Where would the world be without art?

[Khadijah]

Many people got a attitude of "you can sit around all day dreaming and drawing , or you can get out there and get a job and contribute to the world. Kids cant even speak english right and they want more money for art programs? that should be the last priority." or "We need doctors we need lawyers and physicists and surgeons and architects and people who can supply the practical needs of the human race. if everyone jus spends all their time tryin to make pretty pictures, what kinda state would we be in?" or "id rather have my bread and butter and food on the table than a $200 hunk of glass or wood sittin on my coffee table."

or like MazDan said in the art forum thread on here "whats the point of buyin a bunch of paint smeared on a piece of board? why would it be worth hundreds of dollars?"

So there is many good questions people ask and some just dont see the value of art. So what do you think the value of art (not money wise but culturally) is? What are your answers to the people who dont see or believe in the importance of art (and the arts, not just painting, etc but dance, music, and everything.)

Well? How do you think this planet would be different without art? how would it look? where would we be?

 

[Cartesia]

I think art, music, drugs, and many other things. . need to be used in the right context.

When these things are used with intention/meaning they can be useful, whether that meaning is to convey a message, or to calm somebody /psychotherapy etc.

All these things have the ability to communicate, and the ability to effect emotion. They also have the ability to be mindless wastes of time.

If there was no art, the world would probably have more scientists, but it would probably have more lawyers, which offset any productivity of mankind, so it would cancel out and be much the same I think. Nature would make up for the 'lack' of beautiful images.

 

[Pander Bear]

Human beings without art of any kind are distinctly not human beings. Art is the most important part of a culture. Its a distillation of anything anybody thought was important enough to do.

I almost find the first paragraph laughable, because I consider this so axiomatic and universally understood. Show me a person who says there isn't any value in music, painting, dance, architecture, verse, prose, sculpture, garment making, or design, and I'll show you someone who I wouldn't think twice about running over at a crosswalk.

 

[Khadijah]

Cartesia - I agree...BUT....that aint exactly answerin the question now is it?

Atlas i find the first paragraph laughable too but yet there is many people who think that way and believe that type of shit.

i think its one of them questions like "which is more valuable a human life or a monument of human achievement" as in "if a museum is burning down is it more important to save the people inside or the artwork in it? some people view art as a good thing "on the side" but not somethin that is a main concern of human advancement na mean? like "sure its fun, but is it really worth that much?"

I believe it means alot of course but i was wonderin what the rest of yall think.

 

[QuestionEverything]

The world as we know it would not exist without artists. There is art in everything that surrounds you. Who designed that car/bus/bike you ride every day? Who designed those shoes you wear, those clothes you put on, the furniture that fills your house, and your house itself for that matter? Artists. I think this is what most people fail to see when they think of art. The computer you are sitting in front of this very minute was designed and made not only by those that came up with the inner workings, but those that made it streamlined and able to be placed in nearly every home across the globe.

As far as the comparison of a painting to a dingy house with paint falling off of it, I find that completely asinine.

 

[FiatFlux]

to me, art exhibits the human potential in a visual language, something which the human spirit cannot survive without. a world without art is a world without drama, emotion, meaning, or self-reflection/realization. if those things are important to you, then it follows that art should be important to you as well.

also, art doesn't bear borders of communication in the same way that spoken language does; once you are exposed to visual language, you are able to interpret things without logic/culture playing such a significant role in communication.

 

[Belisarius]

I'm with Atlas: I think art is a fundamental characteristic of humanity--modern humanity, anyway. Art exists in the simplest forest tribes and in the most populous cities, and I don't society would be recognizable without it. That there are people who don't appreciate art doesn't matter, only that the capacity for art as a whole--for the entire species--exists.

For instance, I think art and imagination--the same kind of imagination that can allow one to write a poem *or* to conceive of a better tool--are inextricably linked. A world without art would be one without imagination, and a world without imagination would be...well, let's just say that we'd probably still be using stone tools and scavenging dead animals.

 

[MazDan]

lacey...........I think you will find my point was..........I dont understand why people pay stupid ammounts of money for paintings.

If it takes 4 hours to paint the pic including setup and wat have u and the materials cost 20 bucks and the hoyrly rate is say 75 per hour then that makes the painting worth about 320.00............thats all.

And as for them ultra old paintings that have to be cleaned and touched up........hello?????????? they are old and had it..........chuck em out for heavens sake.

A perfect example..........the Australian government paid 2 million bucks for this bit of utter garbage..........

A total waste of tax payers money............a 5 year old could do better.

A perfect example of another painting that is just not worth a crumpet.......

I mean seriously..........why would you want to buy that?????????

Its god damn ugly.


The price of art is just so fucked up and a perfect of example of how fucked up society is.

 

[MazDan]

Oh and to answer your question regards to where the world would be without art..........

Probably a damn site better off because maybe some of the stupid ammounts of money exchanged may be used to help people who really need it.

 

[L2R]

ah mazza mazza mazza.....

both those above examples are awesome. you say a four year old could do better, well i sure as hell can't. can you?

visual art does not have to "look like what it is" to be worthwhile. that first pic, whilst i'm no expert, is gorgeously interpretive.

the second is an example of immaculate technique. well that, and it's a rare historic artifact.

life without art is an absurd notion, for art is present in ALL works, whether they be practical or purely aesthetic.


hell, your post is a work of art

 

[MazDan]

that first pic, whilst i'm no expert, is gorgeously interpretive.

the second is an example of immaculate technique.

ahhhhhhhhhh...........but you see what your saying???????????

your suggesting that you have to be some sort of expert to appreciate it.

Well if art is done simply to appease some expert then it has even a smaller market and should be even cheaper.


There is NO such thing as an "art expert"...........beauty is in the eye of the beholder..........I will decide for myself what is garbage and what is OK.

In my examples above a child could draw garbage in a much more appealing way and in the second........... its just ugly and old...........throw it out for heavens sake.

Now this is what i call art..........

by a Bluelight poster called hearshot-kiddisaster and features in the gallery.

Its interesting and is a picture of something.........not nothing like the first pic above and not old and ugly and down right boring like the second.

 

[L2R]

^you just like it cuz it got boobs in it.

I really don't find it appealing at all. Those blur/smear effects are cheap (imo) and the image as a whole has very little depth. but that's just my ever superior oponion.

and read again, i said i was NO expert, yet i could most definitely appreciate that first piece.

 

[FiatFlux]

the mistake that you are making is in thinking that art is purely aesthetic.

edit: also, the first work you pointed out i'm pretty sure is a jackson pollock, one of his "action paintings." it is referential to jungian psychology (the idea of collective consciousness is present -- upon looking at the painting, one would pull his own meaning out of it through various visual "totems" -- a truly revolutionary idea in the 1940's)

the thing about the pieces that you've mentioned is that in 2007, they are hardly revolutionary. but in 1940 or in the early 1500's, these ideas and concepts had not yet been developed fully or popularized. therefore they serve as important visual milestones of the evolution of human consciousness.

do you think items in a natural history museum are worthless as well? if some early aboriginal pottery looks like "a 5 year old could have made it" does it no longer have value solely because it doesn't live up to todays sleekly designed standards of functionality?

 

[MazDan]

^you just like it cuz it got boobs in it.

I really don't find it appealing at all. Those blur/smear effects are cheap (imo) and the image as a whole has very little depth. but that's just my ever superior oponion.

and read again, i said i was NO expert, yet i could most definitely appreciate that first piece.

lol.........I know your not an expert........as I said........there is no such thing as an expert so you cant possibly be one........lol.

I also said that beauty is in the eye of the beholder............. I would pay a hundred or so for that BL pic but i wouldnt pay tuppence for the others.


In all seriousness how much would you pay for the one you like?


Oh and Im sorry but I dont even know what your talking about regards smears and depths and stuff...........I just like it.........doesnt look smudged to me and anyways how can it have depth.........its a painting, its 2D.


Fiatflux.........what else could it be?

Actually i guess thats a dum question............My car is painted and thats not for aesthetics but to keep rust out and to show the mud.

 

[MazDan]

the mistake that you are making is in thinking that art is purely aesthetic.

edit: also, the first work you pointed out i'm pretty sure is a jackson pollock, one of his "action paintings." it is referential to jungian psychology (the idea of collective consciousness is present -- upon looking at the painting, one would pull his own meaning out of it through various visual "totems" -- a truly revolutionary idea in the 1940's)

the thing about the pieces that you've mentioned is that in 2007, they are hardly revolutionary. but in 1940 or in the early 1500's, these ideas and concepts had not yet been developed fully or popularized. therefore they serve as important visual milestones of the evolution of human consciousness.

do you think items in a natural history museum are worthless as well? if some early aboriginal pottery looks like "a 5 year old could have made it" does it no longer have value solely because it doesn't live up to todays sleekly designed standards of functionality?

aha, thanks for expanding.

Umm..........an action painting?? come on man you really have to stop using that stuff........there aint no action in that jumbled mess of paint that looks like its been thrown at the wall...........seriously my 4wd makes better masterpeices when it splashes mud all over my house as it drives by.

Yes i accept its an idea or a concept ........it has to be or it wouldnt exist..........but its stupid and I cant understand why anyone would be conned into thinking its worth anything.

Sorry, stupid is a stupid word..........I guess i mean..........its just a picture of nothing......just paint chucked arround........... there is no logic to it. And even less logic to anyone who would pay more than the artists time for it.



I understand what your saying regards the pottery in a museum.........but thats more like its a bit of history.............. but its no big deal really......... I mean if its old and fragile then just make some plaster copies so there are new ones.

Same with that fugly pic.......... someone should paint a new pic of it if its that appealing to anyone.

 

[pennywise]

While it has been (generally) agreed upon that art has intrinsic value, I think the more difficult next step is quantifying the value of art in terms of it's equivalent in material goods. Like laceyk said in the OP, people often compare the value of art with the value of the alternative that is being forgone in favor of the consumption of art (i.e. buying art vs. buying food).

It seems that, given the choice between eating and enjoying art, one would have to choose eating as more valuable because, clearly, if one does not eat, one cannot continue living and enjoying art. The paradox, however, is that if one cannot enjoy art then (at least from my perspective) there is no point to prolong your life by eating.

For me, eating food (and other things that I do to survive) is only a means to an end, and that end is enjoying the good things in life, which includes producing and consuming beautiful things, be they paintings, songs, books, plays, performances, films, photographs, etc.

So to say that one would rather consume food than consume art, from my perspective, is to miss the point entirely.

 

[FiatFlux]

^ OK by "action painting" I meant "gestural abstraction" and it's supposed to be about the PROCESS of painting (one instant in time never to be repeated, but representing all time, and therefore being timeless in nature) -- this was a precursor to performance art, for example, Rosenberg, an art critic of the time, famously called the canvas "an arena in which to act" -- no longer was it something stuffy, caught up in it's own devices. You have to understand that in the 1940's this was a wildly revolutionary idea, to visually break down and study the process of creation rather than just recording an event. You could say artists like Van Gogh did the same thing, but his work was at least referential to an image....

Anyway, I don't think rambling on about art history is going to help much....

Just a question though: Are you interested in the evolution of human consciousness?

 

[MazDan]

EDIT.......meant for Pennywise......... Now that is a good post and i understand where your coming from.

You see for me........eating is just fabulous. I will go for days at a time eating nothing but vegemite sammiches just so i can splurge all out on a really special meal ............ If I had to look at a heap of art in order to get that fabulous meal then looking at art would only be as a means to an end.......and that end is enjoying the good things in life, which includes eating fabulous food.


Now before you get into me..........Im not really being a smart ass and I do truly mean what i just said.

But it also helps to highlight the point that everyone is different and how your rembrandt is my toilet paper and one of my loves is nothing but a means to an end for you.


Coming back to the original question.........

Where would the world be without art?

maybe the better question would be..........

Where would your world be without art?

 

[MazDan]

^ OK by "action painting" I meant "gestural abstraction" and it's supposed to be about the PROCESS of painting (one instant in time never to be repeated, but representing all time, and therefore being timeless in nature) -- this was a precursor to performance art, for example, Rosenberg, an art critic of the time, famously called the canvas "an arena in which to act" -- no longer was it something stuffy, caught up in it's own devices. You have to understand that in the 1940's this was a wildly revolutionary idea, to visually break down and study the process of creation rather than just recording an event. You could say artists like Van Gogh did the same thing, but his work was at least referential to an image....

Fiat........are you saying all that in relation to the Blue Poles picture???

I seriously hope not............ a painting just is..........there is nothing to read into it...........it just is.




Mate I quite honestly dont think i know anything about the evolution of human conciousness............. Is it important?

If its interesting then I would probably be interested in learning.

 

[QuestionEverything]

One of the largest points I think a lot of people miss when judging any form of abstraction (like the action painting) MazDan, is that generally speaking, these old 'firsts' were just that, the first person to have done such a thing, and thought in that new way. That's not only a huge step in the 'art world', but as FiatFlux stated, human consciousness.

While you may think the Mona Lisa is god dammed ugly, it's a piece of history, and shows great talent and technical ability, something few people have.