I believe that expression of creativity is the impetus of life and art is a medium for sharing this expression with others so as to give impulse to creativity. There is little purpose to life if not to create.

What gives art (literature, poetry, religious texts, visual art, music, etc.) its power over the human soul? — Agustino

Not to drag up Berdyaev again, but he has, to me, the best word about art. I'll find a quote later when I'm at home. He says that the creative urge isn't trying to create art, but new being. Art is always a failure in this sense, because it can't create new being. What creativity births instead are symbols of the spirit at best, and calcified, lifeless objectifications of spirit at worst. As art becomes more and more life-like thanks to technology, we can see that urge to create actual being, and we can see it fail.

So, the power art has for us is humanistic in a sense because we feel our own spiritual potential when we create and experience art. It's powerful, because it's the divine element moving in us to create new being. And the symbols we end up with instead hint at the divine element in us; they nudge us; the best art always suggests a limitless potential, and we feel as if we're a part of this potential when we experience it; we don't feel like outside observers, we participate in the art itself. The audience is always fifty percent or more of the art.

Clearly, art never helped man to survive, except in a very abstract kind of way. — Agustino

Yes, and any attempt at making an argument for this is just a juvenile projection of modern conceptions on the past.

• expression (especially if one performs an artistic act, like singing in the shower, writing a poem)
• pleasure in doing art as well as in consuming art
• decoration of spaces
• stimulation of the emotions and intellect
• distraction
• interesting stories, melodies, sounds, rhythms, scenes...
• socially shared--experiencing the arts with other people
• "spiritual" functions (gaining "power over the human soul" through rituals, ceremonies, incantations)
• obtain income

The essence of art that it is utterly useless, meaningless and serves no other purpose beyond aesthetics.

Clearly, art never helped man to survive — Agustino

Rather than art being a superfluous add-on whose function isn't clear, art is an integral part of the human enterprise. The mind that can paint a picture can also draw a map. The skills required in perspective drawing is part of the skill of navigation. The bard who can recite the people's myths in poetic form might also incite the people to action. Building a cathedral might seem to contribute nothing to survival except: what it takes to build a cathedral also is required to build a castle, fort, factory, mill, etc. What it takes to amuse the people with fireworks is also required to blast a lead ball down a narrow tube. Workers chanting can better coordinate their movements. Comedy can give release from the tedium of the day; it can also be used as a weapon (like savage travesties directed at a recently elected president, for instance...)

Are you saying that art is valuable because the same skills it requires are useful for utilitarian purposes as well? Why not just turn it around and say, for instance, "The mind that can draw a map can also paint a picture"?

I said art was an integral part of the human enterprise. We can say it either way: "The mind that can draw a map can also paint a picture" or "The mind that can paint a picture can draw a map." Art isn't valuable merely because it has utilitarian values. Its also valuable because we enjoy it, we find art refreshing, invigorating, and so on.

Ok, I do agree with you on those points, on a basic level. I do think that art being valuable because "we enjoy it, find it refreshing, invigorating" is a starting point, but I don't think that answers the question of what it's purpose is. Those aspects are just results of our experience.

Art is a way to experience and express culture.
As a purpose it serves to reinforce your identity.

ART

Sometimes people can define art as a beautiful painting or a drawing hung on the wall of an art gallery. Dance and music are also great expressions of art. I envisioned art a few summer days back in everything that was everywhere. This essay is about what I saw and how I got there on that very special day.

I decided to go for a bike ride through the oldest and in my opinion the finest neighborhoods in the city, searching for the best flower garden. It was going to be a contest and I was the judge. I do not spend my weekends gardening nor have I ever judged a garden contest before. I also have never sauntered casually on my bicycle. Using it for exercise and mountainous speed ventures was the norm. It seemed a relaxing idea so out the door I went. Early in my contest I discovered a residential garden of such magnitude that it set the bar or standard that all other gardens would be judged. The garden had everything beautiful. It had color, shade, or shadow, design, and a place. It was clean and well manicured. It had meandering walks with areas for contemplation. I stopped for a while and saw the garden and its diverse vegetation as a piece or pieces of art. The rest of the day from there or then on became an art show. I saw artistic gardens and flowers everywhere. I began to smell the art, it was intoxicating. I started to see art in the design of homes too, and how the gardens were meant to complement each other. I saw it in entrance ways, stain glass windows, and staircases. There was art in the majestic tree lined streets. I eventually made it downtown to the river where everything drains including meandering bicyclists. Someone had designed the most unbelievable fountain with marble walkways and hanging baskets of flowers. I talked with a few bystanders in the art gallery I was traveling, and noticed they had art all over them. It was in their jewelry, hair style, clothes, and a smile that remains etched in my mind. I stopped in a café for some nourishment and also to come down a little bit. Unbelievably, the food was artistic, made by artisans in a dining room that defined decor in a unusual way. When I came back outside, I looked up and saw cotton ball clouds on a turquoise canvas, oh please stop!

I ended my trip or art show five hours later buying the best garden in the city a first place award. I see art much more often today and in many more places. Not like that special day but much more than I ever had. Art is in everything, and is made by everyone. Thanks to all the artists who create everything.

=

The purpose of art is to satisfy that "not enough" feeling that seems to torture us all.

Yes! I know the sort of experience you had. I've had experiences like that.

Art is a way to experience and express culture. — m-theory

No; art is culture. You have it backwards; art generates what we know as culture. So far, everyone in this thread except MJA is selling art far too short; sheepishly coming up with nice-sounding platitudes to try to reason away the confusion that is art. Art doesn't avail itself to abstraction and logical analysis.

As a purpose it serves to reinforce your identity. — m-theory

I don't get it, can you elaborate?

I said art can be an expression of culture but it can also be an experience of culture (the audience of art experiences culture the artist expresses culture).

I also mean that we develop our since of identity from expressions or experiences of culture.
It helps shape our view of our societies and our place within those societies.

I said art can be an expression of culture but it can also be an experience of culture (the audience of art experiences culture the artist expresses culture). — m-theory

My problem is this doesn't take it far enough. Art creates culture, it's not just an expression or experience of culture. Or, more accurately...one doesn't create the other, rather...art and culture are inseparably intertwined, or at least, they were in past ages. Maybe not in our age. The lines between art and culture are not clear cut. Saying art expresses culture assumes that culture is a thing that exists prior to art. This isn't accurate. Art isn't an expression of culture; culture itself is an expression. Art is primary, not secondary with regards to culture.

I don't see a conflict here.
To say that art is an expression and/or an experience of culture, in my view, is no different than saying that art is culture.
I am merely making a distinction between creating art and experiencing art.

I think art is a way to communicate culture, but culture can be communicated in ways that are not necessarily art.

Art can give us new perspectives on culture or of ourselves.
We can learn things about our ourselves and/or about society from art.

You touch upon something that I am not sure I agree with.
You say that art is culture.

If it were the case that our ancestors that had developed cultures also had art, I would agree.
But if art does not show up until the evolution of language then I would say that it art is not strictly culture it is communication about culture.

I don't see a conflict here.
To say that art is an expression and/or an experience of culture, in my view, is no different than saying that art is culture.
I am merely making a distinction between creating art and experiencing art.

I think art is a way to communicate culture, but culture can be communicated in ways that are not necessarily art. — m-theory

Fair enough on all counts.

If it were the case that our ancestors that had developed cultures also had art, I would agree.
But if art does not show up until the evolution of language then I would say that it art is not strictly culture it is communication about culture. — m-theory

I hate to ask the annoying question, but - how do you define culture? I realize it's a hard word to define; I'm just asking for clarity.

Where do you get the idea that art doesn't show up until the evolution of language? Again, just asking honestly; are there studies? Maybe I'm just not aware of them. But, if so, how can culture exist at all prior to language? Language, to me, is our interface with reality and experience. Language is another element of humanity that is inseparable from things like culture and art. It's not so cut and dry that we can differentiate periods of time before/after language, and thereby before/after culture or art. This feels tangential to the topic, though. But any thoughts are welcome.

I hate to ask the annoying question, but - how do you define culture? I realize it's a hard word to define; I'm just asking for clarity. — Noble Dust

Man that is a tough one.
I am not sure how it should be defined, the more I think about the more I am inclined to believe it has to do with language.

Where do you get the idea that art doesn't show up until the evolution of language? Again, just asking honestly; are there studies? Maybe I'm just not aware of them. But, if so, how can culture exist at all prior to language? Language, to me, is our interface with reality and experience. Language is another element of humanity that is inseparable from things like culture and art. It's not so cut and dry that we can differentiate periods of time before/after language, and thereby before/after culture or art. This feels tangential to the topic, though. But any thoughts are welcome. — Noble Dust

Oh I did not mean to suggest that it does or does not, I was just thinking well what kind of culture did human ancestors have, did they have art?
When does art show up and is it about the same time language does?
If so I think it would be safe to say they are related

I thought it was an interesting question and the more I thought about it the more I thought that maybe culture was closely linked to language, I do not actually know if that is the case or not, I have not researched the subject enough.

I do think that art being valuable because "we enjoy it, find it refreshing, invigorating" is a starting point, but I don't think that answers the question of what it's purpose is. Those aspects are just results of our experience. — Noble Dust

Now wait a minute here... Art is something we create ; we get something out of something that we do that makes us want to do it again. Yes, "just results of our experience". What more is there, pray tell, than our own estimation of a purpose in something we do? Is there something more to a bicycle than our estimation of what it is good for, like transportation or exercise and the usefulness that we identify in riding a bike rather than walking or riding a horse? No, there isn't.

If you think there is something above and beyond our own estimation of the value in something that we do, then you need to come up with that something PDQ. Art doesn't have an existence outside of human activity.

Now wait a minute here... Art is something we create — Bitter Crank

But by creating it, do we even know what it is that we're creating? Often times, no.

What more is there, pray tell, than our own estimation of a purpose in something we do? — Bitter Crank

Agreed, except we seem to have different estimations of the purpose of that thing we do, namely art! And here we have a fundamental problem with art; it's definition...

Or, similarly, an agreed-upon consensus of what exactly it is that we're doing when we "do" art...

Is there something more to a bicycle than our estimation of what it is good for, like transportation or exercise and the usefulness that we identify in riding a bike rather than walking or riding a horse? No, there isn't. — Bitter Crank

Correct, but this analogy is misused. Art is not to humanity as a bike is to the rider. Humanity is not riding the bike of art for the sake of getting from point a to point b. Art is as much the rider as humanity is.

If you think there is something above and beyond our own estimation of the value in something that we do, then you need to come up with that something PDQ. — Bitter Crank

What is PDQ?

Art doesn't have an existence outside of human activity. — Bitter Crank

True!

What is PDQ? — Noble Dust

PDQ = Pretty Damned Quick.

But by creating it, do we even know what it is that we're creating? — Noble Dust

Yes, I think we do. Now, whether somebody else LIKES IT is another matter, and quite often people who don't like something are unwilling to call it "art".

Agreed, excep we seem to have different estimations of the purpose of that thing we do, namely art! And here we have a fundamental problem with art; it's definition... — Noble Dust

It's not a problem. We can have different estimations of the purpose of art. That's fine, and we can define art however we like. Besides, Marcel Duchamp -- that TITAN of ART who entered a urinal in the 1917 Armory Art Show in New York City -- said that "If you call something art, then it is art." So that settles it. Art is whatever you think art is.

Duchamp wasn't a nit wit; he was putting the art world on with his signed 'found art' urinal. He also did interesting paintings and assemblages.

We can dither over the preferred definition of art till the cows come home, as if there were clearly drawn lines around what "must be art' and what "can't be art". "Art" is by definition open ended. You can't have art AND a closed ended definition. As a structural member, a piece of steel is a closed-ended object. It either meets formal structural standards, or it doesn't. As a sculpture, a piece of steel is open ended: it has no formal standard to meet. It doesn't have to look like anything in particular; it doesn't have to do something; you don't have to like it. If Joe Blow made it as an art work, then it is art. Don't like it? Fine. Don't look at it.

There isn't any grand mystery here that hasn't been uncovered. Stop looking.

Yes, I think we do. Now, whether somebody else LIKES IT is another matter, and quite often people who don't like something are unwilling to call it "art". — Bitter Crank

No, it's not this simple. So often, the artist isn't aware of how the audience will interpret the art. Dylan was confounded by how deeply his audience interpreted his lyrics. Now, who's "right" here? Dylan, or the audience? No one is "right".

Art is whatever you think art is. — Bitter Crank

Agreed in that I don't think a definition of art has much importance, but Duchamp was just as much concerned with his concept of the "4th dimension", which is analogous to Berdyaev's comments about art being an attempt at creating new being that I mentioned earlier, which no one has addressed yet. The important thing about Duchamp isn't the concept that "art is whatever you think it is". This was Duchamp's concept, but the art world is lugubriously slow-witted to understand how concepts affect culture. What happened with Duchamp is that he killed the establishment of the art world as it existed and ushered in an age of soulless art that has no referent. Countless artists surely followed suite, but the important thing about Duchamp isn't that Warhol now could make art; Warhol wasn't making art in the same sense that Monet was. The result of Duchamp is that the creative urge in humanity moved away from art, and turned to technology. The result is that the art world turned into a meaningless elite cash cow, because, since anything was art, anything could cop a premium price, as long as the buyer was sufficiently duped (along with the rest of society). Duchamp was great exactly because he disrupted the art world as it stood; now adays, the art world is utterly irrelevant because no one has challenged Duchamp at his game. This is because the art world doesn't possess the same cultural power it possessed in 1912, and so there's nothing much to challenge. The fundamental problem today with the traditionally held view on post-modern art is that Duchamp's work (although he's actually under-appreciated academically) is viewed as still canonical in a way, whereas what's needed is a new challenger. Consequently, Duchamp's legacy lives on in technology, not art, and, necessarily, if in technology, then also in consumerism, and if in consumerism, then ultimately in a banal, meaningless application of creativity towards "the market". This is the "art" world we live in. We don't live in Duchamp's world of "anything is art", we live in the The Market's world of "anything that sells on a TV commercial is art." What contemporary artists can you name that faithfully soldier on in the wake of Duchamp's legacy? The only one I can think of is Makoto Fujimura, who superseded abstraction by connecting it back to traditional Japanese Nihonga, thereby redeeming a lifeless art form and breathing new life into it. Check out my profile pic for a taste of his work. But, unfortunately, Fujimura moves in the irrelevant high art circles that have increasingly less and less influence on culture.

Language is another element of humanity that is inseparable from things like culture and art. It's not so cut and dry that we can differentiate periods of time before/after language, and thereby before/after culture or art. This feels tangential to the topic, though. But any thoughts are welcome. — Noble Dust

This is an interesting point. Note that man is probably the only animal who is an artist in the real sense of the term. We painted before we really developed language. Men in caves painted. That is a tremendous difference between man and animal.

So, the power art has for us is humanistic in a sense because we feel our own spiritual potential when we create and experience art. It's powerful, because it's the divine element moving in us to create new being. And the symbols we end up with instead hint at the divine element in us; they nudge us; the best art always suggests a limitless potential, and we feel as if we're a part of this potential when we experience it; we don't feel like outside observers, we participate in the art itself. The audience is always fifty percent or more of the art. — Noble Dust

But this is most certainly not all from the perspective of the audience. For the perspective of the creator of art, this makes sense - they seek to create something. But from the perspective of the one who experiences art, this doesn't explain much. What effect does art have on the soul? They aren't creating new being. So what enthralls them about art? Why did, for example during the Renessaince, rich patrons of art use a large share of their family fortunes to finance artists? Why did cave men paint, and other cave men regard and care for their paintings?

I think Schopenhauer is closer here, in that art gives a quietus to the striving of the will.

Agreed in that I don't think a definition of art has much importance, but Duchamp was ... Fujimura moves in the irrelevant high art circles that have increasingly less and less influence on culture. — Noble Dust

My apologies for blithely stepping into a subject area about which you know a great deal more than I do. Thanks for the very interesting comments.

No, it's not this simple. So often, the artist isn't aware of how the audience will interpret the art. Dylan was confounded by how deeply his audience interpreted his lyrics. Now, who's "right" here? Dylan, or the audience? No one is "right". — Noble Dust

I don't think we should sever the text from authorial intent, but people do this all the time -- use a text, a sculpture, a melody, almost any object -- and project onto it whatever they feel or think, like a Rorschach image. Is that fair game? Well, sure -- as long as they don't claim to know more about what Dylan meant than Dylan himself.

The arts have done well in this past century up to the present moment. There are many outstanding works of drama, music, literature, opera, sculpture, poetry, fabrics, film and photography, painting, etc. produced in the post-Duchamp market economy. All of it great? No, of course not. There has been a good deal of awful stuff turned out across the board. Has more rubbish been produced in the 20th century than in previous times? Maybe -- there are more people producing than in previous times, and with less elite control over what gets done.

The question for me, which I don't have an answer to at the moment, is this: why would aesthetic reactions to phenomena arise (evolutionarily)? Probably it's correlated to the propagation of endorphines, dopamine, etc., which has physiological benefits, of course, but why would form--visual forms, aural forms, etc. wind up correlated to the propagation of endorphines, dopamine, etc.?

Maybe it is rooted somehow in perceptual recognition of safe versus dangerous environments, although aesthetic reactions don't map to that very well. So I don't know.

At any rate, once we can answer the question of why aesthetic reactions to phenomena arise, why art moves us is an easy issue. It's simply a matter of people (artificially) creating forms that engender aesthetic reactions.

Ok, I do agree with you on those points, on a basic level. I do think that art being valuable because "we enjoy it, find it refreshing, invigorating" is a starting point, but I don't think that answers the question of what it's purpose is. — Noble Dust

There's not an answer to that anyway. The question is flawed because is presupposes that there are things like universal purposes.

The Berdyaev stuff you were talking about in the earlier post is an example of the fallacy of trying to squeeze widespread behavior into a unified interpretive template.

What is PDQ? — Noble Dust

Asking what Art's purpose is seems to me to be like asking what Man's purpose is, neither question is likely to be definitively answered. It would be interesting to know if Art gave rise to Religion, or Religion gave rise to Art. They both seem endless entwined throughout history. Did the cave painting of a gazelle capture the spirit of the gazelle for tribal members; did these people revere the cave painting it in the same way the Russian Orthodox followers revere their Icons. This reverence in Art has not gone away, I think Warhol, Roy Lichtenstein & other contemporary paintings/other works of Art that are iconic and sometimes ironic symbols of what our culture reveres.

Speaking of Art* as a movement of aesthetic works throughout history, is different than speaking about a particular work of art**. The stated purpose of a commissioned work of art**, may or may not match up with Art*s expectations, thinking of Lucian Freud's portraits. But his works become accepted because they opened up new territories in aesthetic taste, they unveil new possibilities which enable and continue the development of Art*.

The question for me, which I don't have an answer to at the moment, is this: why would aesthetic reactions to phenomena arise (evolutionarily)? — Terrapin Station

That's just it, beginning with the assumption that it needs an evolutionary reason to arise is a fallacy.

Beginning with that fallacy always leads to wild conjectures like this:

Maybe it is rooted somehow in perceptual recognition of safe versus dangerous environments, although aesthetic reactions don't map to that very well. So I don't know. — Terrapin Station

The Berdyaev stuff you were talking about in the earlier post is an example of the fallacy of trying to squeeze widespread behavior into a unified interpretive template. — Terrapin Station

Have you studied much art?