The importance of ART

[jeska315]

Food, shelter, companionship- these are all that we need to be happy, right (per MMM's recent presentation at World Domination Summit)?  During the talk, he mentions "making music with people".  I've been debating whether "art" is a basic human need (to create, self expression) or whether it's an 'extra' benefit of living in a rich country.  I'm not an artist.  Should I be??

[Russ]

If you're unsure whether you need something, you probably don't need it.
Some people do, but you probably don't

[Hotstreak]

Food, shelter, companionship- these are all that we need to be happy, right (per MMM's recent presentation at World Domination Summit)?  During the talk, he mentions "making music with people".  I've been debating whether "art" is a basic human need (to create, self expression) or whether it's an 'extra' benefit of living in a rich country.  I'm not an artist.  Should I be??

Are you talking about paintings, sculptures, playing the guitar?  Then no, you don't need that.

[GuitarStv]

Yes, art (of some kind) is a basic human need.

It might be in the form of music, paintings, architecture, philosophy, literature, or any of another dozen fields . . . but there isn't a person I know who lives a life devoid of art.

[Stachey]

The earliest evidence of human art is forty thousand years old.
The earliest evidence of agriculture is ten thousand years old.

Art has always been very important to human beings.

[FIRE Artist]

The earliest evidence of human art is forty thousand years old.
The earliest evidence of agriculture is ten thousand years old.

Art has always been very important to human beings.

This.  Art of all types, is a form of communication and creation.  The need to create and communicate is so intrinsic to human nature that art would have to be considered a need.

[Bicycle_B]

Food, shelter, companionship- these are all that we need to be happy, right (per MMM's recent presentation at World Domination Summit)?  During the talk, he mentions "making music with people".  I've been debating whether "art" is a basic human need (to create, self expression) or whether it's an 'extra' benefit of living in a rich country.  I'm not an artist.  Should I be??

One schmuck's opinion (not an artist) - Art exists in poor countries, but wealth makes it easier to create and preserve.  African-Americans invented one of the world's most powerful musical traditions while in slavery, based in part on traditions from societies that are today some of the world's poorest countries.

On whether you should be an artist - for this question, there are three types of people.

1.  Artists by nature.  They create because they have to.  Like a thirsty plant in a drought, they die on the vine if they're not creating. 

2.  Art impaired.  These are people who don't like the idea of personally creating art (including music), and in most cases feel they're no good at it.  Often they're right.  Art teachers and such may disagree with me and say everybody would like it if they tried in the right environment, but it's my post.  I say that train already left the station for some people.

3.  Art neutral.  These are people who might like creating art if they tried it.  Maybe they'd love it under some circumstances (relaxed environment, lots of praise) and not others (stress, derision, bad tools, loneliness). 

OP, I think your self-description shows you're not in group 1, and probably not in group 2.  So you're art neutral.  Here IMHO are the rights and opportunities of the art neutral:

A. You can try to make art of any kind as little or as much as you want.
B. You may devote as many resources to this as you have earned/saved, but should not borrow.  Borrowing to create art should restricted to group 1 only.  Exception:  If you are curious and still in debt emergency, you may devote 1% of income.  Go for it.
C. If you're not sure and you're out of debt emergency, it's worth trying.
D. If you don't feel like making art, or you try it and it's meh, more attempts might help you like it better.  Whether to try again or not is personal judgment.  Art is one of the engaging activities in life but there are others. In all cases, practice, companionship and commitment increase the joy over time.
E. You don't have to make art to like art.
F. You don't have to make art to help art get made.  Buy art, go to events, wear the T shirt, be a fan.

[Dmoneyzzz]

I love art because it provides a way for me to express myself.

In my opinion, art is an avenue for each person or a group of people to be unique and to deliver their own message(s) through their own chosen mediums.

Art is really a liberating progression and an incredible journey.  I believe you should follow what your heart tells you to do.

I keep creating art because it satisfies one of my desires - to create and share with others.

Thanks for posting this thread jeska315!

[Scandium]

The earliest evidence of human art is forty thousand years old.
The earliest evidence of agriculture is ten thousand years old.

Art has always been very important to human beings.

Being important and being necessary are not the same thing. Would you die without art? No, so it's not a necessary need. Entertainment in your spare time (i.e. art) is pretty much the definition of something that may be enjoyable, but not something you need.

[boy_bye]

The earliest evidence of human art is forty thousand years old.
The earliest evidence of agriculture is ten thousand years old.

Art has always been very important to human beings.

Being important and being necessary are not the same thing. Would you die without art? No, so it's not a necessary need. Entertainment in your spare time (i.e. art) is pretty much the definition of something that may be enjoyable, but not something you need.

I dunno, I think people have pretty much always been singing, making up stories, dancing, weaving, making homes beautiful, drawing pictures and the like. So how would we know if people would die without art? We've literally never been without it.

To me, it's always valuable it to make stuff even if you're no good at it. Where a lot of people get hung up is feeling like they are not talented, but who cares? If you can set the judgement aside, it simply feels good to make music, to connect with other humans via storytelling, to slap colors around on a page, to dance alone and with others, and all the other ways we have of expressing ourselves.

[Scandium]

To me, it's always valuable it to make stuff even if you're no good at it. Where a lot of people get hung up is feeling like they are not talented, but who cares? If you can set the judgement aside, it simply feels good to make music, to connect with other humans via storytelling, to slap colors around on a page, to dance alone and with others, and all the other ways we have of expressing ourselves.

*some people do. I hate dancing, dislike speaking, and hated music and art in school because I sucked at it. No, none of that feels good to me. So maybe you like it, and that's fine. But that doesn't mean everyone does. It's just hat the people who think art is important are very vocal about it. We who don't care don't bother saying much

[boy_bye]

To me, it's always valuable it to make stuff even if you're no good at it. Where a lot of people get hung up is feeling like they are not talented, but who cares? If you can set the judgement aside, it simply feels good to make music, to connect with other humans via storytelling, to slap colors around on a page, to dance alone and with others, and all the other ways we have of expressing ourselves.

*some people do. I hate dancing, dislike speaking, and hated music and art in school because I sucked at it. No, none of that feels good to me. So maybe you like it, and that's fine. But that doesn't mean everyone does. It's just hat the people who think art is important are very vocal about it. We who don't care don't bother saying much

My point is that people get slotted into "I suck at this" and then they don't like it. I still think that if you (and anyone else) could set the judgement aside, you would probably find that there's some creative activity that you enjoy. Sure, you have every right to not think it's important enough to bother, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong.

To be a human being is to be creative.

[GuitarStv]

The earliest evidence of human art is forty thousand years old.
The earliest evidence of agriculture is ten thousand years old.

Art has always been very important to human beings.

Being important and being necessary are not the same thing. Would you die without art? No, so it's not a necessary need. Entertainment in your spare time (i.e. art) is pretty much the definition of something that may be enjoyable, but not something you need.

If you were kept in a breeding pen that just barely allowed you to move your arms and legs, but given regular access to food and water (and were kept injected with medications to prevent death from disease) you wouldn't die.  You wouldn't live either.  Life deprived of the ability to live is not desirable.  Art is necessary to live a full life.

[Scandium]

The earliest evidence of human art is forty thousand years old.
The earliest evidence of agriculture is ten thousand years old.

Art has always been very important to human beings.

Being important and being necessary are not the same thing. Would you die without art? No, so it's not a necessary need. Entertainment in your spare time (i.e. art) is pretty much the definition of something that may be enjoyable, but not something you need.

If you were kept in a breeding pen that just barely allowed you to move your arms and legs, but given regular access to food and water (and were kept injected with medications to prevent death from disease) you wouldn't die.  You wouldn't live either.  Life deprived of the ability to live is not desirable.  Art is necessary to live a full life.

Typically live = not die. Nobody said fulfilling life. That starts to get awfully subjective. I might think a life without whiskey is not a full life. So now I can say whiskey is a necessity for life? Awesome!

[FIRE Artist]

^ Well, the OP is equating human needs to happiness, and listed companionship as a need for happiness.  "Art" can be seen as the same type of need as companionship.  If whisky is critical to your happiness, then have at 'er.

[uppy]

I've been a part of threads like this before. Trying to convince people who do not value art to value it as something not only "nice" and "entertaining" but actually necessary and one of the most important human endeavors is like trying to convince a vegetarian that eating meat is morally wrong. It's fundamentally a faith question, a non-religious one, like many things for which you can never satisfy the desire for proof or results or whatever.

I for one believe that art is necessary for human life. And no I'm not a vegetarian :)

[GuitarStv]

I've been a part of threads like this before. Trying to convince people who do not value art to value it as something not only "nice" and "entertaining" but actually necessary and one of the most important human endeavors is like trying to convince a vegetarian that eating meat is morally wrong. It's fundamentally a faith question, a non-religious one, like many things for which you can never satisfy the desire for proof or results or whatever.

I for one believe that art is necessary for human life. And no I'm not a vegetarian :)

The irony is, you can't answer the question of what it means to live well, or what we should really consider a tolerable life without delving into the arts (philosophy).  That's how fundamental to human existence the arts are.

[Northwestie]

I've been a part of threads like this before. Trying to convince people who do not value art to value it as something not only "nice" and "entertaining" but actually necessary and one of the most important human endeavors is like trying to convince a vegetarian that eating meat is morally wrong. It's fundamentally a faith question, a non-religious one, like many things for which you can never satisfy the desire for proof or results or whatever.

I for one believe that art is necessary for human life. And no I'm not a vegetarian :)

The irony is, you can't answer the question of what it means to live well, or what we should really consider a tolerable life without delving into the arts (philosophy).  That's how fundamental to human existence the arts are.

While I agree - there is a substantial proportion of the US that seems to get by with the likes of Duck Dynasty as their highest calling.

[Silverado]

Reading just the thread title, all i had in my head was 'what is ART (Aleppo)?'

[Glenstache]

Biologically, not really. As a mechanism of humanity? I think it is a powerful tool.

Our brains function on patterns. We are hard wired to find them in our surroundings and make connections between them. That ability to find faces in clouds, or wall spackle? There you go.

In many ways art is a directed articulation of patterns as a way to process the world around us. A minor D is profoundly sad. A tempo is upbeat and driving or a slow dirge. Fractal patterns in a hill of trees rendered as brush strokes (thank you Bob Ross!) is emotive. Even if not strictly a pattern, a juxtaposition of rendered recognizable concepts can pry our minds open to a new way of seeing something. This is the essence of how Banksy is so effective. This ability to see in a different way is very powerful. In religious art it is the abstract made tangible. impressionism is very popular because (IMO) it reduces to just the necessary elements to convey an image while not restricting to honoring reality.

So, how does this pattern dopamine hit in our brains at finding a pattern make us better humans? it stimulates our brains, which is always a good thing. But, because it can resonate with and directly access patterns in our brain, it can help us make connections and see things in the "real" world. Why do sappy songs feel so right when you are depressed? It resonates. Same for the happy end. There are pieces of visual art that have absolutely stopped me in my tracks and evoked strong empathy. This ability to communicate emotion, and bypass our rational processes (though we may engage with art furhter through that later) is really powerful and important.

As to creating vs consuming art? I have been involved in photography my whole life and making music for 25 years. I am solidly mediocre. it scratches an itch that I can't reach in any other way. But, I get just as much out of listening to new music, and other types of art. To be honest, a lot of art out there is pretty terrible, doesn't resonate at all, and seems like just an attempt at a concept and just didn't get there. And i think that's the rub. For consumption, we really get the most transport out of the masters who can convey well. For the making? The end result is (or at least can be) nice but it is really about the process and working those patterns in our brains. (side note: this is part of why art can be so powerful for helping cope with trauma).

So, is art necessary? No. i would argue that without it a person would be missing out on a big piece of the human experience. That doesn't require being an artist, but actively engaging with music, or what ever floats your particular boat is worthwhile. And yes, that art can be quite banal for a lot of people. meh.

[ Apologies for the stream of consciousness. ]

[Scandium]

I've been a part of threads like this before. Trying to convince people who do not value art to value it as something not only "nice" and "entertaining" but actually necessary and one of the most important human endeavors is like trying to convince a vegetarian that eating meat is morally wrong. It's fundamentally a faith question, a non-religious one, like many things for which you can never satisfy the desire for proof or results or whatever.

I for one believe that art is necessary for human life. And no I'm not a vegetarian :)

The irony is, you can't answer the question of what it means to live well, or what we should really consider a tolerable life without delving into the arts (philosophy).  That's how fundamental to human existence the arts are.

While I agree - there is a substantial proportion of the US that seems to get by with the likes of Duck Dynasty as their highest calling.

Another reason why I find the art/entertainment debate idiotic.

Duck dynasty is stupid junk for the proletariat, but driving far to go to special building to see a painting of a bowl of fruit made 300 years ago?  Oooo, look at me I'm so intellectual!

It's all entertainment, just one group decided theirs is morally superior.

[uppy]

... driving far to go to special building to see a painting of a bowl of fruit made 300 years ago?  Oooo, look at me I'm so intellectual!

It's all entertainment, just one group decided theirs is morally superior.

That's another discussion altogether. Nobody gets to decide what is art and what isn't, and the museum, while not the worst place to go to see art, shouldn't get to define it either.

Maybe you just don't like still lifes?

[Russ]

I've been a part of threads like this before. Trying to convince people who do not value art to value it as something not only "nice" and "entertaining" but actually necessary and one of the most important human endeavors is like trying to convince a vegetarian that eating meat is morally wrong. It's fundamentally a faith question, a non-religious one, like many things for which you can never satisfy the desire for proof or results or whatever.

I for one believe that art is necessary for human life. And no I'm not a vegetarian :)

The irony is, you can't answer the question of what it means to live well, or what we should really consider a tolerable life without delving into the arts (philosophy).  That's how fundamental to human existence the arts are.

Why do you consider philosophy to be an art?

[lizzzi]

I think all human beings create art in some way, although they may not be formal, intellectual, snobby "artist" types. Or even non-snobby artist types. Maybe they don't paint, sculpt, do music, whatever...but everybody makes choices about the way they dress, use make-up, wear their baseball cap, or arrange their furniture. Just living day-to-day is art, and you can't escape it, whether you are Leonardo da Vinci or not.

[GuitarStv]

I've been a part of threads like this before. Trying to convince people who do not value art to value it as something not only "nice" and "entertaining" but actually necessary and one of the most important human endeavors is like trying to convince a vegetarian that eating meat is morally wrong. It's fundamentally a faith question, a non-religious one, like many things for which you can never satisfy the desire for proof or results or whatever.

I for one believe that art is necessary for human life. And no I'm not a vegetarian :)

The irony is, you can't answer the question of what it means to live well, or what we should really consider a tolerable life without delving into the arts (philosophy).  That's how fundamental to human existence the arts are.

Why do you consider philosophy to be an art?

It started out as science, but the applied philosophical ideas existing in scientific and measurable areas have gradually been replaced by modern scientific understanding of the world.  Philosophy still covers a lot of ground (and important ground), but anything measurable has given way to the branches of science.  Pondering how to think, the meaning of existence, the best purpose in life, etc. . . . to me, these are firmly in the subjective branch of learning (although many arguments are rooted in logic, interpretation makes multiple opposing arguments all equally valid).

[Daleth]

The earliest evidence of human art is forty thousand years old.
The earliest evidence of agriculture is ten thousand years old.

Art has always been very important to human beings.

YES. Not everyone needs to MAKE art but almost everyone needs to at least participate in it (go to concerts, etc.) or have it around (music playing in your house, pretty pictures...).

[Russ]

I've been a part of threads like this before. Trying to convince people who do not value art to value it as something not only "nice" and "entertaining" but actually necessary and one of the most important human endeavors is like trying to convince a vegetarian that eating meat is morally wrong. It's fundamentally a faith question, a non-religious one, like many things for which you can never satisfy the desire for proof or results or whatever.

I for one believe that art is necessary for human life. And no I'm not a vegetarian :)

The irony is, you can't answer the question of what it means to live well, or what we should really consider a tolerable life without delving into the arts (philosophy).  That's how fundamental to human existence the arts are.

Why do you consider philosophy to be an art?

It started out as science, but the applied philosophical ideas existing in scientific and measurable areas have gradually been replaced by modern scientific understanding of the world.  Philosophy still covers a lot of ground (and important ground), but anything measurable has given way to the branches of science.  Pondering how to think, the meaning of existence, the best purpose in life, etc. . . . to me, these are firmly in the subjective branch of learning (although many arguments are rooted in logic, interpretation makes multiple opposing arguments all equally valid).

So philosophy is an Art because it's not a Science?

[arebelspy]

If you're unsure whether you need something, you probably don't need it.
Some people do, but you probably don't

+1.

Yes, art (of some kind) is a basic human need.

It might be in the form of music, paintings, architecture, philosophy, literature, or any of another dozen fields . . . but there isn't a person I know who lives a life devoid of art.

Creating or observing it?  Or both?

If you mean creating, I can unequivocally say that I am a person devoid of creating art.  I have attempted, and it doesn't work for me.  Cooking, writing, painting, drawing, music, photography, pretty much anything you can name.

If you mean observing, I rarely do that as well.  Occasionally I put music on, but I don't enjoy music that much.  Other forms of art I occasionally observe (museums, etc.), but again, it's just okay.  There is not a form of art I feel like I couldn't live without, easily.

So I absolutely am devoid of creating, and mostly of observing, and would be fine completely eliminating that, too.

I understand that from your perspective, this is something you cannot understand, and may try and argue with me because it's apparently quite outside of your perspective, but I can assure you that it's a matter of brain functions.

My brain is quite different than most. I have no inner monologue, I have aphantasia, and another thing I just discovered within the last few days--being "in the moment" does nothing for me, other people actually enjoy that, i.e. try to achieve that state.  That state is no better to me than any other.  Possibly worth its own separate thread, as I'm curious if there's any others out there that feel like this.

But art is one thing that is very, very meh for me. Every form of it I can think of (including, for example, food.  I'd be fine never having to eat again, for example).

Sorry to those of you that love art, I know there are a lot of you.  Just try to understand that it's not a personal thing--just think of some thing you don't care for, say a type of food, or a type of music.  You just don't care much for that.  That's how art is, to me. I wish I liked it, but I just.. meh.  Haven't found any that excites me, ever, in 31 years, and not for lack of trying.  At this point, I can't do anything but conclude that art is not for me.  I still go to museums, concerts, etc., to experience it when I can, but I rarely do more than go "meh."  :)

I think all human beings create art in some way, although they may not be formal, intellectual, snobby "artist" types. Or even non-snobby artist types. Maybe they don't paint, sculpt, do music, whatever...but everybody makes choices about the way they dress, use make-up, wear their baseball cap, or arrange their furniture.

Nope.  Don't care about any of that.  All of those sound like aesthetics, not sure why I would care.

I'm all about function over form, and it's not beauty I see in the function, it's usefulness.


EDIT: The wife and I took a long walk for about an hour and a half, and mostly discussed this.  I'm pretty sure we've talked through all the potential objections, and I know some people will strenuously disagree with me, and use a very broad definition of art that will include pretty much anything up to and including what side of the bed you get out of, but just keep in mind, some people have a very different brain, and experience than you.  Some of you very immersed in art can't imagine people not doing it, but it's a spectrum.  You may be on the end of the spectrum that arts all the time, and the other end of it may be someone who arts so little it's indistinguishable from none, and if you argue that there's still a little art in what they do, you're more stubbornly trying to prove a point than admit there are just people who don't art.

The wife brought up a good similarity: community.  There's a spectrum of people who have various communal needs.  Some may want tons of interaction.  Others basically none.  There ARE hermits who are fine, great even, with no human interaction.  Someone with a very different brain may try to argue that no, even they need a little community, but I believe people exist for whom they need so little interaction with others so as to be effectively as none.  I'd bet there are people who would fervently disagree, and if this thread had been titled "The importance of COMMUNITY" and first post asking if we all need relationships, it'd be filled with people saying yes, as this one is.  In fact, I just opened a new tab to look at the OP, and he quotes MMM's recent talk saying that everyone needs "companionship."  I don't agree.  I think most people need at least a little.  But I think some people exist at the far end of the spectrum and need none.  Same with art.  The vast, maybe even vast vast majority need some.  But it comes in all different types (say, someone has one person they like to be with, but no one else), and some people don't need any companionship, or art.  But people who need it badly, and do it all the time?  They may not understand that.  I'm trying to express that I believe it is in fact the case.  :)

[Scandium]

*insightfulness

I fervently agree:)
I saw the mona lisa in person and though "guess it's ok..". Others spend their entire life fawning over it. People are different.

I guess my main issues with these discussions are that like you say, very often the "art fans" cannot comprehend that anyone wouldn't value art as much as they do. I don't care that you may see art as the pinnacle of human achievement, but please accept that I don't, I get little enjoyment from it, and it doesn't make me feel or think a special way. Is it really so hard to accept that not everyone see things the way you do? I think Bernoulli's equation is amazing and fascinating, most people couldn't care less. I accept that and move on.

And I resent the guerilla tactic of naming anything art and claiming victory. "You looked out the window? That's art! hah, caught you!"

[GuitarStv]

If you're unsure whether you need something, you probably don't need it.
Some people do, but you probably don't

+1.

Yes, art (of some kind) is a basic human need.

It might be in the form of music, paintings, architecture, philosophy, literature, or any of another dozen fields . . . but there isn't a person I know who lives a life devoid of art.

Creating or observing it?  Or both?

If you mean creating, I can unequivocally say that I am a person devoid of creating art.  I have attempted, and it doesn't work for me.  Cooking, writing, painting, drawing, music, photography, pretty much anything you can name.

If you mean observing, I rarely do that as well.  Occasionally I put music on, but I don't enjoy music that much.  Other forms of art I occasionally observe (museums, etc.), but again, it's just okay.  There is not a form of art I feel like I couldn't live without, easily.

So I absolutely am devoid of creating, and mostly of observing, and would be fine completely eliminating that, too.

You have no appreciation for art?  Then what the hell are you doing traveling ARS?.  Other than slightly different flora and fauna, what is the point of going somewhere new if not to experience the customs, food, architecture, ideas, and philosophy of different cultures?

You don't create art?  FFS, you must have been a terrible teacher then.  You don't just sit a kid in a room with books and through osmosis they get smarter.  There's a whole process of learning about the kids and the materials, presenting things in ways that they understand, then modifying the information slightly for the ones that still don't get it.  That's an art.

Nope.  Don't care about any of that.  All of those sound like aesthetics, not sure why I would care.

I'm all about function over form, and it's not beauty I see in the function, it's usefulness.

You might not consciously think "yeah, I go out of my way to appreciate particular types of art" (although I think that we just showed that you do, and that's perfectly valid.  There are instances however, where function and form are inseparable.

Picking on architecture for example . . . good architecture is a triumph of function.  A good architect can take a small space and make it more comfortable to live in (be it through playing with ceiling height, carefully designing storage to hide away, proper analysis of foot traffic and commonly used paths, whatever).  Now you might consciously decide that paying someone a high fee for great architecture isn't worth it (that's a value choice), but I don't know a person alive who would choose to live in a poorly designed building over a well designed building . . . all other things being equal.  But the very process of that design is not a science . . . it fits into the wishy-washy world of subjective art.

Art doesn't have to be prancing around a stage in sequined costumes.  It's a wider and much more encompassing set.

[Scandium]

Picking on architecture for example . . . good architecture is a triumph of function.  A good architect can take a small space and make it more comfortable to live in (be it through playing with ceiling height, carefully designing storage to hide away, proper analysis of foot traffic and commonly used paths, whatever).  Now you might consciously decide that paying someone a high fee for great architecture isn't worth it (that's a value choice), but I don't know a person alive who would choose to live in a poorly designed building over a well designed building . . . all other things being equal.  But the very process of that design is not a science . . . it fits into the wishy-washy world of subjective art

So now having smartly designed shelving units is art? Perhaps having fire sprinklers in the ceiling rather than the floor as well? Doors that are taller than a person? Well then anything and everything is art so this discussion is utterly pointless. "Do you think using our brains is important?" I do, so guess I appreciate art then. Case closed.

That also means Duck Dynasty and penis enlargement commercials are art though, so enjoy that..

[GuitarStv]

Picking on architecture for example . . . good architecture is a triumph of function.  A good architect can take a small space and make it more comfortable to live in (be it through playing with ceiling height, carefully designing storage to hide away, proper analysis of foot traffic and commonly used paths, whatever).  Now you might consciously decide that paying someone a high fee for great architecture isn't worth it (that's a value choice), but I don't know a person alive who would choose to live in a poorly designed building over a well designed building . . . all other things being equal.  But the very process of that design is not a science . . . it fits into the wishy-washy world of subjective art

So now having smartly designed shelving units is art? Perhaps having fire sprinklers in the ceiling rather than the floor as well? Doors that are taller than a person? Well then anything and everything is art so this discussion is utterly pointless. "Do you think using our brains is important?" I do, so guess I appreciate art then. Case closed.

That also means Duck Dynasty and penis enlargement commercials are art though, so enjoy that..

There's a lot of art that I don't like.  That doesn't disqualify it from being art.  That's kinda an elitist asshole way of looking at things.  There's a lot of art that I don't understand.  Again, that doesn't disqualify it from being art.  That's a close minded way of looking at things.

Great design is art.  Most would agree that a well designed shelving unit that sells for 200,000$ is art.  Mass production and selling it for less money doesn't negate the art involved in the design.

[ender]

One of the reasons I love software development is that to me, well written, organized, and designed code is beautiful.

There is an art to it. I did a lot of music when I was younger and have done concert stage lighting, both of which are equally as artistic but in their own ways.

[arebelspy]

You have no appreciation for art?  Then what the hell are you doing traveling ARS?.  Other than slightly different flora and fauna, what is the point of going somewhere new if not to experience the customs, food, architecture, ideas, and philosophy of different cultures?

I travel because I like to see new, different, novel things.

That doesn't make it me appreciating art.  And I also just don't necessarily get that much out of it.  No, I don't appreciate travel or other cultures the same way some people seem to.

I can, and do, go to a museum and the art is fine.  It's not like I hate it.  It's just mostly meh to me.  Some of it is perfectly fine, even.  But I don't feel that I really appreciate any of it.  It doesn't do anything for me deep down.

The question of the thread is do you need art.  No.  I don't.  I'd be fine moving to Boise, ID, and not traveling.  There wouldn't be some need, or longing in me, or anything missing. 

I'm enjoying seeing some new and novel things, for the moment.  At some point, I'll stop, and that'll be fine, too.

You don't create art?  FFS, you must have been a terrible teacher then.  You don't just sit a kid in a room with books and through osmosis they get smarter.  There's a whole process of learning about the kids and the materials, presenting things in ways that they understand, then modifying the information slightly for the ones that still don't get it.  That's an art.

It's a skill.  It may take different strategies each time.  But I wouldn't call a plumber, or bricklayer an artist, even though they have a particular skill (or even talent), and use different strategies to solve different problems.  There was zero art in my teaching.  The measurements we have (limited as they are) showed it as effective, however.

Nope.  Don't care about any of that.  All of those sound like aesthetics, not sure why I would care.

I'm all about function over form, and it's not beauty I see in the function, it's usefulness.

You might not consciously think "yeah, I go out of my way to appreciate particular types of art" (although I think that we just showed that you do, and that's perfectly valid.  There are instances however, where function and form are inseparable.

Picking on architecture for example . . . good architecture is a triumph of function.  A good architect can take a small space and make it more comfortable to live in (be it through playing with ceiling height, carefully designing storage to hide away, proper analysis of foot traffic and commonly used paths, whatever).  Now you might consciously decide that paying someone a high fee for great architecture isn't worth it (that's a value choice), but I don't know a person alive who would choose to live in a poorly designed building over a well designed building . . . all other things being equal.  But the very process of that design is not a science . . . it fits into the wishy-washy world of subjective art.

Art doesn't have to be prancing around a stage in sequined costumes.  It's a wider and much more encompassing set.

I disagree that all functional design is art.  And even if it was art, for the designer (because I concede that some could be, even though all if it isn't), that doesn't make it art for me.  When I'm choosing one thing over the other because its utility, I'm not doing it because I appreciate the art of it, but the usefulness.

One of the reasons I love software development is that to me, well written, organized, and designed code is beautiful.

There is an art to it. I did a lot of music when I was younger and have done concert stage lighting, both of which are equally as artistic but in their own ways.

There's an art in it for you, someone who is clearly an artistic person.  Does there have to be art in it, for everyone?

Someone could make an art of designing a spreadsheet.  Is every person creating a spreadsheet making art?

I'd argue no, and if not, there's likely people that do activities like this without ever practicing art.  And even if they DO art sometimes, that still doesn't rise to the bar required of this thread: it being necessary for them.

Apparently to some of you, people art accidentally all the time (I don't think art can be done accidentally--I do think the outcome or result can be accidental, but there must be some initial purposeful element), but I still don't think that makes it something they cannot do without.

And I resent the guerilla tactic of naming anything art and claiming victory. "You looked out the window? That's art! hah, caught you!"

I laughed.  This line is a work of art.   (Caught you!)

[Glenstache]

I think people are conflating creativity and art. That Venn diagram has a lot of overlap, but they are not the same thing. In context, work done for a purpose that is well executed with problem solving and efficiency may be beautiful, but is not art per se. I expend a tremendous amount of creativity (well, at least for me) in research science practice, designing systems to get shit done, and doing technical writing to convey ideas. I do not consider any of that art. That said, some of my reports to have some beautiful cover photos that I would consider art.

It should be noted that things can be taken out of context and placed in a new framework intended to change perspective and make something art.

Also- I found ARS's post fascinating and valuable and am not inclined to disagree with any of it. I would find it very interesting to live in that mental space for a day.

[GuitarStv]

You have no appreciation for art?  Then what the hell are you doing traveling ARS?.  Other than slightly different flora and fauna, what is the point of going somewhere new if not to experience the customs, food, architecture, ideas, and philosophy of different cultures?

I travel because I like to see new, different, novel things.

Why is new, different, and novel appealing to you?  What new, different, and novel things are you seeing that aren't artistic in any way?

I disagree that all functional design is art.  And even if it was art, for the designer (because I concede that some could be, even though all if it isn't), that doesn't make it art for me.  When I'm choosing one thing over the other because its utility, I'm not doing it because I appreciate the art of it, but the usefulness.

Says the man, currently choosing to spend time and money to do something that is not useful?  :P

And I resent the guerilla tactic of naming anything art and claiming victory. "You looked out the window? That's art! hah, caught you!"

I laughed.  This line is a work of art.   (Caught you!)

Careful, you wouldn't want to give the impression of creating humorous prose.  I mean, writing being an art and all, and you being self described as incapable of creating art.  :P

You're spending time in this forum, enjoying the discussion of philosophy and the prose that is written.  Why are you spending so much time surrounding yourself with art if you don't enjoy it?

[arebelspy]

You have no appreciation for art?  Then what the hell are you doing traveling ARS?.  Other than slightly different flora and fauna, what is the point of going somewhere new if not to experience the customs, food, architecture, ideas, and philosophy of different cultures?

I travel because I like to see new, different, novel things.

Why is new, different, and novel appealing to you?  What new, different, and novel things are you seeing that aren't artistic in any way?

Not wanting to do the same thing every day doesn't automatically make doing something different "art."

I disagree that all functional design is art.  And even if it was art, for the designer (because I concede that some could be, even though all if it isn't), that doesn't make it art for me.  When I'm choosing one thing over the other because its utility, I'm not doing it because I appreciate the art of it, but the usefulness.

Says the man, currently choosing to spend time and money to do something that is not useful?  :P

Who says it's not useful? 

And I resent the guerilla tactic of naming anything art and claiming victory. "You looked out the window? That's art! hah, caught you!"

I laughed.  This line is a work of art.   (Caught you!)

Careful, you wouldn't want to give the impression of creating humorous prose.  I mean, writing being an art and all, and you being self described as incapable of creating art. 

You're spending time in this forum, enjoying the discussion of philosophy and the prose that is written.  Why are you spending so much time surrounding yourself with art if you don't enjoy it?

I don't enjoy any art of it.

Having a frank discussion is not enjoying art.

It could be, I suppose, but where you and I seem to differ most on our definition of art is that you assume all participation in an activity that can be artistic is then art. I think an activity can be done artistically, and the same activity can be done not artistically.

I think someone can appreciate the art of something, and someone else can find the thing fine, or even appreciate it, but not the art of it.

Further, I don't think, getting back to the topic, ANY of the above constitutes a need.

Participating in a forum doesn't fulfill some inner need. I don't feel incomplete without it.

I have no need to travel.

There isn't any of the things you listed that speak to me, nor would I not be fine without them.

[GuitarStv]

You have no appreciation for art?  Then what the hell are you doing traveling ARS?.  Other than slightly different flora and fauna, what is the point of going somewhere new if not to experience the customs, food, architecture, ideas, and philosophy of different cultures?

I travel because I like to see new, different, novel things.

Why is new, different, and novel appealing to you?  What new, different, and novel things are you seeing that aren't artistic in any way?

Not wanting to do the same thing every day doesn't automatically make doing something different "art."

I didn't say it did.  I asked you what exactly you find appealing about the new, different, and novel?

Obviously new food, new architecture, new art, new philosophies . . . these are irrelevant to you.  You say you like to see new things.  What new (non-artistic) things do you gain pleasure from viewing?  I'm trying very hard to understand then what you get out of the travel you're currently paying for (in terms of time and money).

I don't enjoy any art of it.

Having a frank discussion is not enjoying art.

It could be, I suppose, but where you and I seem to differ most on our definition of art is that you assume all participation in an activity that can be artistic is then art. I think an activity can be done artistically, and the same activity can be done not artistically.

I think someone can appreciate the art of something, and someone else can find the thing fine, or even appreciate it, but not the art of it.

Yeah, I think we just see this issue very differently.

My issue with your definition is in the application.  It sounds great in theory, but where the rubber hits the road your actions appear to be those of someone who values art.

Attendance of museams, viewing paintings, participating in creative writing (through this forum), travel for fun . . . sure, you could give them all up tomorrow.  But you're choosing not to.  That says something about your true values.

Further, I don't think, getting back to the topic, ANY of the above constitutes a need.

Participating in a forum doesn't fulfill some inner need. I don't feel incomplete without it.

I have no need to travel.

There isn't any of the things you listed that speak to me, nor would I not be fine without them.

Again, as I said earlier . . . it's possible to sustain life without art.  But it's not really living.

[golden1]

This is a weird conversation.

Definition of "art":

1. the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.

2.  the various branches of creative activity, such as painting, music, literature, and dance.

It's a pretty vague definition, and I think by using this definition one could argue that the vast majority of people participate in art in one form or another.  I think looking at art purely as an individualistic pursuit misses the point.  Anthropologically, asking if art is "useful" implies that art has a sociological benefit.  There is a reason why the capacity for art evolved separately in all populations and cultures.  It could be that it provides culture which unites people into groups, and those groups outperformed groups or individuals without the capacity for artistic expression.  It could be that it provides a way to visualize life as you want it to be, which allows people to strive for better things, which helps perpetuate the species.  Or it could simply just make people happy, which also has evolutionary benefits.

Sure, it makes sense that some people in any given population lack the capacity for art, but if a whole society lacked that capability, and it wasn't "necessary", then we would see entire human populations without any artistic expression, and we don't.  Therefore, I would argue that art is necessary, and that we likely would not exist in our current form without it. 

[Scandium]

This is a weird conversation.

Definition of "art":

1. the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.

2.  the various branches of creative activity, such as painting, music, literature, and dance.

It's a pretty vague definition, and I think by using this definition one could argue that the vast majority of people participate in art in one form or another.  I think looking at art purely as an individualistic pursuit misses the point.  Anthropologically, asking if art is "useful" implies that art has a sociological benefit.  There is a reason why the capacity for art evolved separately in all populations and cultures.  It could be that it provides culture which unites people into groups, and those groups outperformed groups or individuals without the capacity for artistic expression.  It could be that it provides a way to visualize life as you want it to be, which allows people to strive for better things, which helps perpetuate the species.  Or it could simply just make people happy, which also has evolutionary benefits.

Sure, it makes sense that some people in any given population lack the capacity for art, but if a whole society lacked that capability, and it wasn't "necessary", then we would see entire human populations without any artistic expression, and we don't.  Therefore, I would argue that art is necessary, and that we likely would not exist in our current form without it.

It certainly seems like most of us here are talking past each other.

The main point to me from that definition is that art is done primarily for it's beauty etc. So I disagree that a cleverly designed bookcase is art. It's purpose is to hold books. If you carve fancy figures into it that's art, as that is done purely for aesthetic purposes. Something like architecture become a gray area here. And just IMO I don't think philosophy is art either. Nor do I consider it appreciating art if I travel to look at a building. I just want to see what it looks like in person, and appreciate the engineering. If I wanted to look at the nice carvings or columns i could look at pictures.

[ender]

The primary point to me from that definition is that art is done primarily for it's beauty etc.

The sole purpose? or primary purpose?

Arguably a lot of "art" is primarily intended for entertainment over "beauty."

[Glenstache]

Something can be interesting without being beautiful or art.
Something can be creative or require mental adaptation to create without being art.

To some extent, this is kind of like the Supreme Court definition of obscenity: you know it when you see it. Not everyone sees it the same way.

[arebelspy]

You have no appreciation for art?  Then what the hell are you doing traveling ARS?.  Other than slightly different flora and fauna, what is the point of going somewhere new if not to experience the customs, food, architecture, ideas, and philosophy of different cultures?

I travel because I like to see new, different, novel things.

Why is new, different, and novel appealing to you?  What new, different, and novel things are you seeing that aren't artistic in any way?

Not wanting to do the same thing every day doesn't automatically make doing something different "art."

I didn't say it did.  I asked you what exactly you find appealing about the new, different, and novel?

Obviously new food, new architecture, new art, new philosophies . . . these are irrelevant to you.  You say you like to see new things.  What new (non-artistic) things do you gain pleasure from viewing?  I'm trying very hard to understand then what you get out of the travel you're currently paying for (in terms of time and money).

I enjoy them for their novelty, not their art.

The things I view can be artistic for some people, but that's not the part of them I'm enjoying.

I don't enjoy any art of it.

Having a frank discussion is not enjoying art.

It could be, I suppose, but where you and I seem to differ most on our definition of art is that you assume all participation in an activity that can be artistic is then art. I think an activity can be done artistically, and the same activity can be done not artistically.

I think someone can appreciate the art of something, and someone else can find the thing fine, or even appreciate it, but not the art of it.

Yeah, I think we just see this issue very differently.

My issue with your definition is in the application.  It sounds great in theory, but where the rubber hits the road your actions appear to be those of someone who values art.

Attendance of museams, viewing paintings, participating in creative writing (through this forum), travel for fun . . . sure, you could give them all up tomorrow.  But you're choosing not to.  That says something about your true values.

Yes, I value trying new things, and I value trying to experience things that are supposed to be valuable.  That doesn't mean I find the value in the things themselves, or enjoy them.

Further, I don't think, getting back to the topic, ANY of the above constitutes a need.

Participating in a forum doesn't fulfill some inner need. I don't feel incomplete without it.

I have no need to travel.

There isn't any of the things you listed that speak to me, nor would I not be fine without them.

Again, as I said earlier . . . it's possible to sustain life without art.  But it's not really living.

To you.  I find my life worth living.

Art definitely doesn't make it worth living.

I find it a bit insulting that you assume if someone's life doesn't include art, it's "not really living."  Why do you get to decide if their life is "really living" or not? 

Your life might not be, because you really value that.  But if someone lives without art, and enjoys life, who are you to say they aren't really living?

[GuitarStv]

You have no appreciation for art?  Then what the hell are you doing traveling ARS?.  Other than slightly different flora and fauna, what is the point of going somewhere new if not to experience the customs, food, architecture, ideas, and philosophy of different cultures?

I travel because I like to see new, different, novel things.

Why is new, different, and novel appealing to you?  What new, different, and novel things are you seeing that aren't artistic in any way?

Not wanting to do the same thing every day doesn't automatically make doing something different "art."

I didn't say it did.  I asked you what exactly you find appealing about the new, different, and novel?

Obviously new food, new architecture, new art, new philosophies . . . these are irrelevant to you.  You say you like to see new things.  What new (non-artistic) things do you gain pleasure from viewing?  I'm trying very hard to understand then what you get out of the travel you're currently paying for (in terms of time and money).

I enjoy them for their novelty, not their art.

The things I view can be artistic for some people, but that's not the part of them I'm enjoying.

Two comments on this:

1.  A screen and speakers playing randomly generated static is constantly different.  Why are you spending so much time and money pursuing artistic things around the world when a permanent, cheaper, and simpler solution to your need for novelty exists elsewhere?

2.  I believe that you think that art has nothing to do with your actions.  That said, people are notoriously bad judges of themselves and prone to error.  We've already established that 'novelty' doesn't explain your pursuit of art, as you can get novelty for far less money and effort.  So, what's the real reason that you're traveling?

I don't enjoy any art of it.

Having a frank discussion is not enjoying art.

It could be, I suppose, but where you and I seem to differ most on our definition of art is that you assume all participation in an activity that can be artistic is then art. I think an activity can be done artistically, and the same activity can be done not artistically.

I think someone can appreciate the art of something, and someone else can find the thing fine, or even appreciate it, but not the art of it.

Yeah, I think we just see this issue very differently.

My issue with your definition is in the application.  It sounds great in theory, but where the rubber hits the road your actions appear to be those of someone who values art.

Attendance of museams, viewing paintings, participating in creative writing (through this forum), travel for fun . . . sure, you could give them all up tomorrow.  But you're choosing not to.  That says something about your true values.

Yes, I value trying new things, and I value trying to experience things that are supposed to be valuable.  That doesn't mean I find the value in the things themselves, or enjoy them.

Why do you value trying new things if you don't enjoy them?  (Maybe we have a philosophical difference as to one's purpose?  I'm an Epicurean hedonist at heart.)  If something doesn't bring you contentment, it shouldn't be pursued.

Why do you value trying things that others think are supposed to be valuable?  You don't strike me as someone particularly prone to simply following what everyone else is doing.

Further, I don't think, getting back to the topic, ANY of the above constitutes a need.

Participating in a forum doesn't fulfill some inner need. I don't feel incomplete without it.

I have no need to travel.

There isn't any of the things you listed that speak to me, nor would I not be fine without them.

Again, as I said earlier . . . it's possible to sustain life without art.  But it's not really living.

To you.  I find my life worth living.

Art definitely doesn't make it worth living.

I find it a bit insulting that you assume if someone's life doesn't include art, it's "not really living."  Why do you get to decide if their life is "really living" or not? 

Your life might not be, because you really value that.  But if someone lives without art, and enjoys life, who are you to say they aren't really living?
[/quote]

You shouldn't be insulted.  By your own admission, you are not living without art.  You are living with plenty of art, pursuing art . . . your assertion is that you find no (or little) enjoyment/fulfillment from it.

[arebelspy]

We'll have to agree to disagree.

I don't see a point in continuing to discuss it with you.  :)

[Metric Mouse]

You have no appreciation for art?  Then what the hell are you doing traveling ARS?.  Other than slightly different flora and fauna, what is the point of going somewhere new if not to experience the customs, food, architecture, ideas, and philosophy of different cultures?

I travel because I like to see new, different, novel things.

Why is new, different, and novel appealing to you?  What new, different, and novel things are you seeing that aren't artistic in any way?

Not wanting to do the same thing every day doesn't automatically make doing something different "art."

I didn't say it did.  I asked you what exactly you find appealing about the new, different, and novel?

Obviously new food, new architecture, new art, new philosophies . . . these are irrelevant to you.  You say you like to see new things.  What new (non-artistic) things do you gain pleasure from viewing?  I'm trying very hard to understand then what you get out of the travel you're currently paying for (in terms of time and money).

I enjoy them for their novelty, not their art.

The things I view can be artistic for some people, but that's not the part of them I'm enjoying.

Two comments on this:

1.  A screen and speakers playing randomly generated static is constantly different.  Why are you spending so much time and money pursuing artistic things around the world when a permanent, cheaper, and simpler solution to your need for novelty exists elsewhere?

2.  I believe that you think that art has nothing to do with your actions.  That said, people are notoriously bad judges of themselves and prone to error.  We've already established that 'novelty' doesn't explain your pursuit of art, as you can get novelty for far less money and effort.  So, what's the real reason that you're traveling?

I don't enjoy any art of it.

Having a frank discussion is not enjoying art.

It could be, I suppose, but where you and I seem to differ most on our definition of art is that you assume all participation in an activity that can be artistic is then art. I think an activity can be done artistically, and the same activity can be done not artistically.

I think someone can appreciate the art of something, and someone else can find the thing fine, or even appreciate it, but not the art of it.

Yeah, I think we just see this issue very differently.

My issue with your definition is in the application.  It sounds great in theory, but where the rubber hits the road your actions appear to be those of someone who values art.

Attendance of museams, viewing paintings, participating in creative writing (through this forum), travel for fun . . . sure, you could give them all up tomorrow.  But you're choosing not to.  That says something about your true values.

Yes, I value trying new things, and I value trying to experience things that are supposed to be valuable.  That doesn't mean I find the value in the things themselves, or enjoy them.

Why do you value trying new things if you don't enjoy them?  (Maybe we have a philosophical difference as to one's purpose?  I'm an Epicurean hedonist at heart.)  If something doesn't bring you contentment, it shouldn't be pursued.

Why do you value trying things that others think are supposed to be valuable?  You don't strike me as someone particularly prone to simply following what everyone else is doing.

Further, I don't think, getting back to the topic, ANY of the above constitutes a need.

Participating in a forum doesn't fulfill some inner need. I don't feel incomplete without it.

I have no need to travel.

There isn't any of the things you listed that speak to me, nor would I not be fine without them.

Again, as I said earlier . . . it's possible to sustain life without art.  But it's not really living.

To you.  I find my life worth living.

Art definitely doesn't make it worth living.

I find it a bit insulting that you assume if someone's life doesn't include art, it's "not really living."  Why do you get to decide if their life is "really living" or not? 

Your life might not be, because you really value that.  But if someone lives without art, and enjoys life, who are you to say they aren't really living?

You shouldn't be insulted.  By your own admission, you are not living without art.  You are living with plenty of art, pursuing art . . . your assertion is that you find no (or little) enjoyment/fulfillment from it.
[/quote]

Boom... mic drop.

Some day someone else on this forum will be able to mentally explore subjects as deeply and fully as GuitarStv... it will be a worthwhile day to be a member here when that happens.

[Frugal Lizard]

I can't live without art.  Finding beauty around me lifts me up and keeps me from getting trapped in the blues.  I need to experience artfully built spaces and places, make paintings, gardens and meals, hear music and make music, take good photos of my loved ones and see them taken by others.  Watch plays, tv and movies.  Sit on comfortable well arranged furniture.  Read well written and provocative and informative writing.  Heck I will even watch the patterns of colour and play of the wind while my clothes are drying on the line.  Fully experiencing the world around me brings art into my life.  I make space for art unconsciously and continuously.  I don't feel like I would be living without it just merely surviving.

[Slinky]

I agree with Arebelspy that the need for art is similar to the need for companionship. We are all special and unique snowflakes. Some of us are social and some are not. Some feel the need to create and some do not. Some will look at an object and see art and some will not. What we each need for a happy and fulfilling life is different. One person's happiness is a another person's hell.

For me personally? Art is the dream. It's the reason for FIRE. Someday I'll get there and spend all my time creating fabulous creations and works of art.

[arebelspy]

the need for art is similar to the need for companionship. We are all special and unique snowflakes. Some of us are social and some are not. Some feel the need to create and some do not. Some will look at an object and see art and some will not. What we each need for a happy and fulfilling life is different. One person's happiness is a another person's hell.

Beautifully said.

When I just saw this thread pop up again, I noted the title, and was coming in to reply to "The importance of ART" with something like "It depends on the person--extremely important for some, not at all for others."  You said it much better than I could have.

[uppy]

People get caught up in definitions. For me, there is art for art's sake (what most people think of as "art" like paintings and novels) and then there is the inherent art in almost anything done beautifully (designing code, buildings, shelving units, teaching...)

Some people call the latter "not art" because, presumably, they don't like to think of things in terms of form and beauty but rather function and utility. Others, like myself, prefer to believe that anything done well and beautifully, while not done for the sake of art necessarily, is still artistic in some way.

So when I say art is necessary for life, I guess I mean that if everything was done purely for utility, with no beauty in it (which would be very difficult to do, if not impossible), then life would become so ugly and meaningless that it would probably end. That's where my "belief" comes in because that's not something tht can be tested...because it's never happened....over millions of years of human existence...which I think goes to prove my point a little bit.

Again, YMMV because you choose to define art a different way.