Does Art Serve Any Purpose?

[WyattGwyon]

First of all, the contributor to this thread calling itself "G L Wilson" is obviously a bot of some kind engaged in a Turing test. This artificial entity just generates random, nearly incoherent snippets simulating (poorly) the products of human thought. Whoever programmed it is laughing at you for continuing to respond long after this should have been obvious.

Given the focus of this forum I will stick to literature in addressing the value of art:

Works of literature can, arguably, reveal more about the fundamental nature of life, human interaction, morality and a host of pressing human concerns in a more concentrated, powerful, and memorable way than just about any other products of human ingenuity. One who has carefully read and absorbed Crime and Punishment or The Brothers Karamazov, for example, is likely to have a deeper appreciation of the complexities and challenges of ascribing motivations to and determining the moral culpability of his/her fellow humans than someone who has not. Fictional characters often exhibit in concentrated form human foibles, capacities, and qualities that are encountered in diluted form in those around us. Seeing the "purer strain" in a fictional being can help one to pick out and identify the fainter and more elusive traces in real-life encounters. Literary types can thus be valuable guides to human understanding. William Gaddis's JR prophetically lampooned the destructive capacity of a corporate culture attuned to exploiting the minutia of tax loopholes and stock manipulations rather than creating products of real value; his A Frolic of His Own sends up the litigious mania of our society in a way that is both highly instructive and hilarious. Heroic characters like those of Hugo and Conrad, who have the courage to stick to a personal code of morality in the face of overwhelming resistance and danger instill an appreciation of the best of which human's are capable and provide strong ethical models.

This post is getting long, but how about an example from poetry:

We all know something about the toll of tyranny and soulless bureaucracy on human life. But a well turned stanza can make the knowledge cut like a knife:

The mighty hand leads to a sloping shoulder,
The finger joints are cramped with chalk;
A goose's quill has put an end to murder
That put an end to talk.
(from Dylan Thomas's "The hand that signed the paper")

In short, literary art is one of the best places one can go to learn about the deepest problems of living on earth and functioning as an ethical being. Treat it as superfluous at your grave peril and to the detriment of civilization.

[Drkshadow03]

In short, literary art is one of the best places one can go to learn about the deepest problems of living on earth and functioning as an ethical being. Treat it as superfluous at your grave peril and to the detriment of civilization.

Which is essentially how everyone has pretty much answered the question.

[Buh4Bee]

I don't think this is a matter of debate anymore. I think this is a very black and white perspective for the OP as well as many of the posters. (many who are teachers).

[prickly_pete]

In short, literary art is one of the best places one can go to learn about the deepest problems of living on earth and functioning as an ethical being. Treat it as superfluous at your grave peril and to the detriment of civilization.

Sounds way to cliche to be taken seriously, but sure. Stil, how is film any less capable of accomplishing this? Why should classic literature hold some priveleged position?

[lieasleep]

First of all, the contributor to this thread calling itself "G L Wilson" is obviously a bot of some kind engaged in a Turing test. This artificial entity just generates random, nearly incoherent snippets simulating (poorly) the products of human thought. Whoever programmed it is laughing at you for continuing to respond long after this should have been obvious.

really?! some of it was pretty damn thought provoking. no way

and that was a really good post you had up there. I think you just about hit the nail on the head

[prickly_pete]

I don't think this is a matter of debate anymore. I think this is a very black and white perspective for the OP as well as many of the posters. (many who are teachers).

Except I've defended a tough position at least moderately well and have heard nothing in return except tired platitudes about how "art is life" and how popular movies are "trash."

[WyattGwyon]

Sounds way to cliche to be taken seriously, but sure. Stil, how is film any less capable of accomplishing this? Why should classic literature hold some priveleged position?

Essentially, it comes down to scope and depth. Where film falls short of the novel in these domains is too obvious to belabor. Not to mention the fact that a large proportion of the best films are just adaptations of works of narrative literature or drama.

A few further comments: I cited contemporary as well as classic fiction. Screenplays, another form of literature, are also capable of accomplishing these kinds of goals. I would say that good literature should occupy a privileged position regardless of whether or not it is incorporated in a film.

Whether or not something is a cliche has nothing whatever to do with whether or not it should be taken seriously. In any case, the question with which you started this thread is a cliche so it is hardly seemly of you to complain if you get cliches in response! The crucial question is: do you dispute the examples with which I supported my "cliche" and can you offer examples from film that address the same issues with comparable power and depth?

I have to get up at 4am to climb a mountain so I won't be posting again tonight.

[WyattGwyon]

Except I've defended a tough position at least moderately well and have heard nothing in return except tired platitudes about how "art is life" and how popular movies are "trash."

Okay, I lied; One more post. I gave much more than this in answer and so did St. Luke.

[prickly_pete]

Where film falls short of the novel in these domains is too obvious to belabor.

Enlighten me. What are scope and depth exactly? Define those for me. Where would I find this 'depth'?

[lieasleep]

Enlighten me. What are scope and depth exactly? Define those for me. Where would I find this 'depth'?

the novel

but seriously, the visual medium does have some built in limitations,

1. length (you think three hours is long, try reading The Recognitions by William Gaddis, now that is a work with depth and scope)

2. the only dealing in internal thought is through physical expression of those thoughts, at least when it comes to film. Films deal in the internal through dialogue and attempts at making visual the internal, sequences that usually don't work (there are, of course, some exceptions to this one) but the novel deals with the internal much more fluidly, to say the least, which allows for greater depth.

I will think of some more but I am too tired right now...

[Rores28]

Other stuff that is a better alternative than sports and movies (assuming the movies we are talking about is the general regurgitated pap that most folks like) for the partial supplanting of literature studies in high school.


-philosophy
-ethics/morality
-dialectical skills (logical fallacies,common human perceptual errors and bias etc)
-current philanthropically relevant material
-foreign affairs / current politics

If we were to remove literature (partially or wholly), as is implicit in your argument, we would have to ask why sports and movies would be better things to include/augment than these. I don't think we can produce too many cogent reasons on this front, so the question now is why literature instead of these alternatives.

First I don't think that position can be wholly defended. As much as I love literature I do think some of these subjects need more weight in current public schools, though not solely to the detriment of literature. However,

Literature subsumes a variety of other topics that don't currently get enough attention due to its somewhat protean nature.
Many of those topics, and sundry others, are born out in various literary works, essays, satires, tragedies etc... often concomitantly and in synergistic fashions


Narrative is often more effective at fomenting people to action than statistics, no matter how irrational this seems. Further it gets students interested in otherwise dry topics
One person dying is a tragedy, 1,000 dying is a statistic or something right. Narratives that highlight suffering and human injustices in particular not only stick in memory longer, but have a more emotional impact. A major difficulty in schools is even getting kids to pay attention and become interested, and one of the best ways of overcoming that difficulty is framing particular problems in a narrative.


Variety of study adds to creative capabilities which given the exponentially increasing sophistication of technology, some people predict is fast becoming the most important personal skill.
The more diverse the stimuli people are exposed to, generally speaking, the greater is their creative capability. So we lose that if we keep pumping in the same old stuff they are getting anyway (sports and movies) or if we substitute more of the subjects they are already studying (science and math).
Why is creative ability important?

http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinso...reativity.html

http://www.kurzweilai.net/

http://www.ted.com/talks/ray_kurzwei...nsform_us.html

Truly poignant classical literature often gives insights that predate scientifically verifiable results.

http://www.amazon.com/Proust-Was-Neu.../dp/0618620109

Literature allows you to double dip into writing
No one would deny the importance of the written word, and literature is simply the best of the written word. Reading, especially good literature, undeniably makes one a better writer, so now you are to an extent getting a class that teaches writing as well.

Further I think you exaggerate the need to understand intertextuality in order to enjoy literature. I read Hamlet for the first time last year while knowing virtually nothing about Shakespeare and it was immediately my favorite piece of literature, and still is. The same goes for Othello, I read it and loved it. Later I studied them and had an even greater appreciation for them, but I still loved them to begin with. Hamlet was so good to me when I first read it that I implored everyone around me to read it because I actually felt bad for them for not having experienced its brilliance.

[stlukesguild]

As this discussion has morphed I find myself suspecting that Rores might have been brushing near the truth when he stated: "I suspect this is a pseudo troll job. I think you have some paper due on this topic and are phishing for discussion here."

This very question pops up from time to time on most arts forums: What is the purpose of art? As usual, members trot out a variety of arguments as to the "purpose" or "worth" of art but these are challenged as "elitist", having no relevance to our culture today, ignoring the desires of the larger audiences, and having no practical worth. The questions get more difficult as we are confronted with challenges as to why Art should be taught in school or why the arts should be supported by tax dollars. And one begans to suspect that the whole is but a game as the anti-Art individual seems more than passingly well educated and capable of citing Shakespeare or calling up less than common figures such as Averroes.

The reality is that we might question why nearly anything is taught in school beyond a basic level. Seriously, the mathematics that I studied beyond middle-school have had absolutely no relevant use to me. I studied history, geography, biology, mythology and many other topics that I quite likely could have gotten along well without.

When it comes to the purpose of Art in the broader sense, I stick with Oscar Wilde and accept that all art is meaningless. We... the audience... give it "meaning"... or not. Art is an elective affinity. The individual is free to choose whether a given art form is worthy of his or her efforts... or not.

But we return to the question as to why the arts are taught in school... and again I will note that one might ask this of any subject beyond a basic level: Why teach biology? Why teach history? Why teach physical education? Most educators recognize that there is a basic body of knowledge that is necessary to communicate successfully in our culture. Of course there are disagreements upon what these are. Once these are mastered... the choice of what is studied in school often relates to specializations. The individual students decide whether to study French or German or Chemistry or Physics or Art III, or British Literature. And I will assume that this is fine, as the individual student has selected what courses to study based upon his or her own future goals.

But what about the idea of requiring that we read Shakespeare or study art? One might argue that Shakespeare, Art, Music, History, are all taught with the aim of developing larger skills in critical thinking. Admittedly only a small number of students will go on to a career in the visual arts, but the visual arts are not taught solely for the benefit of these students. They are also taught with the aim of teaching all the ability to think critically when looking at visual imagery. The same is certainly a partial value in reading poetry and literature. The student learns to think critically in terms of language. Far too many are unable to look at an advertizement or a brief bit of news footage and recognize what message those behind it all intend to convey. Far too few are able to listen to politicians, radio talk show hosts, "analysts" and even recognize that there is an individual behind the words who has certain motives that may not be in the favor of the listener.

Teaching the ability to think critically is but one purpose of art. Art is also taught as a means of self expression. Art is taught as a means of reinforcing ideas utilizing visual imagery, music, words, etc... for students who have different ways of learning. The arts are taught as part of our collective culture... and as a door to "others". Confronted with the question, "What is the purpose of art?" one might very well respond, "What is the purpose of life." Experience? Pleasure? Knowledge?... ultimately the question cannot be answered. Art... and certainly life... cannot be reduced to a simple practical "meaning"... but this in no way means that Life and Art are meaningless. Again I turn to Mallarme who recognized that the most practical... the most useful or utilitarian room in the house was the toilet. While our OP's mental Onanism may surely find no better abode than the toilet, I doubt that most of us would imagine the toilet as the center of our existence.

[G L Wilson]

The rich need taste and have it not.
The poor need discernment and are robbed of it.
The art critic discerns what he doesn't have, i.e., genius.
In other words, the artist must work miracles.

[JCamilo]

I feel like its probably my fault that I seem to be missing the mark with my examples. Let me just summarize what I've said thus far:

1) Art is something that is used and applied to everyday life. I gave an example from Iraq. When I say "Go ahead, make my day" before a firefight this resonates (though how it works in application might be slightly different for each individual) with the people who hear it. If I said, "Once more unto the breach dear friends" nothing is achieved - the phrase doesn't resonate and it can't be applied. This is what I mean when I say art is something that can be used

Internet virus were called Trojan due to a reference to Homer, the very first classic. So, it works like Dirty Harry. Classic literature equates movies.
(I wont go futher with Shakespeare, be my Romeo is a current expression for dating. His words are used in english language. And he does not need to be the most used, just to be used. And he is)

2) In order to use art one has to be indoctrinated in that culture. Quoting a Dirty Harry line during a firefight in Iraq is an application of art that occurs quite naturally. It's not something that has to be 'taught' per se. Its not an action that would occur to you just watching Dirty Harry in isolation, but is something we've learned to do because of ongoing exposure and indoctrination in a wider cultural setting and dialogue. Same with religious texts - folks in those communities quote scripture or make analogies with scripture not because they went to a class and were told "make analogies to Moses" or "quote Mohammed in x,y an z situations" but because its been part of the cultural life they've been engaged with since birth.

Trojan virus is used even if people has no knowledge of homer. They would link to achilles heel naturally (even if it is not actually homeric). Obviously, classical oldest literature is naturally expressed on daily usage.

3) Shakespeare wrote for a very narrow audience. Namely folks who'd recieved a classical education, instruction in rhetoric, familiar with the theatre - you know, the whole deal. If he was writing for a very narrow audience in his time, what makes you think his work is applicabele to the entire population (or at least a majority of it) in our own?

Because you are mistaken. Shakespeare didnt wrote for a narraow audience. At all. He wrote at sametime for the lower classes of london and the nobility. The same plays. He is actually a prime example of popularity and quality put together. His work was applied to broad group, it is still, considering he is the most popular writer ever and also, Hollywood main source.

4) (Using Shakespeare as an example again) if you want Dante or Shakespear or whoever to be part of the cultural life of most people than this is something that folks are going to have to be drilled with from birth (or at least grade school) on up. Since this - at least for the foreseable future - isn't something that is going to occur naturally its will have to be imposed on people from the top down - perhaps similar to how Marx was imposed on Soviet school children from the top down

Alas, Shakespeare Romeo and Juliet is the most reckonozied teenage drama. I do not want anything, the entire word has reference to it. It is part of cultural life o most people. In english it is impossible, a hundred words with current use are created by him.

5) Shakespare is not part of the cultural life of most people - actually, the VAST majority of people. This doesn't mean they're not exposed to art since every society has a common cultural dialogue in art. It just means they're getting it from film and popular music.

Nothing is part of cultural life of most people. Most people has no use for physicas, chemistry, biology. Darwin is even denied by a large population of America (Shakespeare is not).

6) Film and popular music are just as capable of exposing students to different ideas and opinions as classical literature is.

And ignoring classical literature to focus on Film or popular music (Which make reference to classical art) is as wrong on focusing on classical art. You must teach both.

Tell me where I'm wrong...

Done. Give me a 10.

[MystyrMystyry]

The only way you're going to really know anything about art though is to study it relentlessly for many years of your life. So what's the point in forcing students into taking an art class or two - is this really accomplishing anything is all I'm asking. Like, I could read the Bible on my own or have someone well-versed in theology explain it to me. I don't need paintings or sculptures in order to interpret the message the way someone in the Middle Ages would.

Don't get me wrong, I'm saying we should burn books or anything. I'm just asking something that I think is important even though its difficult to answer.

Listen - the purpose of education is to open the eyes of students to another world, and allow them to pursue things that interest them - when people consider learning as really long and hard, there is something wrong with their understanding and attitude - I, like everyone I know, love learning new things, coming across new ideas and ways of thinking

Would you be happier if there was no art and the highest cultural achievement was the weekend's football results? No I thought not - there are entire countries where art and self-expression has been outlawed because a self-styled noong said it should be seven centuries ago - and those countries are worse places to live in than just the desert without anyone in it

Art elevates the mind, heart and spirit - and if you don't know that then why do you listen to music? Do you think music isn't an art?

The Romans considered art as only something that had a practical purpose - a bridge, a coliseum, a road, a lighthouse. All those mosaics and sculptures were to them merely decoration, but without them it would have been a pretty bleak place to live