The Purpose Of Art?

[smartalco]

The purpose of art is to give those who can't do useful stuff a way to survive.
statement may or may not be total bullshit

[otters~1]

I had a kinda crazy art teacher once who insisted that the point of art was to make an object that someone sees by accident and is confused by. I liked him.

I have an art teacher who taught me to draw coherently in only three days last week. Art is a class that everyone should take.

[bobaganuesh_2]

simply put, art is when 1+1=window

EDIT: I'd better elaborate. an artistic, creative thing is born when somebody takes other things and puts their own spin onto it. whether the other things are universally accepted or not, artists tend to manupalite these things, whether it be propaganda, scraps of cardboard, whatever, to their heart's desire and however they are feeling at the time. at least, that's how I see it.

[OutrightOJ]

It depends if what you mean by art is of draw-draw art or other kinds (isn't music, drama and art known as 'The Arts'?)

I dunno about drawings. Obviously there are some intended to put across a certain point or event in time. But there are others that are just paintings of say, Venice, Switzerland or maybe the odd monarch. Well, drawings of kings or queens were probably for the monarchs themselves to give themselves a particular reputation, perhaps. Not too sure about landscape paintings. They're pleasing to the eye, so perhaps they're just for show, and for the artist's pleasure.

Perhaps its something simpler though. Maybe some art doesn't put a point across. Maybe there are no points to certain pieces. Perhaps its just because of the artist's profession? Maybe it was just for fun.

[Tunco]

I remember having a discussion along these lines in my Grade 12 History class (the most epic class ever, by the way, teacher was amazing). The issue was raised not only about the purpose of art, but what exactly constitutes "art".

We (the class) came to the conclusion that art has to be defined very loosely...otherwise things like music and dance (which are generally considered art) would be left out. Thus, art could (and perhaps should) be defined simply as a person or persons expressing opinion or emotion.

This definition is obviously flawed (or is it?), because in that sense, a man standing on the street corner yelling obscenities because he lost his job must be considered art (and why shouldn't it be?). Also, activities like book burning or censorship could also be art...it's simply an individual or group expressing themselves. Taken to the extreme, mass murder (such as performed by the Nazis) is also art.

Many people were uncomfortable with that viewpoint, for obvious reasons. I mean, when we think of art, we think of museums filled with huge paintings/sculptures, or an orchestra playing the works of Liszt, or even dancers on a stage. But why should art be limited to those relatively unobtrusive domains? It's all well and good to go see the opera, and walk out feeling cultured, but if you really want to provoke emotion, why not murder 20 people? Terrorists are artists, in a very visceral (albeit gruesome, violent, and twisted) way. Now, I'm not saying that every psychopath with a machine gun or suicide bomb is an artist...for art to be art it has to have purpose, has to have feeling. Basically, if emotion is put in, and emotion comes out, it's art.

. . .

I don't see any reason to define art strictly.

Regular art, as in sculptures, paintings, music, etchings, drawings, stories, films, video games, poetry, and even just expressed ideas, exists for the purpose of displaying some sort of beauty in some capacity, or initiating it into the artist's surroundings. This is because (regular, general) art's value is rendered by its aesthetic and its message, and nothing more.

But I see no reason to call a toilet art. I see no reason to call it a common non-art toilet. I wouldn't make either distinction. If the author of the toilet intended to present or impress beauty to his subjects through the toilet, then that is fine enough for him, but it does not make the toilet art. Art, precisely speaking, is a fairly meaningless term. But I refer to general art, and things that are obviously created with clear intentions (to express and ponder beauty), as art, for the convenience of it. I wouldn't use the term art to strictly define an item within a medium, and I wouldn't use intentions for presentation of items to define art. So art does not have a purpose unless we refer to a specific type of art, in which case we have already assigned an overall purpose by making a distinction beyond the vague term "art" in the first place. Precisely speaking, "art" does not have a purpose, but "regular art", as I would like to call it, does. God, whenever I make a debate post, I always think way too hard, and eventually get so twisted mentally.

I have to agree with yungerkid here, even how much feeling you got into the piece of art you made, if should be aesthetically pleasing, and has to give the message, as yungerkid mentioned. If the piece of 'art' has a purpose and gives a message, then it's art.

Art does not have an actual purpose, really. When you doodle to your notebook at school, you draw silly things and stuff, that's art. Oh, wait, that's regular art.

It depends if what you mean by art is of draw-draw art or other kinds (isn't music, drama and art known as 'The Arts'?)

I dunno about drawings. Obviously there are some intended to put across a certain point or event in time. But there are others that are just paintings of say, Venice, Switzerland or maybe the odd monarch. Well, drawings of kings or queens were probably for the monarchs themselves to give themselves a particular reputation, perhaps. Not too sure about landscape paintings. They're pleasing to the eye, so perhaps they're just for show, and for the artist's pleasure.

Perhaps its something simpler though. Maybe some art doesn't put a point across. Maybe there are no points to certain pieces. Perhaps its just because of the artist's profession? Maybe it was just for fun.

Hmm. I have to agree with you about portrait, because you draw what you see, copy/paste. That's not regular art. That's not art. That's piece of shit
in this case, imo.

But if you critisize and draw what you see, that's art. I see your point, good one though.

Also DLB, your teacher seems to be a cool guy.

[Leaff]

The whole "art needs a purpose" thing irks me.

Art is what you make it.

[Sunset]

In a brief statement by me:

I enjoy art simply because it is a way to let my emotions run out, and to express what I think and what I see, so that don't embarrass myself hence where. There is no actual point of art rather to have fun with it, but some people like to think of it as seriousness and has to be perfect. A picture is worth a thousand words, as they say. For me, I think the same way. Although my artworks have been gradually entertaining (for me), I have layed down my pencil for a month or so. Idk if I might make another drawing. If I do, I might post it to the good ol' forums here.

Henceforth, and so forth *vanish?*

[lactose3]

So here's my take

Any civilization on earth prehistorically that had a lot of essential things like food, shelter, hunting, and farming, has also had art of some form. COINCIDENCE?

Let's assume evolution is correct; not a big jump and I'm sure not all of you will rage. Essentially, art's been a big thing so we can't say this isn't something developed via evolution. So what is its purpose if it's so prevalent?

Well, look at the old art. Caveman paintings showed animals being hunted. Was this some sort of way to teach others which animals are distinguishably edible or something? Medieval and Egyptian junk showcased history (not prehistoric, but bear wit' me!), which I can see is also important in an evolutionary standpoint. And lots of portraits were made during the Renaissance to capture that look and the memory of old dudes. Another trick via evolution to show how sheez got done and what clan you belonged to? Film and photography also managed to capture that latter moment.

So could you say here that art is educational? A reflection of culture and ideals at specific moments in time? Sure. Is it meant to teach? Possibly in the long run. Art is something we make, learn from, and leave behind for other generations, which learn our ways. I think that's why art exists.

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

So here's my take

Any civilization on earth prehistorically that had a lot of essential things like food, shelter, hunting, and farming, has also had art of some form. COINCIDENCE?

Let's assume evolution is correct; not a big jump and I'm sure not all of you will rage. Essentially, art's been a big thing so we can't say this isn't something developed via evolution. So what is its purpose if it's so prevalent?

Well, look at the old art. Caveman paintings showed animals being hunted. Was this some sort of way to teach others which animals are distinguishably edible or something? Medieval and Egyptian junk showcased history (not prehistoric, but bear wit' me!), which I can see is also important in an evolutionary standpoint. And lots of portraits were made during the Renaissance to capture that look and the memory of old dudes. Another trick via evolution to show how sheez got done and what clan you belonged to? Film and photography also managed to capture that latter moment.

So could you say here that art is educational? A reflection of culture and ideals at specific moments in time? Sure. Is it meant to teach? Possibly in the long run. Art is something we make, learn from, and leave behind for other generations, which learn our ways. I think that's why art exists.

I'm quite confused as to the role of evolution in all of this. Art doesn't reproduce (at least, not the forms of it you mentioned), so evolution is completely inapplicable to it.
All I got out of your post was "maybe sometimes people draw stuff to show people things," which is obvious.

[lactose3]

I'm quite confused as to the role of evolution in all of this. Art doesn't reproduce (at least, not the forms of it you mentioned), so evolution is completely inapplicable to it.
All I got out of your post was "maybe sometimes people draw stuff to show people things," which is obvious.

True, my whole point was structured pretty badly and didn't get a good point across

But what I should have come across is that a lot of this art seeks to inform and educate future generations, to teach them how to live or act. By doing so they increase the odds of their kind surviving in the gene pool, don't they? By nature adults taught their children how to hunt and they passed stories from generation to generation so that their children would survive and have more children. Art is also capable of this, and I think that it was originally developed for this.

[otters~1]

lactose3, I think you're confusing art for the sake of art with, like, written history, but I see where you're coming from.