Please note: because you're not logged in, you may be viewing older cached versions of pages which are served up to reduce server load.
The question of usefulness in art.
PrintPage: 1 2
 The question of usefulness in art. | |
|
Klaatu
Aspirant  Usergroup: Members Joined: Dec 11, 2003 Location: In between Total Topics: 24 Total Posts: 20 |
 #1
Subject: The question of usefulness in art. Something I've been pondering lately, is the question of how usefulness relates to a work of art. The lack of use is often what we claim identifies art in the the first place; we say for example, that an object has a use, and it might be designed in an artistic way, but we separate these things. We say for example, that when we consider an object aesthetically, we consider it not as an object for use (or as a means to some other end). This translates to how we think of a painting, for example. We don't use a painting for anything other than looking at it, and it has worth 'in itself', for its own sake. Furthermore, 'crafts' and all works that are tainted by use are looked down upon by the elite, and the essence of the modern 'ready-made' sculpture is to take a normal object and deprive it of it's use, rendering it an object for aesthetic contemplation. This simple concept gets a bit complicated when we consider objects which are at once useful, and beautiful. We tend to consider such objects with ambivalence. For example, a building is a work of art, and is also a dwelling space. A tent or a crude brick shelter is only a dwelling space for us, whereas a Frank Lloyd Wright house is at once beautiful, aesthetically pleasing and would more often be considered for these qualities than just as a house. Something bothers me about making these types of distinctions. I guess it comes not from my love for art, or for use, but rather a certain affinity I have for the union of the two. They may even be unified, both in a single act, that is at once beautiful and practical. This union of practicality and use, is, beautiful. Yet, also practical. It's good to be doing what you need to do, and doing it always in a way that's graceful. This unity forms the basis for all the crafts which create such objects of use. Does the practical by its nature suffer from becoming more beautiful, or are they intimately linked, in such a way that they both spring from the same source, so to speak? It would seem that the beautiful is separated from the use. We consider, for example, an ornament on a building. If it was gone, the building would still do it's job; it would still protect from the wind, the rain, and create space for us to live in. There are clearly superficial aspects to this aesthetic enhancement, and it can be disposed with in some cases. And still in other cases, it cannot be disposed with. For example, a graceful dome or the columns of a greek temple, or the stained glass windows and buttressing in a Cathedral, fullfill a use and at the same time are formed to complete a working aesthetic whole. Furthermore, when we consider what such ornamentation really means to us, we start to question whether it is really beneficial to the aesthetics at all. It might just as soon be the paint covering up a beautiful womans face. Lets say a building in the gothic style is battlemented, but is not designed to be an actual medieval fortress, or ever see battle? The battlementing becomes unnecessary, not part of the whole, so to speak- and thus not part of aesthetic whole, and superficial; so that the building would be just as beautiful without them as with them. Could it be this 'wholeness' that is the most crucial? And can you ever really separate use from any work of art? Is use the lifeblood that forms the whole, and is the feverish attampt to exorcise it from the work of art a fruitless enterprise? At this point I think I'll leave it and see what sort of responses I get here, before I spew more out. |
|
Kali Yuga
Tokyo Two-Stepper  Usergroup: Members Joined: Jan 30, 2005 Location: Monster Island Total Topics: 14 Total Posts: 27 |
#2
Anything that is totally useless is just in my way.  The idea that "art has no use" is, to me, just a misinterpretation of "Art for Art's Sake." "Art that has no function" typically ends up having one of a few impractical functions: - decoration - object of contemplation - expression of an idea - intellectually complex or challenging entertainment - mental diversion - exploration (by the artist) of formal properties of the medium - indicator of wealth, taste and/or social status Most of this is because I define art not as a "useless object," but as one where the best information you can retrieve from the object is essentially or predominantly aesthetic in nature, rather than "a useless but beautiful object." Feel better now?  "Our life is the creation of our mind." - a stale Fortune Cookie |
|
sunday7
Graduate  Usergroup: Sponsors Joined: Apr 08, 2005 Total Topics: 11 Total Posts: 212 |
#3
The criteria used to determine whether or not an object is "useful" are different from the criteria used to determine whether or not it is "beautiful." This does not imply that the categories and standards are mutually exclusive, but rather that they are simply different. The reason "usefulness" is considered detrimental to aesthetic appreciation is because the standards we use to determine whether or not something is useful have little to do with art. Granted, art can be practical (as in a painting being used to decorate a room or a gothic cathedral), but this is not what makes it aesthetically beautiful. |
|
graham_ashe
Initiate  Usergroup: Members Joined: Oct 18, 2005 Total Topics: 2 Total Posts: 11 |
#4
I think it depends what domain we are referring to. Take chess for example. Aesthetics in chess is well-known and one of the major criteria of a 'beautiful' move is that it is also 'useful' in some way. In fact, even in other domains, some might say that functionality combined with aesthetics makes the object even more beautiful. Cool Software |
|
Commify
Student Usergroup: Members Joined: Apr 25, 2004 Location: U.S. Total Topics: 2 Total Posts: 87 |
#5
Does usefulness detract from art? We're tourists; we don't hold services in the cathedrals of France and we don't live in Wright's houses. The user becomes desensitized to useful art because of exposure. |
|
bum
King  Usergroup: Members Joined: Oct 24, 2005 Location: Central Europe Total Topics: 2 Total Posts: 16 |
#6
art has only necessarily an inner usefulness-(it neednt have a menaing- some even say that its a characteristic of art that its meaningless-) but in its inner logic it must be relentlessly congruent. As for an outer meaning: its arbitrary- which doesnt say that it cannot have one or more uses or meanings. art that defines itself through its outer purpose exclusively is no art or no good art anyway. Where there was nothing, nothing shall be again. |
|
notquitethere
Professor  Usergroup: Members Joined: Aug 13, 2005 Location: Reading - England Total Topics: 41 Total Posts: 970 |
#7
I disagree- I think for something to be art it must have meaning, if only subjectively symbolic. Or more rather, I may well agree but we are using different philosophical jargon to say the same thing! "Never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what it might appear to others that what you were or might have been was not otherwise than what you had been would have appeared to them to be otherwise." - The Duchess |
|
bum
King Usergroup: Members Joined: Oct 24, 2005 Location: Central Europe Total Topics: 2 Total Posts: 16 |
#8
ahoi notquitethere! maybe I wasn’t very clear cause Im not certain of how to express it well, myself. I rather meant practicality or usefulness. So maybe I should just give some examples of what I mean: --if I eg listen to a good song then it has the practical use that it makes me feel good and happy (and makes my driving less boring or whatever) yet the song doesn’t "need" my happiness in order to be a good song (its good cause of other reasons that I called intrinsic ones above) --or also: art can have other practical uses eg it can earn me some money if Im the artist, but again its monetary value is independant of its effect or its inner un/reason (its beauty its style or disturbing effect etc)- art in this sense doesn’t care about anyone but itsself, it even doesn’t care about me being the creator so to speak… --or if you take a renaissance picture of a nobleman- it also had the function of depicting the nobles likeness and was used for representation- or for other political reasons at the time of its creation, yet I can enjoy its elegance or technique or the interesting execution of the face or expression in it even hundreds of yrs after its completion though I don’t know or care for the biography of the depicted man at all (though this can deepen my enjoyment) I hope that by these examples you could get a better picture  of what I was trying to say..practicality of art is not necessary, its cirumstantial, but its not devaluing art if it is (by chance or not practical), and great craftsmanship (in design: esp architecture or cars etc) can even constitute an important part of art, still practicality alone doesn’t make art either- (no matter for what reasons it was created)--this is more or less my take on it…(an idea I just had: maybe absoulte (highest) beauty is also so beautiful cause its utterly meaningless and thereby somehow innocent..)…ps about the chess: a beautiful move is again beautyful/audacious etc according to the inner rules of the game or combining them graciously and not cause it has a practical use (though it CAN have one eg impress an onlooker etc) Where there was nothing, nothing shall be again. |
|
notquitethere
Professor Usergroup: Members Joined: Aug 13, 2005 Location: Reading - England Total Topics: 41 Total Posts: 970 |
#9
I see what you're saying. I agree that a work of art doesn't have to have some sort of external point to it, but must, in my view, have internal meaning. So a picture doesn't have to be enjoyable to be art, it just has to have some sort of representative or symbolic meaning instilled by the artist. I could scribble on a page, and even if others enjoyed the scribble, it wouldn't be art. But if I painted a picture depicting my subjective experience in a choatic world indifferent to my very existence and nobody liked it and it had no practical use for earning me money or decorating something or filling in a hole in the wall or anything, then it would still be art. "Never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what it might appear to others that what you were or might have been was not otherwise than what you had been would have appeared to them to be otherwise." - The Duchess |
|
Gulnara
Professor Usergroup: Members Joined: Dec 08, 2005 Location: USA Total Topics: 2 Total Posts: 659 |
#10
A work of art can be a great investment, if artist's skill in using medium, and handling technological parts of creating long lasting peace of art are up to par. If artist's idea is also long lasting, the we have a Mona Lisa on our hands. Not bad, ha? A gentle " hello" from six centuries back, braking time boundaries. Also, the good investment piece represents proper conditions, that did allow this art to be created in a first place: education, academy, artistic circles, years of practice, seller and buyer, the web of business interactions, mentors, system of support for the artists, like Medici. When people thrill over the artist's skill, is it because it creates the sense of widened possibilities, uncovers or proves unseen before potential for the impeccable union of both intellectual and hands on abilities of humans? Humming Bird |
Page: 1 2
Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.