Is art useful/ necessary?

[annelaure]

There are various aspects to art, that cover what’s aesthetical, human, or even moral (there currently is a photography exhibit in a museum in Toulouse which subject is ‘autopsy’, and you can see all the details and all the steps of someone carrying an autopsy).

Art doesn’t contribute to a materialistic well being, or to any useful purpose to make

Comments

It is meaningful

[dkamab]

I can’t remember the author however I recall that he equated art to the sacred or ‘making’ sacred. As one can imagine this particular author was addressing the need for religion. So, what is the sacred? More importantly why is it necessary - and it is necessary - for human beings to engage in such behavior? Ultimately this leads to the question of what motivates human beings? These are developmental psychology questions without definitive answers. It is important, I believe, to separate what ‘art’ is today from its beginnings. While the subconscious/motivational underpinnings may be the same how we view it is entirely different. This relates to the role culture plays on shaping our perceptions; back to the question of the necessity of art as it relates to its beginnings.
Since entire books have been devoted to this topic I’ll defer to one that I believe directly relates to the question of art, the role it plays and whether or not it is necessary. To begin, remember that I’m paraphrasing my understanding of the material - don’t dismiss it if it doesn’t make sense or seems erroneous - go back to the source material.
Ernest Becker’s “The Denial of Death” is a synthesis of works from various sources including Freud, Kant, Rank, and Brown, to name a few. Becker’s goal is to elucidate the primary motivation of human beings. To most the title says it all. But the interest here is in art. Becker discusses two key motivations for humans - the need to be a part of something greater and the need to an individual. He called these the twin ontological motives. Both can create as well as relieve anxiety. The individual can’t stand before nature, it is too much, too terrifying, so he finds strength and support from those around him, from society. However she is also an individual, nature’s ultimate narcissist. She must be her own person. It is a tug of war between the two.
Meaning is at the core of this, for meaning gives context/definition in order for people to construct the complex structures that is human existence. The creation of meaning is one of our species responses to consciousness. Its counterpart would be denial. Both serve to ameliorate the anxiety caused by an animal’s awareness of its own existence (a unique trait found only in homo-sapiens.)
Art is an interesting pursuit when considering these. For one the artist is making a statement, putting his/her work before the world essentially saying this is me. It is the creation of meaning by the individual, yet this is also judged by others as meaningful or meaningless, ultimately reflecting upon the individual. How much this really means to the artist is always questionable. Ok, I’m tired of writing this paper.
Long story short, art can be viewed as the creation of meaning. The creation of meaning is one way human beings endow life with purpose. Whether it is the artist or the observer both use art to define who they are and thereby find their place in the world. Like most human endeavors, art is an onion - my rambling simply represents one layer. I think it is important that we continually ask ourselves these questions even if the answers may never be fully available.

Re: It is meaningful

[annelaure]

Thank you for your comment, and sorry it took me so long to answer it. It needed some thinking...

I do not know what what motivates human beings, but I think it's different for anyone.
Part of it probably is, indeed, immortality. (quite ironical when we're talking about the pictures of that woman..)
Maybe some artists indeed find nature overwhelming, but seeing how many of them have been lonely people, I'm not sure they find that much strength and support from the others, but maybe from the look other people give on their art, and they strive to be "someone" in that field.

Now an interesting question would be "what is the meaning"? Is it art as a whole or as one individual thing? For example, I paint, I scrapbook, I knit.... some of those things can be considered art (unvoluntary modern art to some). Do all these things have the meaning associate with art, or do only some of them mean something that would be more than just a "I did it" thing?