because all they see is a pretentious asshole with such a sense of self importance that they can do these half assed things and call it art. When someone draws a really good picture, they get praised by their peers, their elders, their youngers, everyone. If there is recognisable technical skill then people often say "I like/dislike it, (but) it's really good."

I'm never one to downplay the importance of concept, hence why I think comic art is such a fantastic (art)form, but conceptual art is so inaccessable if presented in a manner which doesn't depend on the artist's skill (if I were to pickle a shark, you wouldn't see much diffence i the way I'd do it to the way dear old Damien did). That is to say, entirely conceptual artwork lacks the visual stylisation contributed by the artist, and thus begs the question "would it make any difference if he just did it and told everyone he'd done it instead of displaying it?"

[azekeil.livejournal.com]

Now that's an interesting point. You are working on the assumption that art needs to have some sort of aesthetic or underlying talent people can appreciate.

I'm not so sure that's what I'd call art - I believe art also encompasses conceptual or philosophical stuff. It's not the actual act of doing it or even necessarily the tangible end result. The art for me is in the thought processes that lead to the idea of pickling diamonds or whatever the representation is. The physical representation is a manifestation of that thought or idea, which is where the real art lies, in my view.

[meltie.livejournal.com]

Those sheep are fantastic! :D