The Purpose Of Art?

[MattKestrel]

This was an interesting discussion we had in class today, so I thought I'd share it with you guys. We were quarreling over whether art was a means of conveying emotion, a means of expression, or simply a means to get status/cash. Imo, the best artists are those who make their works entirely for their own creative wants and needs, purely expressing emotion and opinion without any jaded interests. I also believe that the physicality of art is not significant to the artist, only the emotions it conveys; the outcomes. Hence Picasso was willing to burn his own, unsold paintings just for warmth. Apparently.

What's everyone else's opinion on this? If you were going on a tangent, you could even apply this debate to the purpose of N, in some shape or form.

[SlappyMcGee]

The purpose of art is to make money by entertaining others.

[otters~1]

Imo, the best artists are those who make their works entirely for their own creative wants and needs, purely expressing emotion and opinion without any jaded interests.

And ya know what? They die poor, sans an ear or two, and usually snap before they're forty. A middle ground's best, or maybe a Da Vinci type who created art almost scientifically (at least, he had other stuff on his mind to keep him straight).

[unoriginal name]

You place far too much emphasis on emotion. Art is about expression, emotion being a common side effect.

[noops]

The Logmop is right, it's about expression. Though, it's also about the other two things, status/cash, and emotion, but, if you did decide to do it for the money and fame, you'll find that your paintings/sculptures/trash murals or whatever aren't as good with out the other two. Generally speaking, anyway.

[乳头的早餐谷物]

for the money and fame

Extra large.

I'm with the Supremus.

[Rhekatou]

inspiration

[Seneschal]

inspiration

What?

For me, art is about entertaining and/or stimulating thoughts and ideas in others; I don't mind artists creating things purely for themselves, but I'd much rather they made things that other people can enjoy too. I'd add that fame and fortune should be beneficial side-effects of art, rather than reasons for it.

[Mute Monk]

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.

As for the purpose of art, that's simple: The purpose of art is to convey. Emotion, purpose, feeling.

[Tunco]

The purpose of art is to describe yourself in a way, literature, music, painting, sculpture, anything that will describe your ideas, opinions about life. And when you're finished with it other people should be able to understand your life-cognizance.

If you do art to make money, it's not art. Art should be heartfelt to be 'art', keep in mind that when making art, your purpose should express yourself, not gain money. It should be your aim, not something on your way to be rich.

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.

As for the purpose of art, that's simple: The purpose of art is to convey. Emotion, purpose, feeling.

Everything you create is art, no matter what it is, if you really feel it deep inside, of course. I agree with you.

[SlappyMcGee]

Doing 'art' for money is doing 'art'. Don't be ridiculous.

[Tunco]

Doing 'art' for money is doing 'art'. Don't be ridiculous.

You're funny. Ahahahahahaha.

I was just being sarcastic, nevermind.

Also, that's what most people do these days. D:

[Rhekatou]

inspiration

What?

in⋅spi⋅ra⋅tion  /ˌɪnspəˈreɪʃən/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [in-spuh-rey-shuhn]
–noun
1. an inspiring or animating action or influence: I cannot write poetry without inspiration.
2. something inspired, as an idea.
3. a result of inspired activity.
4. a thing or person that inspires.
5. Theology.
a. a divine influence directly and immediately exerted upon the mind or soul.
b. the divine quality of the writings or words of a person so influenced.
7. the act of inspiring; quality or state of being inspired.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Origin:
1275–1325; ME inspiracio(u)n < LL inspīrātiōn- (s. of inspīrātiō). See inspire, -ation


Synonyms:
1. stimulus, incitement.

[乳头的早餐谷物]

inspiration

What?

in⋅spi⋅ra⋅tion  /ˌɪnspəˈreɪʃən/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [in-spuh-rey-shuhn]
–noun
1. an inspiring or animating action or influence: I cannot write poetry without inspiration.
2. something inspired, as an idea.
3. a result of inspired activity.
4. a thing or person that inspires.
5. Theology.
a. a divine influence directly and immediately exerted upon the mind or soul.
b. the divine quality of the writings or words of a person so influenced.
7. the act of inspiring; quality or state of being inspired.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Origin:
1275–1325; ME inspiracio(u)n < LL inspīrātiōn- (s. of inspīrātiō). See inspire, -ation


Synonyms:
1. stimulus, incitement.

Instead of a being a dick, you might try explaining how your one-word post relates to the topic at hand.

[otters~1]

I agree with Tunco! Many artists put themselves into their art. While this sounds cheesy, I think it's a pretty valid psychological... foible; if you have problems, project them onto the written page, or the canvas.

So art is an escape.

[Mute Monk]

in⋅spi⋅ra⋅tion  /ˌɪnspəˈreɪʃən/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [in-spuh-rey-shuhn]
–noun
1. an inspiring or animating action or influence: I cannot write poetry without inspiration.
2. something inspired, as an idea.
3. a result of inspired activity.
4. a thing or person that inspires.
5. Theology.
a. a divine influence directly and immediately exerted upon the mind or soul.
b. the divine quality of the writings or words of a person so influenced.
7. the act of inspiring; quality or state of being inspired.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Origin:
1275–1325; ME inspiracio(u)n < LL inspīrātiōn- (s. of inspīrātiō). See inspire, -ation


Synonyms:
1. stimulus, incitement.

Instead of a being a dick, you might try explaining how your one-word post relates to the topic at hand.

He answered the question that was directly asked in the topic title. Indeed, his first post was far from verbose, but I think succinctness was a perfectly reasonable strategy.

[Spawn of Yanni]

Instead of a being a dick, you might try explaining how your one-word post relates to the topic at hand.

He answered the question that was directly asked in the topic title. Indeed, his first post was far from verbose, but I think succinctness was a perfectly reasonable strategy.

The purpose of art is simply a result of inspiration? Or is it to cause inspiration? "The purpose of art is inspiration" really isn't a great answer to the question, and certainly the whole dictionary definition shtick was not useful either.

[乳头的早餐谷物]

Instead of a being a dick, you might try explaining how your one-word post relates to the topic at hand.

He answered the question that was directly asked in the topic title. Indeed, his first post was far from verbose, but I think succinctness was a perfectly reasonable strategy.

Considering we're in the (Politics &) Debate forum, posts should be clear and detailed enough to be discussable and debatable—as Yanni demonstrated, there's no clear way to interpret Rhekatou's post word. More to the point, when you're challenged, you should explain what the fuck you're talking about instead of obnoxiously copying and pasting a dictionary definition.

[SlappyMcGee]

Instead of a being a dick, you might try explaining how your one-word post relates to the topic at hand.

He answered the question that was directly asked in the topic title. Indeed, his first post was far from verbose, but I think succinctness was a perfectly reasonable strategy.

Considering we're in the (Politics &) Debate forum, posts should be clear and detailed enough to be discussable and debatable—as Yanni demonstrated, there's no clear way to interpret Rhekatou's post word. More to the point, when you're challenged, you should explain what the fuck you're talking about instead of obnoxiously copying and pasting a dictionary definition.

–verb (used with object)
1. to have sexual intercourse with.
2. Slang. to treat unfairly or harshly.
–verb (used without object)
3. to have sexual intercourse.
4. Slang. to meddle (usually fol. by around or with).
–interjection
5. Slang. (used to express anger, disgust, peremptory rejection, etc., often fol. by a pronoun, as you or it.)
–noun
6. an act of sexual intercourse.
7. a partner in sexual intercourse.
8. Slang. a person, esp. one who is annoying or contemptible.
9. the fuck, Slang. (used as an intensifier, esp. with WH-questions, to express annoyance, impatience, etc.)
—Verb phrases
10. fuck around, Slang.
a. to behave in a frivolous or meddlesome way.
b. to engage in promiscuous sex.
11. fuck off, Slang.
a. to shirk one's duty; malinger.
b. go away: used as an exclamation of impatience.
c. to waste time.
12. fuck up, Slang.
a. to bungle or botch; ruin.
b. to act stupidly or carelessly; cause trouble; mess up.
—Idiom
13. give a fuck, Slang. to care; be concerned.

[SkyPanda]

The purpose of a particular piece of art is entirely up to its creator. 'Art' in general can't have a purpose unless you generalise, as different creators have different purposes. Therefore isn't it not so much a debate question as it is a survey result?

[Tunco]

Instead of a being a dick, you might try explaining how your one-word post relates to the topic at hand.

He answered the question that was directly asked in the topic title. Indeed, his first post was far from verbose, but I think succinctness was a perfectly reasonable strategy.

The purpose of art is simply a result of inspiration? Or is it to cause inspiration? "The purpose of art is inspiration" really isn't a great answer to the question, and certainly the whole dictionary definition shtick was not useful either.

The purpose of art is not inspiration.

First of all, to be inspired from something, that something should be created by a person (or nature). When we go back in time, back enough to see the first art ever made, you could clearly see that all of the piece(s) of art is inspired by that piece of -first- art. Which takes us to the point that art is not inspirational, it's creational. It could be only formed from your thoughts and your previous experiences (all the things you've lived through, saw, heard, anything), so that it is completely original.

Supposing that the art your created is completely original, -which is not- because what makes you you is your thoughts, and your thoughts don't come from nothing, you actually inspire from everything you see, and form your future thoughts depending on everything you saw so far.

So I can conclude that art is both inspirational and creational, both; original and formed from your previous thoughts. Ahah.

[otters~1]

Back to disagreeing with you, Tunco, sorry. Art is /definitely/ inspirational.

[Tunco]

Back to disagreeing with you, Tunco, sorry. Art is /definitely/ inspirational.

And creational. Without it, you're just copying the same thing you're inspired of.

[otters~1]

Back to disagreeing with you, Tunco, sorry. Art is /definitely/ inspirational.

And creational. Without it, you're just copying the same thing you're inspired of.

No, no; I'm saying that art inspires many people, not that artists are inspired to make art.

[yungerkid]

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.