Does Art Serve Any Purpose?

[G L Wilson]

Exactly my point. Even when you read Homer you still interpret it on your own cultural terms. You see the divinely inspired wars of a primitive aristocratic tribe as akin to an advanced industrial society fighting an insurgency in modern-day Iraq - a completely ridiculous comparison to be sure but nevertheless the only way you can make sense of it. THIS is my point exactly - the only way to make sense out of this stuff is to interpret it on our own terms (which in and of itself requires that we ignore a very large part of the text that offends us or that we can't even begin to understand - exchanging women as gifts, etc.) which really brings one to ask, if all we're doing is bringing our own cultural baggage to our readings of these works then what's the point really? We're reducing Homer to a modern narrative from Iraq anyways so why not just read something writen last year like, say, a modern narrative from Iraq since - innescapably - this is what any war story is going to be compared with and ultimately reduced to.

Historicism vs. Humanism is a non-event as humanism wins hands down.

[G L Wilson]

Meaning with application, yes. Guilty as charged.

But wouldn't you agree with our good friend Wittgenstein that meaning is application and that there isn't some ideal (I guess Platonic) meaning in our minds or the sky or wherever? That language is a fundamentally social act?

I like it. You could have something there, prickly_pete. I apply humanism to everything I do, yet the meaning of humanism eludes me. Is not the meaning of humanism what I give it? Am I not looking beyond the material to a greater goal? I think I am. But where does this leave us? Lost? Is not the loneliness of existence relieved by art? I think it is.

[Stonebolt]

It seems like art arose out of a need to communicate ideas to non-literate societies. Sort of the way a totem poel told the history of a tribe to its memebers.

Now that everyone can read, what's the point really? Is there anything that art can express that can't just as easily be communicated through speach? Forgive me if I sound a little crude, but I've been reading about the ongoing debate about the role of the arts in public schools and I'm just kind of curious how you all feel about this. Does art really have anything to offer students? Should it be taught at the expense of mathematics and science?

For instance, why go to an art exhibit? What could that offer me?

Other than an interest? Well here's what I could say, the deepest truths of life are hard to express directly with language. Language is made and interpreted by fallible humans, and is therefore fallible.

Look at a tree. What do the letters t-r-e-e have to do with this living thing? Nothing. All language is made up. Therefore, using it in an indirect way, or not at all, is sometimes the best way to impart wisdom.

[PeterL]

I still can't understand why people as such broad questions. The repsonses are all over the board. If there had been some basic definitions, then the responses might be relevant to something useful.

[m2vihand]

I think art serves other purpose than entertainment. All great novels have a deep core thought. Without literature, i think the world would be more chaotic, because classics always teach something good.

[prickly_pete]

Look at a tree. What do the letters t-r-e-e have to do with this living thing? Nothing.

Well if I said "climb this tree" would you know what I was talking about? If I fall off a tree in the woods would I make a sound? Or would this sound be unintelligible?

[Rores28]

I still can't understand why people as such broad questions. The repsonses are all over the board. If there had been some basic definitions, then the responses might be relevant to something useful.

Two reasons: They have a blinkered conception of the question and so do not anticipate the various backgrounds that will be employed in answering the question or,as is this case in this instance, they ask them so that they can slip around the answers and say "no no this is what I was really asking" thus prolonging the discussion.

Trust me I had an extensive trolling career in the not to distant pass... I know the tricks.

[PeterL]

Two reasons: They have a blinkered conception of the question and so do not anticipate the various backgrounds that will be employed in answering the question or,as is this case in this instance, they ask them so that they can slip around the answers and say "no no this is what I was really asking" thus prolonging the discussion.

Trust me I had an extensive trolling career in the not to distant pass... I know the tricks.

I hadn't regarded this as trolling, but I guess that it is one form. 'Tis a pity, because there were some very good discussions here in the not distant past.

[Drkshadow03]

Two reasons: They have a blinkered conception of the question and so do not anticipate the various backgrounds that will be employed in answering the question or,as is this case in this instance, they ask them so that they can slip around the answers and say "no no this is what I was really asking" thus prolonging the discussion.

Trust me I had an extensive trolling career in the not to distant pass... I know the tricks.

I concur.

[cyberbob]

^ LOL well I share many of those opinions to some extent (except #1 & 7) and I'm not a troll.

Art obviously must serve SOME purpose or it wouldn't exist. I doubt it's just an evolutionary intellectual byproduct.

You might as well be asking if anything that does not make us more likely to reproduce serves a purpose.

Do you think that natural selection cares if we become rich or happy or good at math? No. If being brainless amoebas helped us thrive in our environment that's what we'd be.

There's nothing intrinsically beneficial about being rich. Our complex minds have decided that being rich entitles you to more resources which makes you more likely to thrive. If our minds have decided that art has some value then it does.

In terms of education, learning art extensively is mainly done to teach it unless you can actually get paid to do it.

All humanities are "useless" to some extent because lives are not dependant on some people being very good at them. Most public schools require just 1 art course.

[cyberbob]

You might not think that everyone needs to know whether or not Tom Jefferson banged his slaves but you don't doubt that everyone should know SOME history do you? And by extension, you don't doubt that SOME people should know a whole bunch of history so they can have the authority to teach it and be references for when obscure facts ARE needed.

So how is art different? Even if it has no practical use now it's still part of human history and culture. It's not like kids are learning TOO MUCH art in public school. SOME knowledge is necessary because an educated person should be aware of at least rudimentary knowledge of something so ubiquitous. And by extension, SOME people should be able to learn a whole bunch so they can teach it and be references for when obscure facts of it are needed.

[Arrowni]

There is also the reality of esthetical pleasure. It just exists, so we deal with it.

[Mr.lucifer]

Art is about truth, is it not?

[prickly_pete]

Art is about truth, is it not?

Isn't truth a fairly ridiculous concept?

[stlukesguild]

Art is about truth, is it not?

Is it?