is there a point to art?

[legohead]

Just trying to start a little friendly debate, because my revision for English is starting to drive me insane. but any way- what are people's thoughts?

Dont get me wrong, I love reading fiction and poems and the like, but is artistic expression really necessary for the exploration of the human condition,

or just something bored intellectuals read about and do to make themselves feel clever?

[moonshine boy]

I feel art is used to express feelings that would other wise be locked inside, making the world a less interesting place to live in.

As for art being for bored intellectuals i would instead state that art prevents boredom and intead provokes the creative attitudes of others who are unaware of thier own potential.

Overall art, creativity and original ideas prevent the monotomy of a world that relies too heavily on visual stimulants such as television and reflects the driving force of the human psyche that is constantly looking to evolve its state and express oneself through an individual perception of the external world that we all interact in.

[legohead]

but if there were no forms of art, surely the force of human creativity would be directed down other channels, such as science and medicine? i dont think it could all be wasted on mindless pursuits. eventually, people must become weary of them. there is no limit to the ingenuity that utter boredom can trigger

[Wong]

I know - look at some of these threads, for example.

[hr]You would not feel sadness if you never tasted joy
That's the curse of humans - born in passion, you destroy

[n01]

Surely. But,
[l]
[li]Art does exist, that should explain its reason.
[li]How do you define mindless pursuits?
[li]Do you really want to be productive when you are bored?
[li]What makes science and medicine "meaningful"? Because they aid us to live longer? Whats the point of living longer if we don't enjoy it?
[li]Things productive are sometimes noted as "works of art"
[/l]

[legohead]

[s]n01 wrote on 16:40, 24th May 2004:[i]
Surely. But,
[l]
[li]Art does exist, that should explain its reason.

human beings also exist (putting aside the argument against our existance for now). does that mean that our reasons for existing are self-evident?

[n01]

What I meant by "Art exists, which explains its reason", was simply stating against your "what if i didn't exist". The very fact that it doesn't not exist explains it's purpose. It exists as an output of all our non-productive selves. For example, productivity is all in our minds, anything we do we can always rationalize as "productive".

[l]
[li]Sleep - So we can be more productive when we are awake
[li]Being lazy - resting so that we can be productive
[li]Eating - So we can properly function
[li]Getting Drunk - A way to escape from everyday life, so we can focus more when we are in life
[li]Reproducing - Pleasure and carrying on family
[/l]

There are plenty more and maybe some of those are debatable.

This is sort of confusing, but if you were to look at our lives at that level, we don't have meaning either. The way I get around that; to think that it doesn't matter if we have meaning or not. There is no possible way for us to ever know our meaning until we are finished with. Even so, why is not having a meaning so bad? We aren't a mean to an ends in that regard, and that comforts me

[benedict]

as far as i see it, art should meet one or more of the following criteria:

1] look/sound aesthetically pleasing/interesting

2] display a certain degree of skill in it's creation

3] say something/make a point

4] envoke an emotional reaction

then again many critics say that reference to past pieces makes something more art-worthy. this seems a bit less of a significant point to me than certain critics have suggested. i suppose that would go in under 2] or 3] of my criteria above.

[Rufus]

I would be deranged without Art.

[hr]I love you all.

[oddly familiar]

Art is nessecary - its kind of the whole point of us being here in the first place.

Though I think that modern 'art' is a big waste of time. Its BS, and should be treated as such. I should probably go off and make my living as a modern artist - I just need to do something random like crush glass on the floor and get people to walk over it, and I could earn thousands... none of it means anything.

I do think that the study of it is probably only to give bored academics something to do. I really dont see the point of in-depth criticism - its not constructive, it doesnt further the human condition. Unless its in order to see what other people have already done so that you can go on and create something different and new, without repeating what has come before. However I get the feeling that thats not the reason most people who study it do study it - its so that they can make something up, say its true and then feel good about their own cleverness. especially academics

[hr]When she walks,
Oh the wind blows and the angels sing,
But she doesnt notice me

[Dee]

A physical object, a representation thereof, or the depiction of more ephemeral ideals or emotions, that is beautiful. It is unqiuely valuable not because it leads to us to greater understanding of the subject, which many things do, but because it causes us to love the art for its beauty, and over time to come to love the subject, and even to love the ideals that make the subject beautiful so that we can love other subjects possessing the same ideals.

It can help me give a damn, and want to be a better person.

I'd say my two cents, but to be honest it's a rather trite rehash of Symposium. Nontheless something in it seems to ring true to me. If anyone wants to shoot me down for it though feel free.

[Mr Comedy]

Of course there is a point to art, and I will address the question from two angles.

Firstly, let us look at art from the perspective of an artist.
It allows for outworking of the inner thoughts, emotions, and an outlet for creativity. It can be a form of expression, an illustration of ability, and an enjoyable pastime.
So there is a point in art, even if it is only for the artist.

Secondly, let us look at art from the perspective of the owner or the viewer.
Art can influence emotion, it can elicit creativity in others (for example, inspiration from music or from a book), and it can be useful to relax. It also engages with someone in a way which other forms may not. When a piece of art transcends the viewing alone, and transports the viewer to another place, then it has a deeper purpose.

Art is all around, and it is the primary outlet of creativity.
Would anyone be as comfortable without literature, music, painting, sculpture and drama?
I for one think that art adds a greater richness to life. Maybe a better way to consider it is to think of a picture. The pencil lines are the structure, but the detail is what makes it so interesting. And so it is with art.

[Kibet]

[s]oddly familiar wrote on 00:47, 25th May 2004:
Art is nessecary - its kind of the whole point of us being here in the first place.

Though I think that modern 'art' is a big waste of time. Its BS, and should be treated as such.


One side of art is the creating but the otherside is interpretation. This is why O.F. does not appreciate modern art as they do not interpret it's meaning.

Modern art is no different than to normal art. oil paintings, watercolours, sculptures, furniture, etc...... Why those materials? Because at the time, they were the materials at hand. So modern art using electricity and such like are just using the materials at hand.

I was at the Lowrie gallery in December past and i never liked his paintings at all, there was nothing special. However when i returned and talked to my mother she said she's always moved by the paintings. Both of us can look at the same painting and while one of us just looks, the other will see.

Similar with music, all about interpretation, why someone likes one song as opposed to another.

True, the world needs science and medicine but they don't boost morale. The world needs art but they don't create new technology. The world needs both working together.

[Quentinfetishwoman]

'divides into psychological (personal) and visionary (collective). Art can never be reduced to psychopathology because visionary art is greater than its creator and draws on primordial images and forces. It stands on its own merits. It compensates for the one-sidedness of an era. Rather than a symptom or something secondary, it's a true symbolic expression, a reorganization of the conditions to which a causalistic explanation reduces it'- Jung

and as the genius Jean-Luc Godard said,

'Art attracts us only by what it reveals of our most secret self. '



[hr]"Horror by definition is the emotion of pure revulsion. Terror by the same standard is that of fearful anticipation"-Dario Argento

[Guest]

[s]Kibet wrote on 08:05, 25th May 2004:
[s]oddly familiar wrote on 00:47, 25th May 2004:[i]
Though I think that modern 'art' is a big waste of time. Its BS, and should be treated as such.


One side of art is the creating but the otherside is interpretation. This is why O.F. does not appreciate modern art as they do not interpret it's meaning.

Modern art is no different than to normal art. oil paintings, watercolours, sculptures, furniture, etc...... Why those materials? Because at the time, they were the materials at hand. So modern art using electricity and such like are just using the materials at hand.
[/i]

Not all modern art does that at all. There is plenty (the majority in fact of exhibited modern art) of modern art that uses oils, watercolours, sculptures etc.

Try going to a modern art gallery like the one in Edinburgh - no electricity or cows sawn in half etc. Modern art covers a wide range or work and a wide time range also.