|
Hey reader! I want to preface this blog post by saying that you should take anything you read here lightly. I may be expressing some strong opinions but keep in mind that may not be as radical as it seems.
Let's leave out the big question of "what's art and what isn't" and I'll just go ahead and write about the main topic.
Is art really as "important" as some people would want us to believe? We oftentimes hear people say things like, a society is nothing without its art and such thing, as if art was some sort of glue that held societies together. I live in Quebec, and not long ago, many artists from many branches started "whining" about how life as an artist is difficult. As many of you know, if one decides to go to an art school or music school, chances are they won't make a big salary unless they really manage to stand out, whether it be because they're exceptionally talented or appeal to teenage girls.
A local singer ranted about how when Paul McCartney performs in Montreal, he makes more money than a local artist even though they fill the same amount of seats. That's retarded, but the idea behind it is that he wanted for the government of Canada to fund art in Quebec because art is so important.
Some people go to school to learn how to dance over a period of a few years, only to end up making 20k a year for the rest of their life, and they expect the government to patch things up.
To me, it seems that if a painter can't make a living off of his or her paintings, it's because the public doesn't need that stuff. So when people argue that art is this super important thing, are they right? If you think so, why?
Yes, good art is good, and good artists deserve recognition and everything. I admire you people who can pick up a violin and nearly put me in a trance with that single instrument, and I admire amazing painters who can take bland colors and turn them into amazing paintings, but why do people act as if it was supremely important when truly, it's simply entertainment and decoration. Sure it's a fact that we can look at history and point at the advancements of art over time, the "invention" of perspective through certain techniques, etc. But It seems to me like people are fooled into thinking that art is more than it really is.
It feels to me like the idea that art is this super important part of society comes from some kind of bad philosophy. It's like telling children that they're special, and they'll grow up to be scientists and astronauts.
Anyway excuse me for this post, it feels a bit shaky. I'm using my second language and I'm having trouble with some terms, but I think it gets the message across fairly well.
 
|
Because it's not just entertainment, but often a gateway to profound experiences.
Have you ever listened, I mean really listened; hearing every note and focussing for the whole piece, to a symphony? It's not meant to put you into a trance, it's meant to wake you up.
|
Out of curiosity, what's your first language? Didn't realize you weren't a native speaker until you mentioned it.
More on topic, art as a career is a rather dangerous profession to try to break into, especially music. The only people I know involved in art as a career have "sold out" (their own words) and gone into advertising and more corporate forms of art to sustain themselves.
Art as an extension of culture, entertainment, and as a means of conveying various messages and themes, art is important to society, to be sure. Whether artists should be paid more or covered by the government if their chosen profession fails to provide for them...there isn't really anything different between a failed artist and an unemployed blue collar worker as they each serve a function that most people agree is important to society as a whole.
|
One important thing about, to me, is that it can convey ideas and concepts in ways that things like the written word and logical discussion cannot. For instance: to me a work like Guernica by Picasso is far, far more powerful of a condemnation of war and violence than any factual account of the bombing could be.
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/74/PicassoGuernica.jpg)
Similarly, a song like Don't Think Twice by Bob Dylan conveys in a few minutes the utter complexity of a relationship that would take hundreds and hundreds of pages of prose to convey. Art can be a way of influencing opinion and emotion that is far superior to any other means.
In school I took a class on Eastern Philosophy, where we read a lot of significant works in the form of poetry. I wondered why that was for a while until a year later, when I took Metaphysics and then Philosophy of Art, I kind of slowly realized why a serious scholar might choose to write in verse: in the standard Western form of argument and reasoning, you essentially start at some common basis and argue from there. By rational debate does not really provide for changing someone's fundamental, core beliefs. Art does. Art often has the power to sway things inside of people that otherwise cannot be budged. It seems to me that I much more often hear someone say "Man this book/song/painting/poem/novel really changed my perspective on things" than "I was just rationally persuaded to change how I view the world." One instance that springs to mind just because it's open in another tab: James Randi, the renown skeptic and rational thinker, came out as being gay after eighty-two years of being in the closet. What did he cite as the reason for making the leap? The movie Milk.
And a quick note: I'm not saying that art is always a better or a more legitimate way of influencing someone's opinion. It is often worse. I'm just saying that, in response to the OP, it is certainly an important and significant one.
|
There's art and there's light entertainment. I don't think the government has a responsibility to fund either, really, but you're still profoundly wrong.
Art is important because it affects the way you think. Not as an individual, but you, as a part of everyone in the audience. You see a woman in a submissive role in art all the time, you will start to think that's normal. You start to see women in independent roles in art, you'll start to change your opinions about that too. Art is one of the most effective ways to be subversive and critical of the society one lives in. It provides thought experiments en masse that can eventually become reality.
So yeah, people whining about not getting paid for their crappy drawings is annoying. I wouldn't call those people artists. None of the great modernists made a particularly large amount of money (but they were very important for raising awareness about the effects of war). I guess there really isn't much else to say. Art works are important, paying Quebec's failed art majors is not. If they have any practical skill at all they can get a real job, and if all they want to do is make pretentious bullshit no one likes, then no one is going to listen to them when they're hungry.
|
If the importance of art is some post-modern construction shouldn't you be able to find anthropological or archaeological evidence of human societies for which art has/had no importance? Let us know when you find a culture with no singing, dancing, storytelling, painting or sculpture of any kind. To say art isn't important because it is "simply entertainment and decoration" implies that people need neither enjoyable distractions and pursuits to be happy nor to derive pleasure from aesthetic creations. Are you ready to assert that happiness, pleasure and creative expression aren't important for human beings?
|
On January 12 2011 08:04 Tal wrote:
Because it's not just entertainment, but often a gateway to profound experiences.
Have you ever listened, I mean really listened; hearing every note and focussing for the whole piece, to a symphony? It's not meant to put you into a trance, it's meant to wake you up.
I recognize the beauty in music, more so than most people I would say. I question the importance of it, not its beauty. Not at all. I also think that I can appreciate a good painting's beauty just as much as the next person.
On the other hand, in the grand scheme of things, it serves the same purpose as a Michael Bay movie. (Which are usually bad, but do contain beautiful art!). In itself it's not any more important than any form of entertainment.
On January 12 2011 08:06 Elegy wrote:
Out of curiosity, what's your first language? Didn't realize you weren't a native speaker until you mentioned it.
I speak French and Diablo 2 taught me most of the English I know!
On January 12 2011 08:16 pullarius1 wrote:
Similarly, a song like Don't Think Twice by Bob Dylan conveys in a few minutes the utter complexity of a relationship that would take hundreds and hundreds of pages of prose to convey.
I don't agree with what you said previously about the message conveyed by a painting. While I've seen extremely powerful paintings, it seems to me like words are much more powerful. Metaphors and analogies contained in music are indeed very powerful and I guess you make a strong case from that perspective with Bob Dylan's song. Yet I still think that it's blown out of proportions. I might have wanted to specify that my main problem has to do, in part, with some forms of abstract art, and "stuff" made by "failed artists". Some people seem to think that all creativity is good creativity, and I'm strongly opposed to that idea.
On January 12 2011 08:32 Chef wrote:
Art is important because it affects the way you think. Not as an individual, but you, as a part of everyone in the audience. You see a woman in a submissive role in art all the time, you will start to think that's normal. You start to see women in independent roles in art, you'll start to change your opinions about that too. Art is one of the most effective ways to be subversive and critical of the society one lives in. It provides thought experiments en masse that can eventually become reality.
I recognize that there's truth in what you say, but I'm skeptical of the level of truth. Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me like it doesn't have such a dramatic effect on me. Not a more positive one than a good speech would.
|
On January 12 2011 08:44 mucker wrote:
If the importance of art is some post-modern construction shouldn't you be able to find anthropological or archaeological evidence of human societies for which art has/had no importance? Let us know when you find a culture with no singing, dancing, storytelling, painting or sculpture of any kind. To say art isn't important because it is "simply entertainment and decoration" implies that people need neither enjoyable distractions and pursuits to be happy nor to derive pleasure from aesthetic creations. Are you ready to assert that happiness, pleasure and creative expression aren't important for human beings?
Hehe. Entertainment!
|
I recognize that there's truth in what you say, but I'm skeptical of the level of truth. Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me like it doesn't have such a dramatic effect on me. Not a more positive one than a good speech would.
Everyone thinks they're above being influenced by the world around them. In reality there's no one above it. Normalization, making things seem 'obvious' are key factors that control society. Art is just one of the many tools that achieve this.
|
On January 12 2011 07:49 Djzapz wrote:
It feels to me like the idea that art is this super important part of society comes from some kind of bad post-modern philosophy.
Evidently you know even less about postmodern philosophy than you do about art.
|
Art makes people think
its extremely important that people think.
dont you think?
/thread end.
|
Art is powerful.
But mid-grade artists are competing against top-tier artists. The project of a mid-grade artist is unlikely to be of wide interest, unless they get very lucky (J. K. Rowling, Stephanie Meyers). Instead, mid-grade artists should put in the work to become top-tier artists, or take a supporting role in a superior artist's project, or sell themselves.
Never underestimate the power of selling yourself. Meh-quality work can still make bank if it aims for a fandom. (Jesus fans looking for Christian Rock, Star Wars/Trek/Craft fans looking for more of their favorite canon.) Or if it's appropriately trashy and marketed as such. Or if you find a sucker audience that can't judge quality for shit.
|
On January 12 2011 09:58 Chef wrote:Show nested quote +I recognize that there's truth in what you say, but I'm skeptical of the level of truth. Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me like it doesn't have such a dramatic effect on me. Not a more positive one than a good speech would. Everyone thinks they're above being influenced by the world around them. In reality there's no one above it. Normalization, making things seem 'obvious' are key factors that control society. Art is just one of the many tools that achieve this.
I do realize it, but like I said, I don't see that it's that relevant. Sure it has a role but it's just not this great thing that's made out to be the cause of all human development or something.
On January 12 2011 10:26 jon arbuckle wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2011 07:49 Djzapz wrote:
It feels to me like the idea that art is this super important part of society comes from some kind of bad post-modern philosophy. Evidently you know even less about postmodern philosophy than you do about art.
Sorry if I used the wrong term. Either way, cute post. And I know a fair amount about art.
On January 12 2011 10:34 Coagulation wrote:
Art makes people think
its extremely important that people think.
dont you think?
/thread end.
Maybe I should have specified no imbeciles =/
|
maybe you should have.
however i dont see anyone claiming to share your point of view.
i dont think you understand the length that art effects the world around us.
buildings
cars
computers
streets
people
|
On January 12 2011 11:45 Coagulation wrote:
maybe you should have.
however i dont see anyone claiming to share your point of view.
No but they're all very reasonable and have actually modified my way of thinking about it, whereas you drooled on your shirt.
[and then you edited your post]
i dont think you understand the length that art effects the world around us.
buildings
cars
computers
streets
people
I do understand that. We see a lot of art and we're in contact with it all the time. My computer screen is packed with art like the TL logo which makes this experience pleasant. I have SC2 on my other screen and it's all beautiful. It adds to the human experience in the same way that watching a movie does, it enhances it. I'm saying that it's very much like entertainment, which is important too, but in a much less pretentious way that art pretends to be. I think I don't like how pretentious artists can be, so that would be part of my problem with it.
|
I think the best art universalizes. In other words, what can we say that is all shared by humans, or, at least, shared by a culture? Besides the biological truths, of course. I think this is important, because, biologically speaking, we are not all that different from other organisms on earth, yet humans are "special."
I can put this another way. Some things (especially universal human themes; see above) cannot be expressed in any other form but in certain media of art. Isn't it important that we try to capture some of these subtler truths?
|
On January 12 2011 11:52 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2011 11:45 Coagulation wrote:
maybe you should have.
however i dont see anyone claiming to share your point of view. No but they're all very reasonable and have actually modified my way of thinking about it, whereas you drooled on your shirt.
Art is everywhere ; it is in the car we drive, the magazine we read, and in the food that we eat. Art is something that influences many parts of our lives. Art is what drives us to be creative. To make a car better, we need to have an impeccable design. To build a better house, we have to have an imagination to construct. Art is in everything around us whether it is the car we drive or the house we go home to, it is someone’s artwork. It took someone’s creativity and thought to fabricate the masterpiece. The arts provide a way for people to explore new possibilities “to notice the world.”2 Art defines a culture because “ culture is a pattern of behaviors, ideas, and values shared by a group
my shirt was indeed in need of a good drooling.
|
Alright, well I'm sorry if I was rude.
|
you guys should watch the recent movie
Exit Through the Gift Shop
Talks about this very topic.
|
Art DOES play an immense role in society and self expression is absolutely invaluable.
But the artist needs to recognize that (s)he lives in a capitalist society and if they want to live off their art then they need to find a way to monetize it.
If they don't want to monetize it then they need to accept the fact that they will probably have to have another job and make their art on the side.
I know plenty of people for whom this is the case and they are completely content with it. In fact, by not having to worry about selling their art they are free to do whatever the fuck they want.
Of course there are also artists who do whatever the fuck they want and can make a living out of it, and that's perfectly fine too!
The artist in the OP sounds like he wants to be paid to do whatever the fuck he wants regardless of whether or not anyone finds value in it. Which is completely unreasonable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
