Philosophy Discussion Forums

Is art vital to society? Do we really need art? What purpose does it serve?

Are all types of art equally important? Are songs more important than paintings, or the other way around?

I find creating art to be enjoyable and even therapeutic to a certain extent so I value art on a personal level, but is there any reason to hang art in museums or for people who have no personal connection to art place value in it?

Ascendant606 wrote: but is there any reason to hang art in museums

good pictures, which hang in museums, full of energy and mysticism, which can give something to the viewer

This question rests on top of another and that is "do you consider emotions important?".

Art is very emotional, no matter what kind of art it is each appeals to a certain type of person and each piece in a different way to each viewer. No art is more important than any other because the importance is determined by the individual it impacts and not by society as a whole.

You could only classify art as unimportant if you classified emotions unimportant.

Art liberates a free open expression of a persons deepest passions desires and memories. Often times when observing a persons art we feel more connected to the person than we would if we met them face to face. Yet we need not be either intimidated or offended. Art is a medium of creation we need not fear, there is no harm that can come by it. But it is sufficient to exercise the spirit and mind for more dangerous expression and so, in my opinion, it must be. Or at least, should be

Is art vital to society?
In terms of society as the collective people, I'm not sure that art is required to hold people together or to help express values since alternative methods exist. A simple example would be a doctrine of duty to bind them together in a sort of unity without the need for creative expression.

Do we really need art?
Arguably for merely being alive, no, but for deeply experiencing living, it is heavily recommended rather than necessary.

What purpose does it serve?
Art currently serves many purposes. It can draw interest to an abstracted perspective on issues that would otherwise draw less interest. Examples of ideas of what it can do is: it can help edify; it can help shame and ridicule; it can help pose questions; and can help answer them.

Are all types of art equally important?
Unless they are all meaningless or without value, I'd argue no, based on the varying magnitude of consequences based on things like cultural impact.

Are songs more important than paintings, or the other way around?
I would pose a similar argument to my previous argument.

To me,

Art is the end result of wounder. From wounder, to imagination, to creation, to art.

I think wounder is the driving, sparking wheel at the center of sentient thought. In a word, inspiration.

It is not only important, it is integral to what humanity is... and I wounder why that is.

~inspiration breeds inspiration

-- Updated June 4th, 2014, 11:16 am to add the following --

Wonder, not wounder... Please forgive my spelling foibles here. I type like a madman, and many mistakes are made in an effort to say the things I feel compelled to say.

Art is important to me because the artist brings beauty into my life.

-- Updated Mon Jan 05, 2015 2:55 pm to add the following --

dogparktom wrote:Art is important to me because the artist brings beauty into my life.

Lloyd Rigler, the founder of Classic Arts Showcase, believed that art was important. I watch the program everyday on Dish. I recently learned that CAS is available online. Check it out. http://www.classicartsshowcase.org/

Ascendant606 wrote:Is art vital to society? Do we really need art? What purpose does it serve?

Are all types of art equally important? Are songs more important than paintings, or the other way around?

I find creating art to be enjoyable and even therapeutic to a certain extent so I value art on a personal level, but is there any reason to hang art in museums or for people who have no personal connection to art place value in it?

The purpose of art is to allow you to reach a altered state of being which you cannot normally reach in your everyday living.

Art is a funny thing. Partially because it is several things at once. It is the embodyment of what the artist is trying to express. If this expression is common (say, a love song to express longing) then an audience can experience (through memory recollection) the same or similar emotion to that of the artist. This is not required, though, and there are plenty of examples of cagey artists trying to express A (in a quasi-covert manner) and their work getting a reputation for B.

Art appreciation is usually passive (the artist does the heavy lifting), though we all can get fulfillment through our own activities, whether compensated (work) or uncompensated (play). So it is part of the mix of the part of life that makes it worth living. Required? Not quite. Vital? Definitely.

I think that art is a super-honed ability to communicate ideas or feelings. Art might therefore be ugly, or otherwise unpleasant. Art may be restricted in ways that artists hate.

Nazi or Soviet artists were not allowed to express ideas that the regime disapproved of.

Renaissance artists were paid by popes, cardinals, or other rich people, and it's lucky for consumers of their art that the Church employers and other rich employers were Renaissance people too.

Long ago artists who painted animals and people in deep dark caves are mysterious as to their motives but they obviously were skilled at getting their ideas on to the rocks.

Ancient Egyptian art looks to be deliberately made for recording facts and ideas that were intrinsic to that society.

In all my foregoing examples there is nothing about the artist's personal feelings. The Romantic movement of about the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, and still going strong, brought in the belief that personal feelings mattered. You can read in nineteenth century novels how the paying public were becoming more interested in the feelings of characters in the stories and how the authors devoted proportionately fewer words to traditional beliefs and practices.

Greta, does musical history demonstrate how the Romantic theme is still going strong e.g. in jazz, world music, 'serious' music, or commercial pop?

Ascendant606 wrote: Are songs more important than paintings,

If you feel like dancing then yes, they are. If you're in the mood for just sitting and staring then they're not. Simple, really.

LuckyR:

Art appreciation is usually passive (the artist does the heavy lifting), though we all can get fulfillment through our own activities, whether compensated (work) or uncompensated (play). So it is part of the mix of the part of life that makes it worth living. Required? Not quite. Vital? Definitely.

Art appreciation is passive? What can this mean? Appreciation entails criticism, what professional critiques write about. It is this conversation they have with each other that brings meaning (and I'm talking about visual arts here, not music, which has limited interpretational possibility) to art. Van Gogh was the father of post impressionism and expressionism, so I have read, and it makes sense. But the hard part, that is, in doing the service of building meaning to the art and the art world, is discussing where his art's value lies. That is the critic's job, and the aesthetician's. Best example is Picasso: The man turns a bike's handle bars upside down and calls it a bull. What gives this Picasso ready made value lies in the thinking and theorizing. That's heavy lifting.

Hereandnow wrote:LuckyR:

Art appreciation is usually passive (the artist does the heavy lifting), though we all can get fulfillment through our own activities, whether compensated (work) or uncompensated (play). So it is part of the mix of the part of life that makes it worth living. Required? Not quite. Vital? Definitely.

Art appreciation is passive? What can this mean? Appreciation entails criticism, what professional critiques write about. It is this conversation they have with each other that brings meaning (and I'm talking about visual arts here, not music, which has limited interpretational possibility) to art. Van Gogh was the father of post impressionism and expressionism, so I have read, and it makes sense. But the hard part, that is, in doing the service of building meaning to the art and the art world, is discussing where his art's value lies. That is the critic's job, and the aesthetician's. Best example is Picasso: The man turns a bike's handle bars upside down and calls it a bull. What gives this Picasso ready made value lies in the thinking and theorizing. That's heavy lifting.

I didn't say: "Art appreciation is passive". I said "Art appreciation is USUALLY passive". Huge difference. You are, of course correct that the tiny fraction of art enthusiasts who are professional critics use a lot of effort to perform their criticism, which has some definite value. OTOH, what percentage of a performance's "appreciation" is from critics, hopefully well less than 1%. Thus my use of: "usually".

Oh, I see, LuckyR, and you're right that most people are passive in this, though i can't quite understand your "what percentage of a performance's "appreciation" is from critics, hopefully well less than 1%." The idea that critics have only "some" definite value puzzles me, too. But then it's different for different art: I look at say Picasso's Old Man with Guitar and it's not my art history that informs me as to its value; it's more intuitive and immediate. But then again still, as Nelson Goodman put it, there is no innocent eye, and what seems immediate is actually embedded in orientation. Oh well, that's philosophy: endless analysis.

Hereandnow wrote:Oh, I see, LuckyR, and you're right that most people are passive in this, though i can't quite understand your "what percentage of a performance's "appreciation" is from critics, hopefully well less than 1%." The idea that critics have only "some" definite value puzzles me, too. But then it's different for different art: I look at say Picasso's Old Man with Guitar and it's not my art history that informs me as to its value; it's more intuitive and immediate. But then again still, as Nelson Goodman put it, there is no innocent eye, and what seems immediate is actually embedded in orientation. Oh well, that's philosophy: endless analysis.

Well, it's simple, really. Most if not all artists hope to influence many, many patrons/art aficianados with whatever they want their art to accomplish. No one wants to be relegated to the discount bin of Art History. Thus the wider the audience, the smaller (percentage-wise) of that audience are professional art critics. Wouldn't you want thousands to see your piece for every art critic who needed to see it to fulfill their workplace obligation?

It seems your puzzlement at my use of the word "some" was shortlived as you appear to have figured it out in your next sentence.