The purpose of Art
The purpose of art is washing the dust of daily life off our souls
-Picasso
What is the purpose of art? With due apologies to GVD and the others who believe in Ars gratia artis or Art for Art’s sake, I would like to see if there is a possible answer to this question.
I found a very interesting article in the Britannica Student Encyclopedia. It says,
Art is a means of organizing experience into ordered form. The experience thus translated into a sculpture such as The Burghers of Calais, or into song, painting, or poem, can then come to life again in the consciousness of other people. It may truly be said that only when this sharing takes place has a work of art been fully realized. That is why art is properly regarded as a language.
From “The purpose of art”.
That seems to be a reasonable answer for the question, What is art? Unfortunately, we aren’t interested solely in this question. We now know (those of you who disagree with the previous paragraph are welcome to answer the question, What is art? in the comments to this post) that art is the organisation of human experience into ordered form. Next question. Why do it?
To think that there would be one single answer applicable to all of humankind would be foolish. We show so much diversity in every other aspect of life, culture, sub-culture, sub-sub-culture (I could go on – Music, Rock and roll music, Grunge Music, blah blah blah), sexual preference, religion, our concept of beauty, etc., so why would there be one single answer to one single subjective question?
Fair enough. No single answer. Then does it make sense to try and find a logical answer? For if it were logical, that would mean that it is rational (and hence other answers irrational). Which is a very elitist attitude. And if someone gave me that attitude, I’d tell that person to fuck off. So no single logical answer. What remains is simple. My answer.
My answer to the question, What is the purpose of Art?
You may agree or disagree with it, but this is what I believe.
The purpose of art is not to convey the artist’s emotions, althought they come across in most art (please find the emotion Leonardo da Vinci tried to convey through Mona Lisa). The purpose of art is not to convey the artist’s point of view. That is best left to politicians. Besides, most of the artists I’ve known are the most open minded people out there, willing to be contradicted and ready to change their beliefs if they’re wrong. So what is the purpose of art? Well, the first purpose is for the artist to get laid. And in itself, it is a very noble purpose. But it isn’t the only purpose of art. Art makes people think. But it does so without telling people what to think. Art doesn’t proselytise. Art questions you and lets you arrive at your own answers. That is the purpose of art.
Considering this, doesn’t my rambling on this piece of virtual real-estate (haha, virtual real) qualify as art? Hurrah! I am an artiste. Now where are those loose women who’re supposed to be fawning over me? Oh, you mean you need to be a famous artist for that? Crap!
hehee! well me dear artist, attracting the women and hving them stay with you, is an art an irrespective of your ramblings here, i shall credit you with that:)..
As for the thinking part..very true..but i dont agree with the monalisa thingie..:)
Hmm quite a profound thought u got thr………
Well after i read those purposes of Art i kind off flet like summing them up in one single word………
LIVE – Art lets u LIVE
as simple as dat…….
Wat do u say to this????
[...] .well, the first purpose is for the artist to get laid. .the best reason to paint is that there is no reason to paint… keith haring .art on purpose .charles krafft [...]
You have a very interesting view to the purpose of art–which in many respects I can agree with.
Art is the expression of the human condition. It has had multiple functions, varying from culture to culture. That is the beauty of art! The artist, a messenger, conveying a message (whether purposefully or inherently) without words–even if s/he does not mean to. Furthermore, the ability to turn line and color into recognizable shapes which transforms into objects or emotions is absolutely amazing!
Let’s look at Rothko. Someone (and I’ve heard it myself) could say about a Rothko, “It’s just color! I could do that!”…but what is my response?
“Yeah, but ya didn’t.”
Besides it’s not even about what the artist did but how they did it. How does a Rothko evoke an emotion? Did he succeed by simply making you say that comment? In any case, he provoked EMOTION. HE MADE YOU LOOK! That is extraordinary!
Anyway, interesting blog entry. I enjoyed reading it.
well i just wanted to comprehend the background of art and the meaning it has to it.