What is the purpose of art? Why do people invest time and money to make and enjoy aesthetic objects and events?
For many people, engagement with the arts, whether in the form of the things we hang on our walls, the books we choose to read, the films and programmes we see in theaters and on our TVs, the music we listen to in so many different contexts, and the visits we make to museums or theatrical performances, accounts for significant amount of their time. The question of why we invest this time has been the stimulus for a lot of thought over the centuries, even though most people don't feel the need to ask it. For many, art is enjoyable--and perhaps there is nothing to gain in dissecting a good thing.
But many do ask, and I think that this asking is a reflection of the best answer to the question. Let me back up and offer some of the many purposes proposed over the years for art.
First, there have been strong arguments that art in fact serves no purpose, or more specifically, that we derive no personal gain from aesthetic things—and that this is at least partly the source of their enjoyment. This is the “disinterest” theory of art, that we take pleasure from art precisely because it serves no practical purpose. Kant argued that disinterest (not in the sense of “not interested,” but in the sense of “providing no profit”) is essential for being able to see something as aesthetic--that as soon as a practical purpose becomes a driver, aesthetic value is squashed. However, most of us would agree that pleasure is not without value, and although the value of pleasure is not as direct as sustenance, it might be a sign of other gains.
In contrast, some have said that art is our way of making aspects of our world “special,” or distinct from everyday experience, in order to celebrate our humanity. Art allows us to give human meaning to things (Dissanayake, 1995). Baroque and Rococo visual art, for example, emphasized the pleasures and drama of being human. But stories and rituals offer more universal and fundamental examples. Whether captured as literature or related over dinner, stories put a frame around a certain experience and provide it a structure; they define relationships and uncover motives. Stories distill plots and themes from the ongoing flow of experience. In other words, stories make life special in a critical way--they help us make sense of our lives when everyday experience fails us (Burke, 1945; Bruner, 1985). The “making special” purpose is also clear when we consider the universal drive for social rituals, some of which are not only filled with decoration and elaborate works of art, but become art forms in themselves.
Others offer that the function of art is to to create a distraction for the miseries we encounter in everyday life (Connor, 1999). It can be argued that art disguises the true state of the world--its messiness, inconclusiveness, seeming randomness, or worse, malignancy. Some people use television and Internet entertainment excessively, preventing potentially more productive behaviors that require more effort and helping them forget their troubles. Some read adventure, intrigue and romance novels to make up for the lives they see as mundane otherwise.
This distraction argument is very similar to Plato’s assertion, in The Republic, that art is merely imitation, and a negative influence on one's ability to live a good life. In Plato’s case, and the case of those that have interpreted him, art does not disguise misery, but prevents the discovery of a more beautiful truth that can be discovered only through philosophy and other intellectual disciplines, leaving it concealed under a pleasant, easier, and therefore addictive veneer.
The concept of catharsis has some similarities to the “distraction” argument, but instead suggests “redirection,” in that art, especially in forms that evoke powerful emotion, can be therapeutic in helping us work out issues and anxieties that are otherwise difficult to address directly. Some argue that dreams function in the same way, so art might be seen as a form of dreaming in waking life. Catharsis is seen as both emotional purification (relieving harmful emotions) or as building emotional resilience (a sort of emotional practice). But in both cases it is suggesting that art is still a substitute, or imitation of life.
Art has a more direct positive impact if it is assumed to be instructive--showing us life as it is or ought to be (in direct contrast to Plato's concern about imitation). Realism is an approach to art that strives to depict the life we know, reassuring our communal perceptions and at the same time impressing us with the artist's skill in reproduction. But more than just being realistic, artistic realism also intends to help us see aspects of life that might otherwise be difficult to see. It might depict a social ugliness often ignored, or celebrate the everyday beauty of life we sometimes forget. In other words, art may function to point out what we should see and value, but too often miss.
But some suggest that art is much more significant, even capable of transcending everyday life. Romanticism saw artists as having a special connection to nature or spiritual dimensions, as being conduits to the truth that lies beneath the surface of everyday life (Emerson, 1844). From this stance, artists are especially sensitive to the symbols that nature offers instead of revealing its truths directly. They have the ability to understand and use these symbols, or metaphors, in ways most of us cannot. Some see artists as voices for god and nature, as offering expressions of the divine. Medieval artists also held this role, although the church itself was the conduit to the divine, and the artist merely the church’s servant.
Coming perhaps full circle, back to the belief that art is primarily without purpose, others have recently claimed that art has no inherent purpose or value, but that it is merely what a privileged social group calls “art” (Dickie, 1971). In other words, a particular art work, art form, or artist gains status through visibility (in the right places) or word-of-mouth (from the right sources). Awards, critical reviews, gallery openings, and even political support are in control, and can permit the emergence of widely disparate examples of modern and postmodern art, or, on the other hand, narrow perspectives. From this perspective, aesthetic value may not exist until it is institutionally designated, for whatever reason (even one of the above). Art is not the product of a personal judgment or experience, but a socially contrived one. So in this case the ultimate purpose of art is simply a way to show your sophistication, through group membership, to others.
Given the diverse purposes of art that have been proposed, all of which contain a grain of truth, some have questioned the value of any theory of art that attempts to define it (Weitz, 1956). What is more useful is to view art as an open concept, one that has multiple references and evolves as new uses of the concept emerge. I began this post not with the question, “What is art?,” but “What is the purpose of art?” The "What is art" question creates lots of conceptual problems, and can force us to prematurely assign a purpose and context in order to get the answer we want. The answer might be very different if you feel art should instruct, provide distraction, or have no purpose. It might be better to explore what broad category of things serve all the purposes we attribute to art.
In various situations, art can function in any the ways mentioned so far--to cleanse, heal, distract, celebrate, instruct (or obstruct), transcend, or simply impress, all of which suggest that everyday life somehow holds us back. As Picasso rather dramatically put it, the purpose of art is "washing the dust of daily life off our souls." But art has another critical function that fully embraces everyday experience as being without dust. This function is engagement--appreciation and participation in life, even everyday life, in ways that strengthen our involvement and help us to derive not just more pleasure, but more meaning. The meaningful engagement hypothesis helps to explain each of the other purposes, but casts them in a new light. Under this light, art is not trivial by any means, but neither is everyday life. And the conceptual problem of defining what art IS is made simpler. In fact, it is all around us.
-------------------
References
Dissanayake, E. (1995), Homo Aestheticus
Burke, K. (1945), A Grammar of Motives
Bruner, J. (1985), Actual Minds, Possible Worlds
Connor, S. (1999), What If There Were No Such Thing As The Aesthetic?
Dickie, G. (1971), Aesthetics, An Introduction
Emerson, R.W. (1844), The Poet. Essays, Second Series
Weitz, M. (1956), The Role of Theory in Aesthetics. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 15: 27–35
For many people, engagement with the arts, whether in the form of the things we hang on our walls, the books we choose to read, the films and programmes we see in theaters and on our TVs, the music we listen to in so many different contexts, and the visits we make to museums or theatrical performances, accounts for significant amount of their time. The question of why we invest this time has been the stimulus for a lot of thought over the centuries, even though most people don't feel the need to ask it. For many, art is enjoyable--and perhaps there is nothing to gain in dissecting a good thing.
 |
| Photo by Patrick Parrish |
First, there have been strong arguments that art in fact serves no purpose, or more specifically, that we derive no personal gain from aesthetic things—and that this is at least partly the source of their enjoyment. This is the “disinterest” theory of art, that we take pleasure from art precisely because it serves no practical purpose. Kant argued that disinterest (not in the sense of “not interested,” but in the sense of “providing no profit”) is essential for being able to see something as aesthetic--that as soon as a practical purpose becomes a driver, aesthetic value is squashed. However, most of us would agree that pleasure is not without value, and although the value of pleasure is not as direct as sustenance, it might be a sign of other gains.
In contrast, some have said that art is our way of making aspects of our world “special,” or distinct from everyday experience, in order to celebrate our humanity. Art allows us to give human meaning to things (Dissanayake, 1995). Baroque and Rococo visual art, for example, emphasized the pleasures and drama of being human. But stories and rituals offer more universal and fundamental examples. Whether captured as literature or related over dinner, stories put a frame around a certain experience and provide it a structure; they define relationships and uncover motives. Stories distill plots and themes from the ongoing flow of experience. In other words, stories make life special in a critical way--they help us make sense of our lives when everyday experience fails us (Burke, 1945; Bruner, 1985). The “making special” purpose is also clear when we consider the universal drive for social rituals, some of which are not only filled with decoration and elaborate works of art, but become art forms in themselves.
Others offer that the function of art is to to create a distraction for the miseries we encounter in everyday life (Connor, 1999). It can be argued that art disguises the true state of the world--its messiness, inconclusiveness, seeming randomness, or worse, malignancy. Some people use television and Internet entertainment excessively, preventing potentially more productive behaviors that require more effort and helping them forget their troubles. Some read adventure, intrigue and romance novels to make up for the lives they see as mundane otherwise.
This distraction argument is very similar to Plato’s assertion, in The Republic, that art is merely imitation, and a negative influence on one's ability to live a good life. In Plato’s case, and the case of those that have interpreted him, art does not disguise misery, but prevents the discovery of a more beautiful truth that can be discovered only through philosophy and other intellectual disciplines, leaving it concealed under a pleasant, easier, and therefore addictive veneer.
The concept of catharsis has some similarities to the “distraction” argument, but instead suggests “redirection,” in that art, especially in forms that evoke powerful emotion, can be therapeutic in helping us work out issues and anxieties that are otherwise difficult to address directly. Some argue that dreams function in the same way, so art might be seen as a form of dreaming in waking life. Catharsis is seen as both emotional purification (relieving harmful emotions) or as building emotional resilience (a sort of emotional practice). But in both cases it is suggesting that art is still a substitute, or imitation of life.
Art has a more direct positive impact if it is assumed to be instructive--showing us life as it is or ought to be (in direct contrast to Plato's concern about imitation). Realism is an approach to art that strives to depict the life we know, reassuring our communal perceptions and at the same time impressing us with the artist's skill in reproduction. But more than just being realistic, artistic realism also intends to help us see aspects of life that might otherwise be difficult to see. It might depict a social ugliness often ignored, or celebrate the everyday beauty of life we sometimes forget. In other words, art may function to point out what we should see and value, but too often miss.
But some suggest that art is much more significant, even capable of transcending everyday life. Romanticism saw artists as having a special connection to nature or spiritual dimensions, as being conduits to the truth that lies beneath the surface of everyday life (Emerson, 1844). From this stance, artists are especially sensitive to the symbols that nature offers instead of revealing its truths directly. They have the ability to understand and use these symbols, or metaphors, in ways most of us cannot. Some see artists as voices for god and nature, as offering expressions of the divine. Medieval artists also held this role, although the church itself was the conduit to the divine, and the artist merely the church’s servant.
Coming perhaps full circle, back to the belief that art is primarily without purpose, others have recently claimed that art has no inherent purpose or value, but that it is merely what a privileged social group calls “art” (Dickie, 1971). In other words, a particular art work, art form, or artist gains status through visibility (in the right places) or word-of-mouth (from the right sources). Awards, critical reviews, gallery openings, and even political support are in control, and can permit the emergence of widely disparate examples of modern and postmodern art, or, on the other hand, narrow perspectives. From this perspective, aesthetic value may not exist until it is institutionally designated, for whatever reason (even one of the above). Art is not the product of a personal judgment or experience, but a socially contrived one. So in this case the ultimate purpose of art is simply a way to show your sophistication, through group membership, to others.
 |
| Photo by Patrick Parrish |
In various situations, art can function in any the ways mentioned so far--to cleanse, heal, distract, celebrate, instruct (or obstruct), transcend, or simply impress, all of which suggest that everyday life somehow holds us back. As Picasso rather dramatically put it, the purpose of art is "washing the dust of daily life off our souls." But art has another critical function that fully embraces everyday experience as being without dust. This function is engagement--appreciation and participation in life, even everyday life, in ways that strengthen our involvement and help us to derive not just more pleasure, but more meaning. The meaningful engagement hypothesis helps to explain each of the other purposes, but casts them in a new light. Under this light, art is not trivial by any means, but neither is everyday life. And the conceptual problem of defining what art IS is made simpler. In fact, it is all around us.
-------------------
References
Dissanayake, E. (1995), Homo Aestheticus
Burke, K. (1945), A Grammar of Motives
Bruner, J. (1985), Actual Minds, Possible Worlds
Connor, S. (1999), What If There Were No Such Thing As The Aesthetic?
Dickie, G. (1971), Aesthetics, An Introduction
Emerson, R.W. (1844), The Poet. Essays, Second Series
Weitz, M. (1956), The Role of Theory in Aesthetics. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 15: 27–35
No comments:
Post a Comment