Art and the World

Godfather said:

I had a conversation with somebody recently, when he asked me what I wanted to do after school. I said that I wanted to make a living out of what I love, which is art. I want to be an artist. He went on to say that art doesn't matter to society. That, of course, is wrong.

But I got thinking that what he meant was that society could function without art. I guess theoretically society could function without art, but what is art? Is it exhibitions of paintings, or something much more intimate?

Everybody here is an artist, where would we be without it?

Could the world work without art?

Click to expand...

Yes, the world could work. I just wouldn't. Neither would a lot of people, I imagine. But given a choice between a painting and an air conditioned office, it's the office, Mate. If you want to be an artist, be prepared for a great life and a real struggle.

I don't consider myself an artist, I consider myself a writer. In my mind there is a difference (there probably isn't one in reality, but allow me my own special quirks, OK?).

I do think the world could go along swimmingly without art. Especially most of the stuff that passes for art these days.

At one time, many hundreds of years ago, art was uplifting. It was an attempt to capture the beauty of life.

I'm thinking along the lines of Greek statuary. Or the beautiful paintings of the Rennaissance. Things by Michelangelo.

Nowadays it's a crucifix in piss. Or polyurethaned and cut-up dead people. The movement seems to be to portray the ugliness of life. I think society can do without that. I don't think it advances us in any way.

I've had similar discussions with people about the value of art. It isn't practical but I think it does serve a deeper purpose. I think humans need to create, whether we can make a living off it is a different matter entirely. There are people who think it frivolous and there are those who treasure it above all things. I fall somewhere in the middle. To me it is very important but not quite as vital as feeding my children. That said, my oldest daughter wants to be an artist, this is all she has ever wanted to do (actually she has claimed since one and a half that she wanted to paint designs on sailboats) and I won't discourage her because if you really love something I think it kills you inside to just walk away. (Especially if you do so because of money) When you have people depending on you it is different of course, but since you are young why not? I think art has been around since cave paintings (whether these were practical or not) and I'm fairly certain we aren't going to see a time where it is forgotten. I don't think we realize how much of what we do could be described as art. It isn't just a term for paintings hung in a museum. I see art in most things around me, down to the decorating that people do in their homes, the artful display of nickknacks on a shelf, the arrangement of furniture in the living room. We strive (most if not all) to make these things pleasing to our eye, to fit our concept of beauty. I think for something to be so prevalent it must be a key component of who we are. Again getting paid for it is something else . Sorry for the ramble. - wanted to add about the trend of art to portray ugliness. I don't know what that is about really- I have a different idea of what constitutes art- to me it is more simple and prevalent that pieces that are supposed to shock you and say something- I think I like art that just is there and breathes. When I am in my garden I feel like it is most definitely a work of art, a living one (read messy )that changes with the seasons and is shaped not only my my hand. I'm not sure someone peeing on a crucifix qualifies as art to more than a handful that get it- but that is the beauty of art there is so much variety and so many personal definitions of it that it permeats everything. I don't think we could get rid of art in all its forms.

It's wonderful to create, but it's enlightening and uplifting to observe and enjoy; art needs audiences. And, practical or not, art enlivens people.

I think about the exhilaration I feel after a couple of hours wandering in a gallery, walking through a sculpture garden (my very favorite part of Paris is a sculpture garden), or leaving a performance. There's the mind-expanding feeling of new perceptions of the world, and the feeling that I'd love to do nothing more than create art. For a time, I'm free.

Art as a concept has been abused as an academic exercise -- too many smug, this-is-art-because-I-say-it-is "installations". But that's part of the wonder too; not everyone need be a genius.

Without art, the world may well work, but for a lot of us, it'd be a brutish, joyless place.

Art in the broader sense can also be defined as entertainment. It can be mind enriching, I suppose, sometimes thought provoking.

What's your definition of art, GF?

Godfather said:

Hmmm... I'm not sure I can articulate what art is exactly, but I'll try.

Creating something beautiful, and thought provoking from yourself.

I can't explain it really, friend. But I would be nothing without art, nothing. My clothes, my watch, my ring, my bedroom, what I listen to, what I look at, what I read, everything I've ever created. It's all art.

Click to expand...

So does it have to be meaningful to someone else to fit a definition of art, or is it sufficient that it be an individual act? Also, does it have to leave an imprint, even if that imprint is only appreciated by the one who left it?

Interesting, GF. I have a much narrower view of what "art" is. I realize there are "fine arts" and that takes into account a lot of things from music, to graphic arts, to even literature, but I've always viewed it simply as the graphic arts.

I can't live without music or writing. But I certainly could live without pictures and statues.

And I've never ever, even in it's broadest sense, thought of my clothes as art. Or my watch. To me those are practical necessities of everyday life. Not art.

I'm sure some people even consider fine cuisine as "art" but again to me that's sustainance. Something we do out of necessity and not strictly for the simple beauty of it.

Ah, so you don't just wear dockers and have a Timex.

Godfather said:

Hmmm... in my mind, if it does it for one person then it is art, yeah.

Click to expand...

O.K. So, would you define art as a statement or extension of ego? Or does it have to be a form of communication?

Godfather said:

In my eyes, a world without art would take away our humanity, like laurel said, look around you. Art is everywhere.

Click to expand...

A society that no longer tolerates or appreciates art is a society that is dying inside.

Take heart, GF. The world is enamored of art now more than it ever has been, as far as I can tell from my personal travels and experiences. I'm sure someone can post a link showing a 3.7% drop in art appreciation or wall square foot usage, so you'll just have to take my word for it on this one.

Always remember this, though: appreciation of art is a subjective analysis, for all but a handful of artists and/or collectors who have studied techniques for years. The former aren't really qualified to critique your work, and the latter should be ignored outright. Have fun.

Godfather said:

Hmmm... I meant art in the broader sense, broadest sense, even.

Music, literature and paintings. But more than that.

In my eyes, a world without art would take away our humanity, like laurel said, look around you. Art is everywhere.

Click to expand...

I think you hit on it right there. It is inherent in our nature, the need to communicate through a medium- music, painting, words, dance;to rise to a greater understanding through creating or encountering someone else's work; or to experience emotional commiseration from its contact. Even the person who says it means nothing will respond in some way to some medium.

It ain't just an imitation of life.

Shadow_Ferret said:

Interesting, GF. I have a much narrower view of what "art" is. I realize there are "fine arts" and that takes into account a lot of things from music, to graphic arts, to even literature, but I've always viewed it simply as the graphic arts.

And I've never ever, even in it's broadest sense, thought of my clothes as art. Or my watch. To me those are practical necessities of everyday life. Not art.

I'm sure some people even consider fine cuisine as "art" but again to me that's sustainance. Something we do out of necessity and not strictly for the simple beauty of it.

Click to expand...

I think the distinction is that there are things most people can agree would fall under the category fine arts and then there is everyday art. It is really a matter of perspective. To someone who fashion is important they will view their attire as art- we may not understand that- but since opinions are subjective and do not cancel each other out it still can be designated as art. Perhaps it isn't the art of Michelangelo but it still deserves its title. My husband aadores food, to me it is sustenance and I pay it little mind, to him it is art. He gets annoyed by my poor presentation. In my mind there is no reason that something cannot be art if it serves a practical function. Not all art is practical but there are certainly things that serve a practical function and could be described as art. Everytime I drive under a stone bridge on the merrit (I may be getting my highways names confused but that doesn't change my meaning) I smile because to me that architecture is art. I cringe when driving through the developments around me- the sea of sameness (down to the foundation plantings) drives me insane. I understand the practicality of it but then I remember the bridges and I wonder why a little more creativity couldn't be employed. Something that is both functional and beautiful attracts far more praise. I love the art of everyday objects, it truly is my favorite type. Then again, I think of pruning as an art (one I am terrible at by the way) so my definition is very broad. I'm happier this way, If I thought art belonged only in museums I think it would dampen my enthusiasm greatly.

C.bronco said:

[/i]

I think you hit on it right there. It is inherent in our nature, the need to communicate through a medium- music, painting, words, dance;to rise to a greater understanding through creating or encountering someone else's work; or to experience emotional commiseration from its contact. Even the person who says it means nothing will respond in some way to some medium.

It ain't just an imitation of life.

Click to expand...

I had a discussion with my very religious (born again Christian)mother in law recently about this. Well It was actually about the phrase - created in his image- she took this to mean we literally looked like god - not getting into the religious aspect of it because I often get uncomfortable in these types of discussions - I told her if anything I thought it refered to our inherent need to create. I just really feel like it is a core part of what it means to be human. (please don't jump on the religion thing my comment wouldn't make much sense without the explanation- maybe it didn't make sense anyway?)

The Protestant Work Ethic and capitalism killed/are killing art.

It's sad how in the midst of plenty, you have people who think artists are a waste of space and resources. Very sad.

RG570 said:

The Protestant Work Ethic and capitalism killed/are killing art.

It's sad how in the midst of plenty, you have people who think artists are a waste of space and resources. Very sad.

Click to expand...

Explain please. Because the so-called Protestant work ethic has been around for hundreds of years, since Luther tacked his list on doors. Prior to that people just had a "work ethic."

And explain how capitalism has killed it, too, while you're at it. Artists throughout history have never really made money at their art, they've depended upon rich "patrons."

Could the world function without art?

Yes, but no one would want to live in it.

Everything is and can be art. From the text we use to type out messages, to the desks and tables the computers sit on.


I've never understood why society rejects the concept of "artist" and "art", but readily embraces all of the by-products of art.

You definitely can make a living as an artist. I'm more than happy to recommend specific colleges for art as well.

C.bronco said:

You definitely can make a living as an artist.

Click to expand...

As a commercial artist? Or as a paints-with-oils-type artist? Because I know a lot of graphic artists and designers, but I wouldn't call them "arteests."

"I want to thank anyone who spends part of their day creating. I don’t care if it’s a book, a film, a painting, a dance, a piece of theater, a piece of music. Anybody who spends part of their day sharing their experience with us. I think the world would be unlivable without art.”
Steven Soderbergh Oscar Speech

Godfather said:

Could the world work without art?

Click to expand...

This world could work without just about any profession, apart from the medical field, the food industry, and the clothing industry. That doesn't mean we don't "need" other things, and that those aren't worthwhile.