Michael
Nov 24th 2009, 02:49 PM
Art: whether you love it or hate it, the purpose is to elicit a response
Artists produce work as a result of internal or external stimuli - the only aim should be to cause a reaction, argues A.C. Grayling
To ask what art is good for is not exactly the same as asking what its purpose is. Art does not have to have a purpose - it does not exist in order to teach, to urge a moral point, to entertain, to distract, to amuse, to serve beauty, to support a revolution, to disgust, to challenge, to stimulate or to cheer; it exists chiefly for its own sake. It is the artist, not art as such, that may have an aim in mind, and his aim may be to do any of the things just listed. But equally, an artist may just make art because he feels compelled to. Because the work is its own justification, no further aim or goal is necessarily required to explain or, still less, to justify its existence.
But to say that art does not have to serve an aim beyond itself, even though it may sometimes do so, is not to say that it is good for nothing. On the contrary, as one of the greatest goods of human experience, it is good for many things. The distinction here lies between things that are instrumental and things that are ends in themselves. An instrument exists for something beyond itself - namely, for what it can be used to do. An end in itself is its own justification for existing. Even though art can sometimes be instrumental, that fact is not essential to its nature. What art is "good for" arises from its being an end in itself, or more accurately, the embodiment of many different things that are valuable for their own sakes.
Article (http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=408595)
Once again, I find this issue to be nonsense.
If the purpose of art is to provoke a response, then Glen Beck is an artist of the first order (which I think is nonsense) since he is so successful in eliciting a response.
Besides which, if eliciting a response is the 'purpose' of art, does that not imply that the artists are to be encouraged to be obnoxious? :ummm:
And if the art in question produces no response (or just boredom as is the case with the vast majority) then does it become 'non-art'?
Any theory of art that doesn't begin and end with the artist is nonsense - or nothing more than the attempt to elevate art critics to a position of significance. That is to say, if art is located within the artist, there is no room for the art critic or the art scholar - ergo, art critics and art scholars reject this model and insist that the locus of art is entirely outside the artist.
Well, if the locus of art is outside the artist, what good is the artist? Looks to me that such a definition reduces artists to nothing more than mechanics.
Artists produce work as a result of internal or external stimuli - the only aim should be to cause a reaction, argues A.C. Grayling
To ask what art is good for is not exactly the same as asking what its purpose is. Art does not have to have a purpose - it does not exist in order to teach, to urge a moral point, to entertain, to distract, to amuse, to serve beauty, to support a revolution, to disgust, to challenge, to stimulate or to cheer; it exists chiefly for its own sake. It is the artist, not art as such, that may have an aim in mind, and his aim may be to do any of the things just listed. But equally, an artist may just make art because he feels compelled to. Because the work is its own justification, no further aim or goal is necessarily required to explain or, still less, to justify its existence.
But to say that art does not have to serve an aim beyond itself, even though it may sometimes do so, is not to say that it is good for nothing. On the contrary, as one of the greatest goods of human experience, it is good for many things. The distinction here lies between things that are instrumental and things that are ends in themselves. An instrument exists for something beyond itself - namely, for what it can be used to do. An end in itself is its own justification for existing. Even though art can sometimes be instrumental, that fact is not essential to its nature. What art is "good for" arises from its being an end in itself, or more accurately, the embodiment of many different things that are valuable for their own sakes.
Article (http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=408595)
Once again, I find this issue to be nonsense.
If the purpose of art is to provoke a response, then Glen Beck is an artist of the first order (which I think is nonsense) since he is so successful in eliciting a response.
Besides which, if eliciting a response is the 'purpose' of art, does that not imply that the artists are to be encouraged to be obnoxious? :ummm:
And if the art in question produces no response (or just boredom as is the case with the vast majority) then does it become 'non-art'?
Any theory of art that doesn't begin and end with the artist is nonsense - or nothing more than the attempt to elevate art critics to a position of significance. That is to say, if art is located within the artist, there is no room for the art critic or the art scholar - ergo, art critics and art scholars reject this model and insist that the locus of art is entirely outside the artist.
Well, if the locus of art is outside the artist, what good is the artist? Looks to me that such a definition reduces artists to nothing more than mechanics.