What is the purpose of art?

[jelly]

*originally posted in the Living Library*

I was just reading this article this morning, and this new platform dedicated to artistic expression seems like a cool opportunity to open up discussion.

In our capitalist culture of finance and consumerism, it's easy to misunderstand the purpose of art altogether, or forget why it's important. The author writes, "Art is being treated as a commodity. We doubt that it is special. Dead artists belong to the heritage industry. Live artists belong to the PR industry." Businesses and organizations try to exploit art for corporate growth or personal gain, forgetting that art is, by nature, a shared experience that cannot be assigned a price tag.

He continues, "It may be that capitalism will be as successful with art as it has been with religion, absorbing it to the point of neutrality." This may sound like some kind of liberal agenda, but it isn't. Art transcends politics, it transcends labels and self-interest. "Art is a different value system. Like God, it fails us continually. Like God, we have legitimate doubts about its existence but, like God, art leaves us with footprints of beauty."

Art is uncomfortable for many people. The author goes on to refer to events in history, such as Hitler burning books and trying to destroy culture, as examples of reactionary efforts to silence what we cannot (or do not want to) understand. Art requires us to be vulnerable, to calm our analytical, left-brained responses and be willing to be challenged and confronted. He ends with a blatant admonishment of those who carelessly and dangerously dismiss art, "Don't be fooled by the way capitalism co-opts art. It pretends to do it for money, but underneath money is terror. Terror that there might be a different way to live."

Anyways, I encourage everyone to read it.

http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign ... sfeatures1

[~JCGJ~]

I feel the same way about the "music industry" (I suppose music can be grouped into "art," no?). The reason most people write music these days, is to make money, and when making money becomes the reason for the music, you music becomes tainted by what the "people want to hear," as opposed to just letting the music flow from the musician's own emotions and experiences. I mean, why do you think there are so few people alive today who can create emotionally dynamic pieces like Beethoven, or Mozart? Or who simply experiment with music (simply for the love of music), like John Cage? Sure, Cage was never truly appreciated, and some people don't even consider his work to be "music," but the fact that he continued to make his "music" demonstrates a quality which has been all but lost in todays standards of Capitalism and industry...

[jelly]

Absolutely! A lot of aestheticians argue that music is the very highest form of art. I'm not a musician, and there's a lot about music I don't understand, but it's hard NOT to get the sense that music is the most universal language we have at our disposal.

I just googled John Cage.. wow. Thanks for the heads up about him! I'm going to add him to my reading (and listening).

I would argue that, in many ways, the Christian music industry is one of the worst offenders. Much of it is not only removed from the challenges that art poses, but often twice removed because of its agenda against pop culture. The tagline for that article suggests that we "sentimentalize" art when we're not censoring it. What is the majority of Worship music if not sentimentality? (Not saying Worship music is necessarily 'bad' - I think there should be allowance for sentiment. But it has to be balanced.)

[~JCGJ~]

Have you had the pleasure of "hearing" Cage's most celebrated (or should I say, laughed at?) piece, unofficially dubbed "4:33?"

If the link isn't working, just search "John Cage 4'33" on Youtube, and click the first video.

YouTube links fixed - DanP740

[jelly]

That's hilarious.

Have you had the pleasure of "hearing" Cage's most celebrated (or should I say, laughed at?) piece, unofficially dubbed "4:33?"

If the link isn't working, just search "John Cage 4'33" on Youtube, and click the first video.

I have now. I love divisive stuff like that - on one hand, you've got the people that aren't willing to put any thought into purpose or meaning and will arrogantly laugh it off; on the other, you've got the people that take it waaaaay too seriously, as though it's the most brilliant thing anyone could come up with. Neither response is proper appreciation. Without having read anything about Cage, I'm guessing '4:33' was his response to postmodern expressionism and that the purpose of the piece was to get beneath the very nature of music itself, provoking the imagination and considering the art of silence as something other than a vice.

I don't really know what I'm talking about though.

[TigerintheShadows]

The tagline for that article suggests that we "sentimentalize" art when we're not censoring it. What is the majority of Worship music if not sentimentality?

Precisely. This is something my brother and I have discussed, and one of the reasons I don't really like CCM. Some of it is good, as with any genre, but a lot of it is, in my opinion, far too commercialized and sappy. I don't think art has to "shock and provoke" (read: be "gritty" and "real" just for the sake of it), but I do think art should cause us to think, and considering that part of the point of growing as a Christian is growing beyond yourself and your bubble, it just makes sense to me that worship music, or more generally music that claims itself to be made to glorify God, should force us to question and confront ourselves--to me, it should present us with God's beauty and goodness in such a way as to make us realize our imperfections and strive to live like Him.

Speaking as an artist, I do think that, to some degree, art should be created to be consumed--specifically, to be consumed in such a way as to appreciate beauty or truth (among other things). It should be created for other people to enjoy it, because there is a certain value in appreciating something for what it is--it doesn't have to be deeply thought-provoking. It should not, however, be created solely to make money, because while making a living is important (obviously ), it isn't ultimately what is most important.

[~JCGJ~]

Have you had the pleasure of "hearing" Cage's most celebrated (or should I say, laughed at?) piece, unofficially dubbed "4:33?"

If the link isn't working, just search "John Cage 4'33" on Youtube, and click the first video.

I have now. I love divisive stuff like that - on one hand, you've got the people that aren't willing to put any thought into purpose or meaning and will arrogantly laugh it off; on the other, you've got the people that take it waaaaay too seriously, as though it's the most brilliant thing anyone could come up with. Neither response is proper appreciation. Without having read anything about Cage, I'm guessing '4:33' was his response to postmodern expressionism and that the purpose of the piece was to get beneath the very nature of music itself, provoking the imagination and considering the art of silence as something other than a vice.

I don't really know what I'm talking about though.

No, actually, that's it exactly. Many of his works were actually more like experiments in psychology, than experiments in music, because he enjoyed seeing just how far he could go, and still have his work accepted as "music."

[darcie]

I don't think I can even express how much I love art because there is too much feels. Art is life, love, expression, revolution... and it is different to the maker and the person experiencing it. I yearn to make art, and yet I am always afraid my art will not be art enough. I love to witness art, and in all forms- music, dance, performance art, architecture, sculpture, macaroni, or paintings by the masters. The few hours I was able to walk through the V&A in London, and then catching the last few open minutes of the National Gallery when my three and a half year old recognized the tiger in the Rousseau painting "Surprise!" from watching Little Einsteins are always going to be one of the best days ever.

So I'll give you this from a friend that I read in the last hour (this is probably mostly for Jelly):

Anyone who's interested in experiencing how contemporary art functions in today's capitalist, police-state ideology should visit the Mike Kelly exhibition at MoMA's PS1. Not only are there docent/security personnel in EVERY room or room-like nook of this exhibition, but you will be repeatedly watched, surveilled and asked to follow the rules of the institution. The security presence was so material, I had (and still have) a hard time separating it from my experience of the art. My "favorite" moment came when a PS1 employee, who must have fashioned himself as pretty cool, offered me unsolicited advice about where to carry my duffle bag on my body (on the front, not the back) so that I would "not be harassed" later by the other supposedly drone-like and uncritical security personnel, not knowing that he was actually the third person to direct me physically as to where to carry my bag, and thus was contributing to the authoritarian harassment from which he thought he was saving me. This incident went down, ironically, in a hallway in which Kelly's blown-up illustrations of creative male historical figures included Rimbaud with the caption "I understand no laws." And I pale to mention the $3.25 cup of bad coffee.

[~JCGJ~]

And I pale to mention the $3.25 cup of bad coffee.

Sounds like Starbucks to me...

[Marvin D.]

Okay, so here's a question that came to my attention recently: Do symbols, and ultimately art, only have meaning because we instill meaning into them through rather arbitrary and often discursive mental processes? For example, with the eyes of Dr. T.J. Eckleburg in Fitzgerald's "The Great Gatsby," it's a symbol that seems to have some other meaning. .such as being the omnipesent eyes of God who looks out over the ultimately empy lifestyle of the Jazz Age in which Nick, Jay, the Buchanans, and the others find themself in. There's no explicit meaning given to these eyes, which makes it seem like Fitzgerald is telling us that symbols, dreams, and possibly even themes are empty, almost like the times the story is set in. Because one person may draw a certain conclusion through his interpretation of art, is the only concrete meaning/symbol that which the artist originally had in mind?
Another example that comes to mind now is the song "King of Carrot Flowers" from Neutral Milk Hotel's album "In the Aeroplane Over the Sea." The lyrics to that song can be rather obscure (When you were young/You were the king of carrot flowers/And how you built a tower tumbling through the trees/In holy rattlesnakes that fell all around your feet)--actually, the whole album is full of obscure lyrics, and while I'm certainly not opposed to searching for meaning and interpreting art in one's own way, since the artistic experience is ultimately subjective, is there ever such a thing as a definite, concrete meaning, or is it all up in the air?
Yet another example that I thought of was Imagine Dragon's music video of "Radioactive"; the lyrics seem to depict a dystopian, barren wasteland, but the music video seems to have no apparent connection to the lyrics on the first view, what with it their being this underground word of puppets fighting. But the person who wrote the script for the music video listened to the song and brought on her spin to the lyrics, thus exposing the viewers to her interpretation of the song.
There was a quote from "Death in Venice" by Thomas Mann that may or may not have had some bearing to my disjointed ramblings; if I can find it, I'll see if it actually does and may or may not post it.

[Jonathan]

The tagline for that article suggests that we "sentimentalize" art when we're not censoring it. What is the majority of Worship music if not sentimentality?

Precisely. This is something my brother and I have discussed, and one of the reasons I don't really like CCM. Some of it is good, as with any genre, but a lot of it is, in my opinion, far too commercialized and sappy. I don't think art has to "shock and provoke" (read: be "gritty" and "real" just for the sake of it), but I do think art should cause us to think, and considering that part of the point of growing as a Christian is growing beyond yourself and your bubble, it just makes sense to me that worship music, or more generally music that claims itself to be made to glorify God, should force us to question and confront ourselves--to me, it should present us with God's beauty and goodness in such a way as to make us realize our imperfections and strive to live like Him.

This. Add to that list that most CCM is theologically pathetic, and I don't much like it either.

edit--Gotta address this too:

I feel the same way about the "music industry" (I suppose music can be grouped into "art," no?). The reason most people write music these days, is to make money, and when making money becomes the reason for the music, you music becomes tainted by what the "people want to hear," as opposed to just letting the music flow from the musician's own emotions and experiences. I mean, why do you think there are so few people alive today who can create emotionally dynamic pieces like Beethoven, or Mozart? Or who simply experiment with music (simply for the love of music), like John Cage? Sure, Cage was never truly appreciated, and some people don't even consider his work to be "music," but the fact that he continued to make his "music" demonstrates a quality which has been all but lost in todays standards of Capitalism and industry...

Something that needs to be understood is that the music industry can be broken down into two groups. The first group encompasses those who you described, those who are in it for the money. Just about all, if not all, of these folks fall into the genres that are popular today, those in the rock business, or pop, or rap, etc. And CCM, for that matter.

Then there is a second group that create, as you aptly put it, emotionally dynamic pieces. These folks aren't rich, they make their income off of education, and then compose for choir, band, orchestra. Pieces are commissioned, and they get money out of it, but not the riches those in the popular industries rake in. And there are plenty of folks like this, Sam Hazo, Jan Van Der Roost, Frank Ticheli, Eric Whitacre (a guy who writes stuff like him ain't in it for the money), the recently deceased Eliot Del Borgo, Francis McBeth, Jacob De Haan, Steven Rienke, Robert Smith, David Maslanka, and Jack Stamp who has given great speeches on the importance of music in schools. I could name more.

So you've got a point, and a good one, but understand that the second group does exist.

edit 2--Only forgot the capstone of my post. The first group will always be more prevalant, because that's the type of music people tune their radios too, and buy CDs of, and where the ad money is. Money talks and all that.

[jelly]

Okay, so here's a question that came to my attention recently: Do symbols, and ultimately art, only have meaning because we instill meaning into them through rather arbitrary and often discursive mental processes? For example, with the eyes of Dr. T.J. Eckleburg in Fitzgerald's "The Great Gatsby," it's a symbol that seems to have some other meaning. .such as being the omnipesent eyes of God who looks out over the ultimately empy lifestyle of the Jazz Age in which Nick, Jay, the Buchanans, and the others find themself in. There's no explicit meaning given to these eyes, which makes it seem like Fitzgerald is telling us that symbols, dreams, and possibly even themes are empty, almost like the times the story is set in. Because one person may draw a certain conclusion through his interpretation of art, is the only concrete meaning/symbol that which the artist originally had in mind?

I don't think there's an easy answer. Some artists eschew the idea of universal meaning, but many do not. They appeal to a greater, absolute truth and consider their art to be metaphor in service of that truth. I haven't actually read the great gatsby (I know, I know), but having seen the Baz Luhrmann film I was impressed by how meaning was designated to the Eckleburg eyes through the use of closeups and other cinematic techniques of drawing attention to an inanimate object. Nothing is ever 'said' about the eyes, but through visual composition we're very blatantly 'told' by Luhrmann that the eyes are of moral importance. In the real world, they might mean nothing, but in Fitzgerald's world they are given life. I believe Fitzgerald and Luhrmann are appealing to a universal understanding of an active, morally grounded God - a concept that is fairly universally familiar to us whether or not we accept it as truth.

I don't think it's art's job to answer the question of universal truth. Art prefers to pose the questions. For me, the Eckleburg eyes indicated that the actions of the characters were under moral scrutiny. I don't know if that's what Fitzgerald intended or not, but that's okay. Art's just subjective like that.

Yet another example that I thought of was Imagine Dragon's music video of "Radioactive"; the lyrics seem to depict a dystopian, barren wasteland, but the music video seems to have no apparent connection to the lyrics on the first view, what with it their being this underground word of puppets fighting. But the person who wrote the script for the music video listened to the song and brought on her spin to the lyrics, thus exposing the viewers to her interpretation of the song.

I really liked the music video for Radioactive precisely because I felt like I was watching a unique interpretation of the song, as opposed to a video that only services the lyrics in the rather basic, generic way that we'd expect. Imagine Dragons were cool enough to allow their art to be 'open' to such interpretation, and as a result the music video actually expands on the song and offers new insight that you wouldn't get simply from listening to the track! It's a great example of art being interactive. What we create is not our own; it's a collaborative experience.

Not sure if I properly understood your original question or not, but those were some of the thoughts that came to mind.

[Marvin D.]

Don't worry; I don't properly understand my own original question. But I agree with you--though you really have to read Gatsby. You won't regret it.

In your opinion, what do you think constitutes as an improper interpretation of art? I'm going to use another Neutral Milk Hotel example here, this time from their song "Sailing Through." I won't put up the lyrics, because taken literally, it seems to have some lewd connotations. In fact, for most people, what comes to mind when they first listen is not at all what the artist had in mind. He even says at the start of the video that it wasn't about what most people was thinking about. So, are the people at fault for not searching for the deeper meaning and looking beyond the words, or is it more of the artist's fault for somewhat misleading his audience?

I love how I phrased my question as either/or, while I'm quite the fan of saying, "It's not either/or, but both/and."

[ric]

Honestly, I'm pretty sure any sexual connotations there are in Neutral Milk Hotel's music are intentional (and there are many). So, while there is most definitely a deeper meaning, I don't think you can fault anyone for taking the most obvious interpretation - especially considering Mangum's lyrics are otherwise extremely abstract.

I had not heard Sailing Through before. Wow.


This topic is the best. I have been wondering about this so much recently. Mainly, I find it very difficult to distinguish between entertainment and art.

[jelly]

I was hoping ric would show up!

So, are the people at fault for not searching for the deeper meaning and looking beyond the words, or is it more of the artist's fault for somewhat misleading his audience?

I pulled up some Neutral Milk Hotel on youtube, but I don't really know enough about the band or its legacy to address your example. But yeah, I don't know, I don't think there really is a 'fault'. Good music connects with fans: I don't think it has to be a complex dilemma. But ff an artist is trying to communicate something specific to those fans and it doesn't come through, then he might not have done a great job of communicating it. (But how many artists care if their art is received in a very specific way? That's the antithesis of art. Good artists just hope for that connection; details are but icing on the cake.)

I find it very difficult to distinguish between entertainment and art.

I don't think this is an either/or, either. I think 'entertainment' refers to the aesthetic experience alone, while 'art' is more about appreciation, reflection and application. Entertainment tends be trendy, art is timeless. That doesn't mean art can't or shouldn't have a richly pleasant aesthetic experience! But the application of art is why you can experience the same novel, film or music as a friend and have this incredible, life changing revelation, only to realize that your friend just kind of enjoyed it, soon to forget about it.

[Marvin D.]

I had not heard Sailing Through before. Wow.

Pretty much my reaction the first time I heard it

The difference between entertainment and art. .I think it depends on the definition. If entertainment is to amuse, then a lot of art doesn't really amuse or entertain us, in that sense. But to entertain can also mean to cause to give consideration to, although I don't think that's how most of us view entertainment. Entertainment's supposed to be lightearted, upbeat, and a quick and easy escape from our world. We can easily lump pop music--and many other genres as well--under this category, but they all can tell a story that holds a deeper meaning, so it's not as if no-name, less comercially-driven bands are the only one who can produce 'art.' I mean, look at this paper written about the existential meaning behind the ever-popular "Call Me Maybe." (http://www.scribd.com/doc/152313475/L-a ... Rae-Jepsen) Fun Fact: It was written by the ToO's own SivartM.

So I believe that with entertainment, it doesn't as easily cause us to reflect and contemplate on our life, while art takes a more direct approach and shows us life not only as it is, but also as it *should* be, or as it *could* be, which is a very difficult balance to pull off, I believe. To both make art realistic and allow the audience to connect, while somehow transcending above this experience. .it's hard. But the other thing with art is that many artists tend to be very high-minded and ostentatious, using rather florid language that alienates the "common people" and pushes them to the snappy, upbeat modern entertainment--which is also art, but is scorned and looked down upon by the "true artists." There's nothing wrong with not being explicit or direct, but constantly snubbing most modern entertainment/art only drives a wedge between the generations. Both classics and modern YA fiction are art. Both can be entertainment. The lines are blurred, and it's not black and white. It's not either/or.

[ric]

I was hoping ric would show up!

I feel so loved.


Would you say art has to teach you something (using "teach" loosely of course)? And if it doesn't then what good is it?

[Marvin D.]

Short answer: If art does its job, it will teach you to appreciate more art, the world around you, and ultimately beauty.

[jelly]

I like Marvin's answer.

The whole "purpose of art" question really requires us to adapt a paradigm entirely different than what we're used to thinking. I like the left-brained/right-brained visual:

According to statistics, most Americans lean to the left by default, and the right side really needs to be teased and exercised before we can appreciate a whole new world of aesthetics and beauty. Thinking with your right brain allows you to 'connect dots' by drawing parallels and metaphors that help us make sense of life. Art isn't restricted to art galleries. (That's a left-brained way of boxing things up and trying to apply the rules of commerce to an artistic experience.) 'Art' is a life philosophy.

[~JCGJ~]

Perhaps that's why I get so frustrated with those who put art into their little "buisness box..."
I've taken several of those "right brain, left brain" tests, and every time, I come out almost even in both. I love to anylize and debate and learn the little details, but I also have a love of adventure and music and art and literature. I've never heard an actual term for being "evenly balanced" on the brain chart, so I just affectionately refer to my "condition" as "Back Brained."