Art is useless for your uncle - maybe - I don't know him

But art, poetry, architecture, the wonder of nature, the smile of a small child, the sound of the birds singing etc etc etc enriches my life in so many ways and on an almost daily basis :tiphat:

 

Intelligence is not a linear spectrum; there are intelligences (plural). We are all more intelligent in some ways, not so much in others. Your uncle is good at maths.

 

I don't know about that because something doesn't add up here!

 

Now, after having had some time to think about it, my definition of art would be, something of a mirror that grabs society by the shoulders and shakes it, showing society all of its own beauty and flaws. How would you define art? Is music nothing more than entertainment?

I don't know, but entertainment, as anything that gives pleasure in life is very important.
It could be useless only to those who think that don't need to live a good life but we have just to survive. Because to survive we don't need sex if not for reproductive function, we don't need good food, beautiful houses and great views. Are those things useless too?

 

A friend of mine explains it this way: Mathematicians, Scientists and Engineers see the world in black and white only, and only rarely see the gray; whereas people in the humanities see the world in shades of gray all the time, including the black and white. Your life is so much richer than your uncle's!

 

Sorry, but your friend has absolutely no idea.

 

I'm a jazz guitarist AND contemporary classical composer.

?

Your going straight to hell! :lol:

 

Lol! And I'm going to get there via starvation by dissonance. Actually, I kid. I also teach, that's where the BIG money is.

By the way, my classical friends tell me about how they hate jazz and their blood pressure levels when listening to it, and my jazz friends tell me they thought I was more hip than I actually am. Lol

 

Well, I certainly won't agree with your uncle, but I don't have an opinion on how art should be rewarded. I don't believe in objective "merit" in art. As far as I can tell, whereas your uncle meant "popular with everyone," your proposal about "merit" would amount in practice to something like "popular with the right sort of people."

Lady Gaga has made jigatimes more money getting attention (and probably had more fun) than she could've made just about any other way; her talent includes the entire creation. Once she had her foot in the door, she wanted her hand in the till.

The idea that art is useless is very interesting. I think that might be the essential defining feature of art, actually. One of the beautiful things about humanity is that we do things that are useless. Doing useful things is great too, of course. But we need to stop saying things like "nothing more than entertainment." Take away all the useless things - all the decorations and games and jokes - and we're "nothing more than" clever reptiles.

 

The idea that art is useless is very interesting. I think that might be the essential defining feature of art, actually. One of the beautiful things about humanity is that we do things that are useless. Doing useful things is great too, of course. But we need to stop saying things like "nothing more than entertainment." Take away all the useless things - all the decorations and games and jokes - and we're "nothing more than" clever reptiles.

Exactly.

Also, of the nominated songs, "Glory" was clearly the best, so I wouldn't say its win was a popularity contest. If you write a song in a pop genre for a Hollywood movie, you're working within certain pretty narrow strictures. That doesn't mean it can't be good.

 

I'm going to be crude but to me "Art" is a "work" a painting, piece of music, book, film, poem, photograph, play, dance performance, sculpture etc that makes me take a step back and say to myself f++k me.

This may sound pompous or a bit grand but in that moment I know that my life is better for having experienced that. It changes you and the art may not always be pleasant but the change is always good and it always makes you ask questions even if your not sure why your asking them.

I'd just like to say I am not one who curses regularly but that's honestly what I think so felt I had to say so.

I could list numerous examples of "art" but I am going to use one. It's not even the best example I could give but I feel it illustrates my point perfectly.

The 2002 film Irréversible it was directed by Gaspar Noé and starred Monica Bellucci, Vincent Cassel and Albert Dupontel. That is as much information as I will give as far as plot goes but anyone who has seen it will no there is no deep story to be told here.

It is a very violent film I have nothing against violence in films that's fine. However this was one film for one reason I did not enjoy in fact I have never watched it again. The reason in question is actually one scene which is the central plot point around which the main events unfold. It made me very uncomfortable to the point I thought about turning the DVD off on several occasions over the length of this maybe 5 to 10 minute scene.

The rest of the film is not without merit and you are filled with emotions during and after this scene so you are gripped and you couldn't turn it off. Looking back on it now without being caught up in the moment the rest of the film is fairly banal but satisfying enough that it's never considered bad.

Now the acting was fine the film was good I'm not saying this was a poorly made/shot/acted film but I hate this film. Yet to me I would say to anyone who was interested in serious film it's a must watch (but only once).

At the end of the film I was heartbroken to the point I was actually upset but I felt better for having seen it and I was asking myself questions. Let me put it this way I didn't think I would be asking myself those types of questions after seeing a film like this.

To me that's the power of art you can move mountains without moving from your chair.

Regards,

Fox

 

My dear Sir:

Art is useless because its aim is simply to create a mood. It is not meant to instruct, or to influence action in any way. It is superbly sterile, and the note of its pleasure is sterility. If the contemplation of a work of art is followed by activity of any kind, the work is either of a very second-rate order, or the spectator has failed to realise the complete artistic impression.

A work of art is useless as a flower is useless. A flower blossoms for its own joy. We gain a moment of joy by looking at it. That is all that is to be said about our relations to flowers. Of course man may sell the flower, and so make it useful to him, but this has nothing to do with the flower. It is not part of its essence. It is accidental. It is a misuse. All this is I fear very obscure. But the subject is a long one.

Truly yours,

Oscar Wilde

 

Art is useless? Certainly not music! "When we hear a mass, we go to church. When we hear a march, we go off to war."

 

I would agree that music is essentially for entertainment.

Music and arts more generally can be used to make statements about reality, life, current events, etc. Sometimes even with great effect. But I would guess that at least 99% of music and art has little or nothing to say. About par for humanity I suppose.

Still, it's fun to listen to it!

 

You know when you just don't fit in and you feel your worth nothing. Your different from everyone else and you don't know why, you may think about trying to end it all or maybe you've tried and failed. What's stops you from trying again? For some people it's their art I would say it's not worthless to them.

From a GDP economic point of view art is not worthless either because it is sold for multi-millions and is seen as a good way to avoid currency devaluation. So the argument art has no real tangible benefits if you exclude the purely entertainment aspect is not valid.

Fox

 

Some art is useless. Some art is for entertainment.

Examples: Lady Gaga (music), Jeff Koons (visual art)

The idea that all art is entertainment and therefore useless, is laughable. Anyone with such a view has no imagination and no creative power.

 

"All art is quite useless."- Oscar Wilde

"Not all music is art and not artwork is art but all art is worth something." ~ Fox

 

"All art is quite useless."- Oscar Wilde

 

Oscar Wilde should have a chat with James Joyce or J.S. Bach.

 

"All art is quite useless."- Oscar Wilde

Morimur- Oscar Wilde should have a chat with James Joyce or J.S. Bach.

"Nothing is more useful to man than those arts which have no
utility." -Ovid

"Art has no end but its own perfection." -Plutarch

What is the "use" or the "meaning" of Mozart's Clarinet Quintet? What is the use or meaning of life itself?

 

The hat is tipped, goodness the pants are off hail the master of the quotes :tiphat:

 

Art useless? I think that math has been less useful than art to me. I listen to way more classical music than I ever did third degree derivatives on a daily basis.

 

Thanks for sharing all the interesting comments. I just want to say that even if I don't agree with all of the opinions, I value each one. Also, may I share with you all an amazing piece I found:

http://psband.org/Spirit_of_the_Sands/The_Value_of_Music.html

Teaser from article:

Welcome address to freshman at Boston Conservatory, given by Karl Paulnack, pianist and director of music division at Boston Conservatory.

"One of my parents' deepest fears, I suspect, is that society would not properly value me as a musician, that I wouldn't be appreciated. I had very good grades in high school, I was good in science and math, and they imagined that as a doctor or a research chemist or an engineer, I might be more appreciated than I would be as a musician. I still remember my mother's remark when I announced my decision to apply to music school-she said, "you're WASTING your SAT scores." On some level, I think, my parents were not sure themselves what the value of music was, what its purpose was. And they LOVED music, they listened to classical music all the time. They just weren't really clear about its function. So let me talk about that a little bit, because we live in a society that puts music in the "arts and entertainment" section of the newspaper, and serious music, the kind your kids are about to engage in, has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with entertainment, in fact it's the opposite of entertainment."

 

I edited your quote Science to make it cleaner which bit I was referring to. It was your use "useless" I equated that to mean worthless as an artist myself I would be offend if my work was considered useless or worthless. Bad, terrible, tasteless things of that nature I could handle but I would be annoyed at useless.

I didn't think you were totally wrong either because and that's why I quoted isorhythm I don't know "Glory" but I'm amusing it's not Bach it's fairly low-brow but isorhythm thinks it was good enough to win and obviously some people find it entertaining so you can tick all the boxes is what I was trying to say.

I just didn't like the word useless although I appreciate the kind of philological point you were trying to make that other living things generally don't do things for no reason. Although quite a few of them actually do not to the extent that humans do so your point is still valid.

It was never meant as a attack or criticism of either of you and I genuinely sorry if you felt it was.

Best Wishes,

Fox.

 

Oscars are meaningless in "artistic" terms? Can't see that at all. Over the years, Oscars have been awarded to many movies that we recognize today as among the best. Also to many others, of course, but look at Pulitzer prizes for music for a parallel case. Or the Prix de Rome for music for that matter. It was awarded annually from 1803, and how many names do we even recognize today?

You'd have to argue that movies aren't "art" at all, and that would seem a strange position to take.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prix_de_Rome#First_Prize_Winners_in_the_Musical_Composition_category

 

I think the Pulitzers have generally been awarded to great and accomplished composers, but usually not for their best works. Does anyone really think that John Adams' "On the Transmigration of Souls" is in the upper echelon of his oeuvre?

Other prizes like the Oscars often work the same way, on the basis of goodwill towards the artists involved as much as or more than towards the work itself.

 

So let me talk about that a little bit, because we live in a society that puts music in the "arts and entertainment" section of the newspaper, and serious music, the kind your kids are about to engage in, has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with entertainment, in fact it's the opposite of entertainment."

Is that indeed true? Bach and Beethoven bring me pleasure. I find Cosi fan tutte and La Traviata to be quite entertaining.

 

That's the point I'm trying to make not all music is art but Bach and Beethoven are art. Music was simply the medium in which Bach and Beethoven expressed themselves.

The point is it's art it has meaning, it has purpose but over all the main reason for it still being in existence hundreds of years after it was written is that it brings pleasure to tens of thousands of people every year.

Fox

 

Art is a revolt against fate. All art is a revolt against man's fate.
-Andre Malraux

Art is the most intense mode of individualism that the world has known.
-Oscar Wilde

Art is the only way to run away without leaving home.
-Twyla Tharp

 

Art is a revolt against fate. All art is a revolt against man's fate.
-Andre Malraux

Bach was revolting against man's fate? (Herr Bach looks at M. Malraux with a puzzled expression...)

 

I made a WTF comment about the music awards being a popularity contest nowadays, and my uncle says the song was great exactly because everyone loved it. He said it was entertainment and the fact that the majority loved it was all that mattered. I replied that music is art and should be awarded based on merit not popularity. He said people vote with their wallets.

In some ways your uncle is right, in that, for the most part, money is the fuel that allows all art and music to continue. But in more important ways he is wrong. What is it that makes any work of art/music/literature great? It is definitely not the number of copies that are sold, but is the quality and meaning of the work. The greatest art/music/literature CAN be appreciated by the masses but is NEVER appreciated by the masses because it involves a certain amount of effort on the part of the BEHOLDER to appreciate the art.

I guess what I am saying is that the greatest works of art/music/lit are those that are usually not the simplest and most readily digestible. FWIW.

I would ask your uncle what his favorite novel is. Then ask him how popular that novel is. If your uncle has no appreciation of great art/music/lit then, I am sorry to say, he is Neanderthal, albeit an intelligent one.

 

Art and music isn't useless to any of the record label executives

 

Art is useless.
But it is not valueless.

We could certainly exist without art. But we probably wouldn't much enjoy that existence. Or value it. Or believe it to be worthwhile.

 

True. Live would be boring. Only eating, drinking, having sex and sleep. Having just a monotone life.

 

Of course art is not useless, and good music is much more than entertainment. But it does remind me of something I once read about the psychologist Steven Pinker at Harvard (?). He was going on about how we were just accidental chemical constructs and anything we come up with has no real deep meaning. He was asked about great music (I think Bach was mentioned), and he dismissed all of music by calling it "auditory cheesecake".
Maybe he's changed his mind since then ;-).

Albert Einstein played the violin (story is that once he was playing with a famous cellist. Afterwards he asked the cellist "did I play well?" Cellist said "you played relatively well." ;-)

Another scientist, Stephen Jay Gould, sometimes wrote liner notes for classical music records. I think he wrote ones for a recording of Mozart's Requiem I have.

I know a mathematician who plays the viola, and with whom shared my great enthusiasm for Schubert's string quintet (a real favorite of his).

Sometimes I think that the "useless, auditory cheesecake" business is a product of the materialism of the current batch of scientists, and not past ones (who were often materialists too, but seemed to be less one-dimensional about non-scientific things) . But that is a completely different subject, so I will stop here. ;-)

 

I know science types who promote science over art, proposing that science better meets man's needs.

Indeed. Science allows for life to be easier, allows for us to have more time free from the toils and drudgery of existence, these science types proudly claim.

I ask them: Why do we want more free time? To do what? To enjoy the arts, perhaps?