Is Art for All?

[LitNetIsGreat]

Do you think that the arts can be appreciated by all people? Is it something that can benefit everyone or is it down simply to personal taste? I am thinking in particular of the efforts by Ruskin who tried to teach art and to encourage the then “working classes” to take up art. He never expected or sought to make great artists out of everyone, for that was never his objective, he simply wanted people to really see, to view the world differently.

Could art be something that could be used to similar purposes today? Could we live in a utopian world whereby art for arts sake was the main goal, and not for say, the acquisition of wealth and status? I would be very interested to hear your views on the matter, thanks.

[Bitterfly]

I think art can be appreciated by anyone - but as it's often an acquired taste, people have to be taught to enjoy it. I suppose that schools should serve that purpose, but parents have the main responsibility. Mine taught me to love literature and music, for instance. Without their education, I doubt that I would be so passionate about them.


Could we live in a utopian world whereby art for arts sake was the main goal, and not for say, the acquisition of wealth and status?

That's precisely why I view art as necessary: because it's something gratuitous in a world that is being shaped (more and more?) by utilitarian aims. It's something that gives us back our humanity; without it, we would be just slaves to the routine of existence, who could easily replaced by machines. I think Marx wrote something about it, but can't remember where...

And I do agree with Ruskin if he said that art helped us to elaborate a different vision of reality. That's exactly why I love works of art: they open my eyes, they open up my world, they make me think about things I should never have thought about by myself.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Bitterfly

That's precisely why I view art as necessary: because it's something gratuitous in a world that is being shaped (more and more?) by utilitarian aims. It's something that gives us back our humanity; without it, we would be just slaves to the routine of existence, who could easily replaced by machines.

I couldn't agree more. It is a pity that in the current climate it is very difficult to "make a living" from the pursuit of art alone. It is very easy for people to get caught up in the daily grind and to overlook the existence of art. Despite it being "quite useless" as Wilde would say, it is also probably the most useful thing in the world, as you say it is the very thing that gives us our humanity.

[barbara0207]

That's what I feel, Bitterfly and Neely.

But I know lots of people (bankers, accountants, IT people etc) who think differently. All they ever read is the Financial Times and such, no novels, no poetry. They say they're not the worse for that. They scorn school lessons in art, music and literature because these subjects are not 'useful'. I've had a hard time convincing my own husband but I'm not quite sure if he really sees my point.

[stlukesguild]

Perhaps you might ask "is all art for everyone?"

[mayneverhave]

Certain individuals can draw a deeper appreciation of art than others. I sincerely doubt that not everyone is capable of appreciating art, but that some are capable of understanding art on levels that others would not even begin to consider.

That being said, a large number of people, while able to appreciate simple visual mediums that are immediately accessible, simply do not want to put to the time into reading, understanding literature, or dealing with such things as to why Hamlet delays his revenge or why Waiting for Godot represents a work in the absurdist tradition. It's not that such things are beyond them, but that they have no interest in the subject.

A good majority of my friends do not share my interest in literature. That doesn't make them stupid, it just means they lack an interest that I have in abundance.

I have a friend who recently had to read "I, Claudius", by Robert Graves for an English class. He finished up to the final chapter, but because the class was over and he did well on the tests, he simply stopped reading the novel and never finished the final chapter. This isn't him being an idiot, but just an example of how people can have radically different priorities in life. What is sad is that he is probably going to be rich and successful while I will starve with my literary aspirations.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Perhaps you might ask "is all art for everyone?"

That's an entirely different question, still, it can be answered if people wish.

To add to the original point the enthusiasm for books and drawing amongst young children seems almost unlimited. My children obviously thrive on books and are surrounded by them in abundance, but I have yet to see any child completely uninterested in books or in drawing pictures. Place a few musical instruments in front of them and they are equally eager to play with them and make "music".

Then something seems to happen later in life (maybe school beats that natural curiosity out of them?) and they grow up wanting to be Investment Bankers or Computer System Managers or something equally worse. The arts then become something completely alien and “useless” to meet their aims of that "success".

[stlukesguild]

Art is for everybody... and to a certain extent I believe all art is there for everybody. But there is a qualification to this. The individual must want it and be willing to put in the effort (sometimes more, sometimes less) if he or she is to appreciate it. As I have stated multiple times, I believe great art is an elective affinity. You either choose that James Joyce or William Blake or Beethoven's quartets or Bach's preludes and fugues or Titian or Picasso are worth the effort to you... or not. I think that everybody appreciates art at some level... even investment bankers, commodity brokers and computer programmers... the question is whether they are willing to invest the effort into appreciating great literature or painting as opposed to some easier artistic pleasure. Speaking of which... mayneverhave I somewhat question your assumption that the visual arts are inherently "easier" or involve less effort to appreciate than literature.

[Emil Miller]

That's what I feel, Bitterfly and Neely.

But I know lots of people (bankers, accountants, IT people etc) who think differently. All they ever read is the Financial Times and such, no novels, no poetry. They say they're not the worse for that. They scorn school lessons in art, music and literature because these subjects are not 'useful'. I've had a hard time convincing my own husband but I'm not quite sure if he really sees my point.

Bankers, accountants and IT people eh. Aren't they those clever people who have just brought the western world's banking system to its knees?
If they had spent a bit more time reading literature and less chasing money, perhaps they would have realised that cleverness has a price but wisdom is priceless.

[papayahed]

That's an entirely different question, still, it can be answered if people wish.

To add to the original point the enthusiasm for books and drawing amongst young children seems almost unlimited. My children obviously thrive on books and are surrounded by them in abundance, but I have yet to see any child completely uninterested in books or in drawing pictures. Place a few musical instruments in front of them and they are equally eager to play with them and make "music".

Then something seems to happen later in life (maybe school beats that natural curiosity out of them?) and they grow up wanting to be Investment Bankers or Computer System Managers or something equally worse. The arts then become something completely alien and “useless” to meet their aims of that "success".


Bankers, accountants and IT people eh. Aren't they those clever people who have just brought the western world's banking system to its knees?
If they had spent a bit more time reading literature and less chasing money, perhaps they would have realised that cleverness has a price but wisdom is priceless.

And it only took seven posts to bash the non artsy types.

I don't think art is for everybody, I choose to read because I like it, and it can be relaxing - that's it. I may choose every once in a while to try to understand a book on a higher level but generally I don't care enough about it. On the other hand I have a Mathematics calender that I could spend hours and I love it and I find it equally relaxing. One is not better or worse just different.

[papayahed]

Although I do have to say from my own experience as a society we need to do a better job of exposing kids to different forms of art.

[Virgil]

And it only took seven posts to bash the non artsy types.

I don't think art is for everybody, I choose to read because I like it, and it can be relaxing - that's it. I may choose every once in a while to try to understand a book on a higher level but generally I don't care enough about it. On the other hand I have a Mathematics calender that I could spend hours and I love it and I find it equally relaxing. One is not better or worse just different.

As one who straddles both worlds (artsy/non-arsty) I agree with you. Art is not for everyone. I have a hard time talking to my engineering compatriots as to the merit of art. They would rather change the bearings on the car than go through a museum. And you know, I think they're right. What's it to them? It's what you enjoy.

[mayneverhave]

mayneverhave I somewhat question your assumption that the visual arts are inherently "easier" or involve less effort to appreciate than literature.

I did not mean this in the pejorative sense, merely that because visual art is immediate and objective (as in, what you see is what is there), visual art does not involve a participation with the viewer in the same way that literature does. When we read imaginations are a necessity.

Don't get me wrong, I adore visual art, sculptures, paintings, etc. and obviously visual art can be analyzed and interpreted and take just as much time to understand as anything literary but the mere act of viewing is easier than reading.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Could we draw a very shallow and hasty presumption from the few comments in this thread: that the “arty” types believe art is from everyone and the “non-arty” types believe it isn’t? Again, very shallow and simplistic, but is there not a small seed of truth in the statement? What do you think?

(I also have this question in a different forum and it seems to go along the same lines.)

Oh, can I just add the word potentially, potentially art is for all people given the correct social and political circumstances.

[novelsryou]

Although I do have to say from my own experience as a society we need to do a better job of exposing kids to different forms of art.

Not as long as the "jocks" are running the schools. The arts always take a back seat to sports.

[Jozanny]

Could we draw a very shallow and hasty presumption from the few comments in this thread: that the “arty” types believe art is from everyone and the “non-arty” types believe it isn’t? Again, very shallow and simplistic, but is there not a small seed of truth in the statement? What do you think?

(I also have this question in a different forum and it seems to go along the same lines.)

It is not really a useful distinction. Propaganda can always sway the masses, as the height of the Fascist/Communist era can attest, or Augustus' battle with sympathizers of the Republic; he won that battle, and created the Roman Empire, through using art which scholars now enshrine in museums. In the US, materialism in architecture deliberately echoes the Gothic cathedral, intentionally. *Highbrow* and lowbrow sentiments, are, in this sense, false. Just because Y is educated in aesthetic appreciation and X is not, doesn't mean X's lack of education cannot be manipulated--it is very much akin to the problem of the low information voter in a democracy--again, not a new problem. Athenian politicians manipulated the 1 man 1 vote to exile enemies.

[papayahed]

Could we draw a very shallow and hasty presumption from the few comments in this thread: that the “arty” types believe art is from everyone and the “non-arty” types believe it isn’t? Again, very shallow and simplistic, but is there not a small seed of truth in the statement? What do you think?

(I also have this question in a different forum and it seems to go along the same lines.)

Oh, can I just add the word potentially, potentially art is for all people given the correct social and political circumstances.


No. Turn it around what would you say if the "non artys" say that math is for everybody?

It's all about interest level.

[JBI]

It depends, for instance, in Canadian rural-depicting realism in literature, there is a constant motif of 'Presbyterian' sensibility, and the shredding of frivolities. This sort of environment is depicted as having no time for art, and despising anyone who does, for wasting time. In such a state, if it truly exists, and is not just a fictitious depiction, no art can clearly survive long.

In a world where art works are bought on sale for $11.99, and most people are never going to see the 'masterworks', I wonder if art is for everybody. Surely few are privileged to study art, as we know, and many art forms, music, visual arts, dramatic arts, etc. require sometimes large amount of money in order to experience (plane tickets, theatre tickets, concert tickets, etc.) which further block out many from experiencing it, which seems to create a problem.

Recently in Canada the government cut some of their funding for arts programs with the excuse that normal Canadians aren't concerned with the arts, and the question has raised some serious debate. Some saying funding for art helps achieve Canadian identity, a problematic statement, being in a multi-cultural/post-modern nation. Another side say by removing arts funding, you essentially are limiting freedom of speech/expression. That again is debatable, being that it is somewhat a stretch from cutting money to silencing people. While a third party yet tends to agree, saying that they would rather have the money in tax cuts, or social programs that benefit them more directly, like health care, or child care, which is, I would think, quite a sensible argument.

The diagram shows us that though people enjoy arts, and can, priorities sometimes don't fall on them, and for many people, there isn't enough time to be worrying about what Wordsworth said, or What Titian panted. Many people just want to get on with their lives, support their families, and pay their mortgages. They don't care, because they have no time to care.

That being said, it is a personal choice. If someone wants to make time in their life, they possibly can. A work week in Canada is 40 hours, leaving plenty of time for other stuff, including the arts, and if someone wants to use that time, it is their advantage. But for the most part, people don't really care, because they haven't been given a reason to. Education isn't really concerned with the arts, unless you enroll in an arts program. This is a choice - I chose to study art, and hopefully it works out, and if it doesn't, well then, worries will come.

People today see education as preparation for a job, preferably the most high paying. I know for certain, that the bulk of people, when I tell them I am studying the humanities will automatically jump to, "and what do you plan to do with that?". It is rather depressing trying to argue, so I merely answer that I plan to go to law school, even though I have really no intentions of doing that. But in a world where people are bred to be doctors from age 3, what do you expect?

[LitNetIsGreat]

Absolutely JBI, good comments. That is what I meant when I commented upon the structure of society being almost against the study of the arts. For me the object of studying literature in itself is the object, there is no other reason.

Papa, you may be correct I have not yet decided. Maybe I am just too close to the arts, and think therefore, that all can benefit and appreciate them on some level.

[stlukesguild]

I have long accepted the fact that art is elitist. It is elitist in that it demands a certain degree of effort and discipline to create... and it demands the same if it is to be appreciated. It is a choice whether to invest such effort or not... and in some instances the demands seemingly outweigh the returns. It must be also admitted that at a certain point we surpass our own abilities. No one can be deeply knowledgeable and experienced in every artistic genre: painting, poetry, theater, opera, novels, essays, the symphony, chamber music, choral music, jazz, ceramics, enamels, book arts, ballet, mime, etc... And these may all be broken down further. In spite of my own rather wide range of experience in the field of the visual arts... painting especially... I am but a raw initiate when it comes to medieval Indian painting, Pre-Columbian painting, Chinese painting, etc...

All art is made with an audience in mind... whether it be a specific cultural group, social class... or just some abstract notion of an unknown audience not unlike oneself. In this sense, art is not made for everybody. Beethoven certainly did not compose his late string quartets with the thought of their being universally appreciated. I doubt he pondered deeply upon whether or not the peasants in the pub might "get it". Bach did not write his cantatas with the least concern for whether the Ottoman Turkish audience would like it. The sculptors of Benin had no concern for pandering to the theorems of the French Academy. If we wish to broaden our artistic appreciation... to understand Renaissance painting, Elizabethan poetry, Baroque choral music, Italian opera, Japanese ceramics, or Russian ballet, we must make the choice and be willing to put forth the effort.

The fact that art is not necessarily for everybody is certainly one of the criticisms of funding it with public money. It can be argued that it is unfair to those uninterested in museums or the opera or the symphony to be required to support these things through their tax dollars. On the other hand... can we not argue the same of other things? If I live in well-to-do suburban or rural America, why should I pay any state or federal taxes to support education and the police force in the big cities? If I live in the big cities why should any of my dollars be used to maintain those interstate highways just so those suburbanites can rapidly flee my town after the work day is through? Why should I be forced to pay for the bail-out of incompetent bankers... or to fund an endless war I don't support? Why should my tax dollars pay for funding of universities and colleges if I never went to such myself?

Personally, I don't like the "us vs them" mentality... "jocks" vs "geeks" vs "yuppies" vs "artsy types" with regard to education. I personally value the Renaissance ideal of the well-rounded individual. Unfortunately, our educational system is geared toward churning out workers prepared for our employment system which is very specialized. This combines with a practical or utilitarian thinking that only places value upon that which has a clear practical use. Thus we have majors in computer science who see no value in learning about history or painting or poetry... but we also have liberal arts majors that can see no value in learning mathematics, sports, physics, geometry, or how to balance a check-book.