How Necessary is Art?

[HANDSON]

I don't think we need art to 'figure out what is going on". In fact art does nothing of the sort. In fact art often subverts and confuses. Also much art specifically aims to be useless.

Art in the best sense, at it's best, has conceptual content as the artist's intention; it may address the human dilemma, provide insights, offer understanding, seek roads to improvement.

Lesser artistic intentions offer, in the least, attempts at entertainment or are possible simply decorative.

I'd like an example of 'much art specifically aimed to be useless'.

[chazwyman]

Art in the best sense, at it's best, has conceptual content as the artist's intention; it may address the human dilemma, provide insights, offer understanding, seek roads to improvement.

Lesser artistic intentions offer, in the least, attempts at entertainment or are possible simply decorative.

I'd like an example of 'much art specifically aimed to be useless'.

The Fountain, by Duchamp actively takes a useful object and subverts it into a useless one.

http://en.w1k1pedia.org/wiki/Fountain_(Duchamp)

http://www.lettersofnote.com/2010/01/ar ... cause.html

[Ecurb]

Wilde is using a narrow definition of both “art” and “useful” in this letter. Flowers, of course, do not “blossom for (their) own joy.” They are incapable of joy, as are works of art. It is we humans who look at flowers (or look at works of art) that are capable of joy, or sadness, or other emotions that are induced by the work of art.

Something that is “useless” is “not capable of serving a beneficial purpose”. If we grant that art aims to “create a mood”, mightn’t we still argue that creating moods is a “beneficial purpose”?

In addition to narrowly defining “usefulness”, Wilde is narrowly defining “art”. If (for example) literature is an art form, then the art form includes poetry, fiction, history, biography (and more). Surely some forms of literature “instruct” (contrary to Wilde’s claim).

Wilde would argue that the “artistic merit” of the work of literature is distinguishable from its merit as a work of instruction. “Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire” is instructive, and it “create(s) a mood.” Tolstoy called “interestingness” a form of false literary art – in other words, filling a novel with fascinating facts and theories (think DaVinci Code) might interest the reader, but this merit of the work is a non-artistic one.

I think the distinction between art and non-art is blurry. If a host sets a beautiful table, with carefully folded napkins and a centerpiece, he has created a visual impression in his guests that creates a mood, and he has also provided knives, forks and wine glasses that are useful. When he cooks the dinner he has seasoned the food to delight the senses and create a mood, and he has also provided calories and nutrients that are necessary for survival.

Anytime anyone describes an event, he is translating the actual event into a narrative. Why is one narrative a work of art, and the other not? Or are all narratives artistic creations of varying quality? Is a painting that fails to induce a mood in the viewer non-art (as Wilde would say) or simply bad art (as I would say)?

[HANDSON]

The Fountain, by Duchamp actively takes a useful object and subverts it into a useless one.

http://en.w1k1pedia.org/wiki/Fountain_(Duchamp)

http://www.lettersofnote.com/2010/01/ar ... cause.html

You miss the conceptual significance. Duchamp's intention, at least to some extent, is to question the nature of the art object. By offering the banal ready-mades he successfully, in my view, stretches the envelop of what art can be. He takes an object functional in one way and makes it significant in another.

Further, By hanging the urinal upside down on the wall and signing it R Mutt he takes the object out of it's normal functional context and creates a situation whereby one can view it in an aesthetic sense: as a symmetrical, sculptural form with a smooth white glossy surface.

[chazwyman]

You miss the conceptual significance. Duchamp's intention, at least to some extent, is to question the nature of the art object. By offering the banal ready-mades he successfully, in my view, stretches the envelop of what art can be. He takes an object functional in one way and makes it significant in another.

Further, By hanging the urinal upside down on the wall and signing it R Mutt he takes the object out of it's normal functional context and creates a situation whereby one can view it in an aesthetic sense: as a symmetrical, sculptural form with a smooth white glossy surface.

I have missed nothing. His art like much modern art is a cynical way to make money by doing nothing. Fools rush in to burn their cash and the artists laugh all the way to the bank.

[Algol]

I personally believe "Art" is the purpose of life. Without it, what is humanity really, and what does life offer man other than survival like any other animal. Art is life as life is art.

[Jklint]

Inspirational! And best of all it's not even useless! It almost looks like an altar piece but without the relics and statues. (They'd probably just get in the way) Mind blowingly brilliant!

Now how about a "complementary" piece for the other side??

[Algol]

the above is why I've given up on this site.

[HANDSON]

I have missed nothing. His art like much modern art is a cynical way to make money by doing nothing. Fools rush in to burn their cash and the artists laugh all the way to the bank.

Oh please! There's no way Duchamp made money on his exhibit of the readymades. Nobody was buying and there was no NEA money to tap. DaDaist intentions were pure, imo: a critique of the effete artistic establishment of the times.

You can admit it chaz; you're simply wrong.

[Fleetfootphil]

Wow, you don't think confusion and subversion are part of what's going on?

[Spiral Out]

Art is quite necessary, although only secondarily. Creativity is the primary necessity.

[Granth]

How necessary is anything? I would say nothing is necessary. But it's happening (or something is). Looking to argue for necessariness is merely the agenda of religion. Necessariness produces dogma. It argues how some things are more important than other things, thereby reinforcing duality and dualistic (conflict inducing) outlooks on life. A sort of imposition upon what could otherwise be experiences of harmonious living.

[Belinda]

Wow, you don't think confusion and subversion are part of what's going on?

I do. I think that people need shaking up in their ideas and artists have the job of doing this. The male urinal posed as work of art makes one think

1. What is this thing called art anyway?

2. Is there something beautiful or true with this urinal? Is it a symbol of something , or can I make it symbolise something? Is it an elegant shape, colour and texture?

3. Is there any reason a common, useful and slightly rude object not be artistic?

4. Should we all be thinking about art even when we are urinating?

5. Is art sometimes funny, and should it ever be funny?

6.What unusual uses might there be for a male urinal other than that for which it was presumably made?(Someone already suggested an altar) What about a theme cafe where sanitary ware is used for food service?If not, why not? Would it be good for watering farm stock or pets?

7. Is there a strict division between technology and art?

8.When I look at something in an unexpected place such as a urinal on show in a posh art gallery, how much am I shaken up to wonder how much of me is conditioned by my culture?

[Hereandnow]

Albert Camus quote:

Of all the schools of patience and lucidity, creation is the most effective. It is also the staggering evidence of man's sole dignity

:

Camus never understood art; if he had he could never have been so happy to defend the absurd.

-- Updated July 24th, 2012, 7:29 am to add the following --

I have missed nothing. His art like much modern art is a cynical way to make money by doing nothing. Fools rush in to burn their cash and the artists laugh all the way to the bank.

Thank you Chazwyman. I understand conceptual art. I have even written about it. It's rubbish.

-- Updated July 24th, 2012, 7:41 am to add the following --

Oh please! There's no way Duchamp made money on his exhibit of the readymades. Nobody was buying and there was no NEA money to tap. DaDaist intentions were pure, imo: a critique of the effete artistic establishment of the times.

You can admit it chaz; you're simply wrong.

Handson, the objection to conceptual art lies in Arthur Danto's Institutional art theory. Art,they say, is what the art world tells us it is. And that's it. The art world tells Damien Hirst he is a great artist (Momento Mori, etc.) and is happy to give him millions for, what, was that chocolate Jesus his? No; it was the bifurcated cow. Of courrse, the cow makes a statement, it jars the senses, it has shock value that cannot be produced writing a thesis. True; true and rubbish, I say. Maybe we do need to have our sensibilities joggled a bit. Do what Guy DeBord did: Go on a derive, an excursion into tparts unknown and experience the world anew. Go meditate. Go to India, sit in the Thar Desert at midnight. Or better: read about the concept and forget the stupid cow in formaldehyde!!

[HANDSON]

Handson, the objection to conceptual art lies in Arthur Danto's Institutional art theory. Art,they say, is what the art world tells us it is. And that's it. The art world tells Damien Hirst he is a great artist (Momento Mori, etc.) and is happy to give him millions for, what, was that chocolate Jesus his? No; it was the bifurcated cow. Of courrse, the cow makes a statement, it jars the senses, it has shock value that cannot be produced writing a thesis. True; true and rubbish, I say. Maybe we do need to have our sensibilities joggled a bit. Do what Guy DeBord did: Go on a derive, an excursion into tparts unknown and experience the world anew. Go meditate. Go to India, sit in the Thar Desert at midnight. Or better: read about the concept and forget the stupid cow in formaldehyde!!

I don't argue there are individuals attempting to exploit the 'art world' by being as outrageous as possible, using the media in the pursuit of recognition, but anyone who appreciates art and takes it seriously will do his/her homework-determine where the credibility lies.

-- Updated July 24th, 2012, 1:09 pm to add the following --

I don't argue there are individuals attempting to exploit the 'art world' by being as outrageous as possible, using the media in the pursuit of recognition, but anyone who appreciates art and takes it seriously will do his/her homework-determine where the credibility lies.

Perhaps one of our problems is an inadequate definition of conceptual art.

The genre is 100 years old and consists of a variety activities, from DaDa to the Surrealists; Meret Oppenheim's fur covered cup, saucer and spoon to the Earthworks such as the Spiral Jetty that Rbt. Smithson built in the Great Salt Lake (now underwater I believe) . Barbara Kruegar uses image and language to make thoughtful social statements and how can one not like language artist Jenny Holzer's small poster on a stand placed in public locations which offers: God said it, I believe it, and that settles it.

Some conceptual art may not be exactly profound but for the most part there is not the intent to deceive.