Is art useful/ necessary?

[annelaure]

There are various aspects to art, that cover what’s aesthetical, human, or even moral (there currently is a photography exhibit in a museum in Toulouse which subject is ‘autopsy’, and you can see all the details and all the steps of someone carrying an autopsy).

Art doesn’t contribute to a materialistic well being, or to any useful purpose to make

Comments

Is Art necessary?

[bronchitikat]

At its most basic level Art is an expression of creativity. To be creative is to be fully human. So yes.

Beauty raises the spirits. Whether it's a red tulip or a photo of that tulip, it still raises the spirits. When people live in 'concrete' boxes & grey environments beauty, & beautiful art, is even more important. For that matter, people writing & singing protest songs about their grey environment is also an act of creativity - a statement that they, too, are human.
& it's a better way of expressing that humanity than merely going around destroying things - because it's the only way they know to make a mark.

Mind you, when it comes to Art being used as a way of displaying wealth, status, taste (or lack thereof) - or all the other ways it can be used to create or emphasise divisions & keep people down . . . You can keep that!

Well, that's what I think anyhow.

Re: Is Art necessary?

[annelaure]

:)

[papertowlbtrfly]

I think art is simply anything that strikes you and evokes an emotion. I like industrial warehouses :)

Anything that strikes you and evokes an emotion

[annelaure]

It is different to pretty much everyone then. And it also can be anything..

It is meaningful

[dkamab]

I can’t remember the author however I recall that he equated art to the sacred or ‘making’ sacred. As one can imagine this particular author was addressing the need for religion. So, what is the sacred? More importantly why is it necessary - and it is necessary - for human beings to engage in such behavior? Ultimately this leads to the question of what motivates human beings? These are developmental psychology questions without definitive answers. It is important, I believe, to separate what ‘art’ is today from its beginnings. While the subconscious/motivational underpinnings may be the same how we view it is entirely different. This relates to the role culture plays on shaping our perceptions; back to the question of the necessity of art as it relates to its beginnings

Re: It is meaningful

[annelaure]

Thank you for your comment, and sorry it took me so long to answer it. It needed some thinking...

I do not know what what motivates human beings, but I think it's different for anyone.
Part of it probably is, indeed, immortality. (quite ironical when we're talking about the pictures of that woman..)
Maybe some artists indeed find nature overwhelming, but seeing how many of them have been lonely people, I'm not sure they find that much strength and support from the others, but maybe from the look other people give on their art, and they strive to be "someone" in that field.

Now an interesting question would be "what is the meaning"? Is it art as a whole or as one individual thing? For example, I paint, I scrapbook, I knit.... some of those things can be considered art (unvoluntary modern art to some). Do all these things have the meaning associate with art, or do only some of them mean something that would be more than just a "I did it" thing?