No, that's far to general a question. Let's narrow it down. What is the purpose of art? Well, to know that, one must first clarify what is art. I want to compare the identity of art to something else, like the identity of technology, or the meaning of fashion, but art is so much more than that. I don't mean to say that art is grander than any other thing in existence, but it's meaning and purpose is much more scopic.
When you go to a gallery and you see a sculpture, how do you interpret it? As a fairly pragmatic person, I tend to initially value things based on how practical they are. Art doesn't have any practical use. In the hierarchy of humanity's needs, art sits at the top as an unnecessary privilege which we indulge in if we can afford to. Art comes after food, safety, relationships. So, it's not essential for human survival. The purpose it serves, if any, is not required to maintain human survival.
So art is an indulgence. Well, maybe not indlugence, but it's there to amuse us. I think.
Yesterday I walked through the Canadian Clay and Glass Gallery. In one corner of the building was a sculpture (as one tends to find in art galleries). The sculpture consisted of a trunk, similar to the one below, but it was open and had a clay representation of an ice flow inside it.
My middle school art teacher always emphasized the concept of "clarity of statement." He taught me that art, when done right, should indicate to the viewer exactly what the artist was trying to convey. If the goal is to provide social commentary, then those looking at it should be able to understand it, albeit with a little background.
Pablo Picasso's Massacre in Korea
If the goal is simply to examine the beauty of an object, then the artist should seek to focus entirely on the object in question and not clutter the art with irrelevance.
Vincent van Gogh's Wheatfield with Crows
But is that the way art has to be? Of course not. I think. Maybe. I don't know. There are no hard rules for art, which is one of the reasons that it's so darn hard to interpret.
I find the above van Gogh painting to be beautiful, and the Picasso painting to actually be fairly repulsive. Does that make one than the other? I would argue that it wouldn't, because "prettiness" is a purely subjective condition.
So, art is produced only after all our other more important needs are met. Some art has a clear message, and some does not. Does this message imply purpose? I'll ponder that in my next art post.
So where is Art, Part two?
ReplyDelete