How Important is Art in Life?

[KoolHndLuke]

We see and hear some form of art every hour of every day. Every minute even- unless you are a zombie or something. The smiley face on your coffee cup in the morning, hell maybe the coffee cup as well. The house or apartment you live in, the city where that place is, the vehicle you drive to work in the morning, the billboards you pass, the stereo playing the music and the music itself, the smart phone you use, the interface and different apps on that phone, the clothes you wear, the food you eat, etc, etc. I could spend all day listing the things we use and see and hear and taste that was made or designed by someone with some degree of artistic talent- whether they be a civil engineer, a musician, a hair stylist, a billboard designer, a tailor, a chef, or a software developer.

 

So What is Artistic Talent? Well, everyone is artistic in everything they create or make every day. But, saying that one is talented means that they are decidedly better at creating one form of art or another and have usually had some training in that field or line of work. I say usually, but not always.

 

Whom decides an Individual's Artistic Talent? Why you do! The consumer of course. Or at least everyone including yourself gets to rate your talent. In a work application, I suppose you better be good enough to impress or satisfy your potential employer and then help to create a positive (financial) impact in whatever line of business they are in.

 

What is "Art" outside of a Job? Depends on what you define as art. A rock is not art imo. A drop of water is not art imo. But, whatever you make or create IS imo. And that can have a very broad application.

 

So, How Important is "Art" In Everyday Life? Is individual and collective creativity just as intrinsic to our being as anything else? More so? Less?

 

And, why are there no standards for measuring an individual's degree of artistic talent? What, we can't get a board of experts from around the globe to sit down and agree on something? Or maybe we just shouldn't and leave art forever shrouded in whimsical theorem(?) so that all critics have an equally weighted opinion. The problem with that is schools, colleges and universities will go on treating subjects related to Art and Philosophy as something "else" and not nearly as important as history , government or the sciences. I have known and have heard of some people that dropped out of college because they just didn't understand what learning History or Government had to do with their wanting to create art of some type- mostly music. That's not to say that ALL of them went on to be great successes- because they didn't. Very few managed to make a career with their "talent". So I guess what I am trying to figure out is why "Art" of any kind is not of greater importance when teaching our children and young adults. At the very least, form is just as important as function.

[wokking56]

2 hours ago, KoolHndLuke said:

 

Whom decides an Individual's Artistic Talent? Why you do! The consumer of course. Or at least everyone including yourself gets to rate your talent.

And therein lies the problem, the appreciation of art like that of beauty is a subjective act. While most people look at their winter jackets as mere clothing/protection it is in fact an awesome work of art. Selecting the right material, cutting it to size and shape then joining all the pieces together to make a "jacket". Sure most of us can join a couple of pieces of material together and many of us can follow a pattern to make a basic garment but to create the original from scratch that's art. Certainly the majority of us can put several sentences together for a letter or a post like this but how many can write a novel. Furthermore when we look at an art-form like painting we have a whole new list of problems since there are so many schools of panting, like Gothic, Renaissance, Baroque, Neoclassical, Realism, Impressionism, Cubism, Abstract and so many more. Many of which look to most people like a child did them.

 

2 hours ago, KoolHndLuke said:

What is "Art" outside of a Job? Depends on what you define as art. A rock is not art imo. A drop of water is not art imo. But, whatever you make or create IS imo.

I do agree with you here the rock or water droplet are not art in and of themselves, however what I might be able to do with them could very well be art.

 

2 hours ago, KoolHndLuke said:

So, How Important is "Art" In Everyday Life? Is individual and collective creativity just as intrinsic to our being as anything else?

More important than most people ever realize, the entirety of our lives is art. From the totally mundane of what shirt should I wear with these pants or looking in the pantry and deciding what I have the ingredients to make for dinner. To the totality of what legacy have I left for the future, because even if we are not rich, famous or otherwise influential. We do leave a mark on the lives of those around us, little things that will change their outlook or feeling on certain subjects.

 

2 hours ago, KoolHndLuke said:

The problem with that is schools, colleges and universities will go on treating subjects related to Art and Philosophy as something "else" and not nearly as important as history , government or the sciences

Yes this is a growing problem "Academia" seems to forget in order for there to be government and science to create history you need a little art and philosophy. Government needs  philosophical ideas to base laws upon. Science needs art to solve those tricky problems, sure formula and trials will get you so far but from time to time you just need that "eureka" moment from thinking outside the box.

[spoonsinger]

If art wasn't important in life you wouldn't have political 'groups' throughout the ages trying to control it. ref Soviet doctrine on the subject, (https://www.guggenheim.org/arts-curriculum/topic/art-and-ideology )

 

 

[landess]

While I never went to College, my high school focus was the arts. Marching band(during football season) and Classic band the rest of the year. Jazz band after school hours. Plus any art class I could get into since middle school, with Commercial Art in vocational school my senior year.

 

While I would've liked to have had the chance to refine my skills in the visual arts, I was able to focus on the musical ones for most of my life.

 

I believe ART in all it's forms is extremely important for so many reasons I could never list them all. Recently I will say with the explosion of the internet, Art has become more noticeable than ever. Every website, YouTube video, etc. relies heavily on this form of human expression in order to increase popularity, manipulate choice, and generally help to inform the user.

 

Sure, early Text games were fun, but Graphic card sales would indicate many enjoy some pretty pictures to accompany a good story. We have more artists (aspiring and established) than ever in every art form imaginable. Authors, Graphic Artists, Musicians, and the more subtle forms of art, like Con Artists, are all enjoying the benefits of the Internet. The amount of Artists required to make a movie today would seem to outnumber many of the other positions needed for such an endeavor.

 

I consider every Mod Author an Artist in some form. Any creative decision made by anyone in any field requires some form of artistic expression usually approved by others before 'going public'.

 

Art is all around us, and posts like these help one to stop, look around, and smell the roses.

[joemonco]

On 1/28/2019 at 7:27 AM, KoolHndLuke said:

why are there no standards for measuring an individual's degree of artistic talent?

 

Because then Yoko Ono couldn't dump a pile of dirt in a corner and get paid for it.

[gregathit]

On 1/28/2019 at 6:27 AM, KoolHndLuke said:

And, why are there no standards for measuring an individual's degree of artistic talent? What, we can't get a board of experts from around the globe to sit down and agree on something? 

There really is if you think about it.  There are two standards, the obvious one is money.  The not so obvious one is the personal appeal that the art has (or doesn't) to each individual.  Thus our opinion and our valuation are the standards that we separate what we think of as degrees of talent.  Nothing else is needed.

 

Besides, who would decide who an "expert" for art would be?  Fellow artists?  Someone who holds a degree in art?  Someone who deals/auctions art?  What makes their opinions better than yours or mine?  And when have any group of experts ever sat in a room and agreed on much of anything?  This is problematic at best and would marginalize and alienate folks at worst.  

Case in point:  Does anyone with a functioning brain really still believe ALL "experts" who review movies and games?  While we may come to trust several sources, we have nothing but disdain for most.  Which makes it problematic for putting together said committee to make these value judgments.

 

Fuck me.  Those are some retardedly deep thoughts for me on a Saturday morning.  Excuse me while I go fuck some shit up in fallout 4, so I can get back to my normal weekend vegetative state!

[gregathit]

On 1/28/2019 at 6:27 AM, KoolHndLuke said:

Very few managed to make a career with their "talent". So I guess what I am trying to figure out is why "Art" of any kind is not of greater importance when teaching our children and young adults. At the very least, form is just as important as function.

It should never be more important that basic skills.  NEVER.  Art should always be an extra.  To make a career out of art is so incredibility hard that to concentrate on it in schools would be sheer folly.  Why waste the valuable time of the 99.9% of folks who simply lack the talent to ever make a living at art?  It would madness.  Think about it.  To be a successful artist takes not only a huge amount of talent, it also takes a ridiculous amount of luck.  You have to have a talent that others consider valuable and enough capital to get this talent in front of those who are willing to part with their money to enable you to do your art full time.  Full time artists will always be rare.  That is life and as it should be.  Any argument otherwise goes back to that line from Fight Club (?), your special, I'm special, which means no one is special. 

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying cancel art classes.  Exposure to these things can and does open the minds of individuals, which is of course a good thing.  But this exposure should not come at the expense of basic skills, not even for the rare and talented artist.  I do fondly remember going to the orchestra and museums on school field trips.  Who doesn't have a ball at their favorite rock/rap/pop/country artist's concert?

 

I don't buy the form/function argument.  Art is the expression of an artist.  Art generally is not functional in any way.  So what does form or function have to do with art?  Is having to sit in a classroom and paint on a paper for 20 minutes cause the teacher said I had to supposed to impart or unlock something?  For me it unlocked boredom.  Is that form?  Do you have to wear coveralls or be naked to create true art?  You you have to use your hands to paint?  These are tough questions.  My purpose is say not to try to put baby in a box.  Art doesn't have to be limited.  It can be in how we arrange the flowers in our garden or the memorabilia we display in our offices and homes.  Art should be whatever the hell we want it to be.  Which will stir up controversy to be sure, but why is that such a bad thing?  We are not mindless automatons that need to reach a Borg consensus.  

 

And yes, I am fully aware that you are just raising questions and not necessarily expressing any of it as your opinion or belief.  I'm sorry it seems like I am responding to you (which I'm really not). It is just I've heard some of this before and didn't really have a forum to respond then.   Good on you OP to get us thinking!

[wokking56]

1 hour ago, gregathit said:

There really is if you think about it.  There are two standards, the obvious one is money.  The not so obvious one is the personal appeal that the art has (or doesn't) to each individual.  Thus our opinion and our valuation are the standards that we separate what we think of as degrees of talent.  Nothing else is needed.

Yes but as I stated earlier art and it's subsequent appreciation are subjective at best. For instance you and I might look at the exact same art piece that you feel is great and would be willing to pay hundreds if not thousands of dollars for. I on the other hand think it is a total piece of crap and would not give even a single dollar for it. Now neither one of us is wrong in their opinion of the piece, it just proves that there is no steadfast standard for the value/beauty of art.

[gregathit]

11 hours ago, wokking56 said:

Yes but as I stated earlier art and it's subsequent appreciation are subjective at best. For instance you and I might look at the exact same art piece that you feel is great and would be willing to pay hundreds if not thousands of dollars for. I on the other hand think it is a total piece of crap and would not give even a single dollar for it. Now neither one of us is wrong in their opinion of the piece, it just proves that there is no steadfast standard for the value/beauty of art.

Nor should there be.  You said it, neither one of us is wrong.  To have any other standards risks marginalizing the valuation of one party or another.

 

Hence the saying:  One persons trash is another's treasure.  Hell, Ebay is built on this philosophy. 

[Bazinga]

Nice thread and some great thoughts.

And I agree, art is very important and central to most people's lives, no matter if they agree or not. If not, then most of them still need it subconsciously, just think about branding and all the little details, unique features and design decisions that make them feel like some random brand of consumer goods is just right for them.

Or the things that make them feel comfortable living in their home/town/city, presenting themselves in their body/clothes/cars etc.

Or music ... but given the popularity of musicians like Ed Sheeran or (and even more annoying to me because I'm German) the new wave of German pop music like Bourani or Mark Forster I have a difficult time calling popular music art. ?

Gimme more Pete Doherty, Lindi Ortega, Mike Scott, John Darnielle, Leonard Cohen etc, not this boring and dull to the ears fortune cookie message shit... But I guess you'd still have to call it art even if it's derivative, can't force others to like the stuff I do and don't want them to force their shit on me. Live and let live.

 

The only thing I would question is the relevance of the sort of art that you find in art galleries and banker's/attorney's offices. That stuff is often just hyped for no reason and therefore expensive without merit. I'd even say that modern art as defined by the arts scene is just a cargo cult that never understood what made the classics so popular. They are overthinking it and not trusting their guts anymore, in effect lauding lazy hacks that can't even draw a dog without it looking like a horse. All talk and no skill, in German we would say "Kunst kommt von Können" ... "art derives from artistry".

So I think the real artists of today work for car companies/architects/film studios/software companies/political campaigns/marketing departments etc. Basically all the stuff that's detached from purely academic art schools.

[joemonco]

Saw this on reddit in a thread where people didn't want to give a kid a medal for tossing cornflakes on a painting by Basquiat. 

 

Quote

Letter to The Times several decades ago:

 

Sir, I feel that a timely warning may not be out of place with regard to the paintings by Picasso recently bought for the Nation from Lottery funds (report, July 24). Many years ago I was told of an account by one Giovanni Papini of a conversation with Picasso in which the artist admits he was a fraud. I have now confirmed that this account exists in Papini's LIBRO NERO (1951) of which the British Library has a copy. The passage goes as follows:

 

"The people no longer look for consolation and exhilaration in art. The cunning, the rich, the idle and the distillers of quintessences want the new, the strange, the original, the extravagant, the scandalous. And I from cubism onwards have satisfied these gentlemen and these critics with all the changing oddities that come into my head. The less they understood the more they admired me... When I am alone with myself I dare not call myself an artist in the grand and ancient sense of the word. Giotto and Titian, Rembrandt and Goya were true painters, I am only an amuseur public who has understood his times and has profited as best he could by the imbecility, the vanity and the covetousness of his contemporaries. This is a bitter confession to make - more painful to me than you may think - but at least it has the merit of being sincere".

 

I was told years ago by a member of the art establishment that there was nothing in the rumour about such an account having been written. We now know this to be untrue. The truth is that Picasso, who had been such a great painter in his early years was in the end a fraud.

 

Lord Glendevon London SW1

 

Probably apocryphal, but I'm inclined to agree.  

[Bazinga]

I actually have mixed feelings about Picasso.

Even in many of his most abstract works there's a certain quality, it's rarely just a bunch of geometric shapes and it's never boring. But then again while some of the shapes on the Ma Jolie painting suggest a guitar or whatever instrument she's holding I can't for the life of me see anything resembling a human being holding that instrument. Other very abstract works of his are more to my taste, for example Girl with a Mandolin.

Dunno if you have to see these works as something that depicts the "broken" state of the world at the time or whatever, and a guess there's a lot of bullshitting involved too (Picasso was known to be an arrogant prick). But some things like trying to break down compositions into their most abstract shapes or that stylisation in the vein of African tribal art I get.

 

So I am undecided about Picasso and try to have an open mind about his works, looking at them on a case by case basis. Others like Pollock or most of Kandinsky I'm not so tolerant towards, fuck those charlatans. I always get furious when some douche in a movie stands in front of a Pollock painting and nearly shits his pants in awe. Watched "The Accountant" yesterday, and I wanted to throw something at the screen when he declared one of these indistinguishable Pollock accidents (he owns it, rich guy) his favorite. ?

The only thing that shit is good for is fapping to it & celebrating how rich you are if you can afford it. That's what I see in these "works of art", arbitral status symbols for some of the most decadent and often just as despicable humans walking the earth.

 

One thing I'm convinced of though is that many of the modern art genres that don't really work for 2D paintings are still absolutely great when applied to architecture. I visited Chicago recently (love that place, much more impressive than NYC at least for a short sightseeing trip) and I was in awe of everything they did there, no matter if neoclassicism, art nouveau, modernism, post modernism, art brute, you name it. When applied to places you have to live in the philosophy behind all these genres actually makes sense. Not so much on a canvas you just have there as background decoration most of the time.

[Pork Type]

Paul Joseph Watson's commentary on modern art and architecture is worth a watch, if you can get past his InfoWars affiliation (Not that there's anything wrong with that.)