The Function of Art Today

After a rather disrupted meeting the week before, I was hoping this last one before summer would at least be uncontaminated by shrieking babies.  Perhaps there are gods above, as there were no shrieks.

Being titled "The Function of Art Today" leads me to think that we should consider art to have evolving functions in human society over history.  That may be true, but at least in the West, my initial reaction is that it depends more on socio-economics than any idea of art and what it is.  There is a clash of definitions, where some define art as some manner of transmitting a message without simply saying it, and others define art as a technique for decoration and beautification of one's surroundings.  In the past, only the wealthy could afford artistic enhancements to their environments, and for the most part we can assume that there is no universally important message...except for the idea that these people have enough money to spend on things that are not obviously useful, therefore they should be treated with care.  Even when it comes to mere decoration, there might be an unconscious message behind it.  We tend to surround ourselves with things we like, so we are in fact advertising our interests and the things that are important to us in our choices of decoration.  One can argue that even reproductions transmit the message, which leads me to wonder of they then count as "art", under the definition of message sending medium.  But, if I said that the function may change over time, due to changing economic fortunes...where is the evidence of that change?  We still collect art pieces, basically to show how educated and clever we are.  We choose works or reproductions of those works purely to make our interests clear.  Maybe the possibilities are more widespread among the population, but the basic idea is still the same: to show off.  Perhaps the function has not changed.  If we take seriously what we learn about artists of the past, who worked for great patrons and not for themselves or for society as a whole, perhaps it is not art that has seen a change in function, but the artist.  Whereas the artist of the past worked to please whoever paid the bills directly, the modern artist is free to send what ever message might be seen fit, having government subsidies or a day job to pay the day-to-day expenses.  The modern artist can make us reconsider our perspective of reality; the classical artist was just cashing a check, so to speak.  And the art itself?  There is plenty of frivolous art in any age.  It seems most reasonable to me that art as a class has no function, but individual works of art might.  Single paintings, plays, songs or sculptures may have a message to give us as an audience, but the message is certainly not the same one for every piece, and that message may change over time, not the interpreted function of the work.

The Source tried to limit the definition of art to something that really does have a message for the consumer, something revolutionary and consciousness altering.  While art and aesthetics are not the same thing, there is a definite connection, as art has to attract somehow.  She tossed out the idea that art is everywhere a bit flippantly, but may have been echoing an observation made by others, as she returned to the idea of art as a reaction to problems and difficulties, and emphasized the change in the very idea of what art is that occurred in the early 20th century.  Somehow, art connects us to our culture, or at least it should.  The problem we have now, in her opinion, is that there is fat too much commercialization which tells us what we should like instead of letting us choose for ourselves.  Later she focused on the importance of making the effort to understand modern art, as a way of understanding the way the world is evolving.  One may not like works of art, but understanding why they were created is an important piece of information for understanding the world and the way it works at this time.  The messages of many works are meant for subsets of culture and are a way to bring people together as a defense against an overwhelming superculture.  Members of the superculture who try to understand the message and the reasons behind the works' creation not only enrich their own understanding of the world, they become better people, more worthy of calling themselves citizens of the modern and multicultural world.  Others mentioned art being utilized as a means of spreading propaganda for politicians, which she struck down as being inherently bad.

Our Doctor, an artist himself, was adamant in the idea that the only answer worth giving for this topic was, "I don't know".  What is art?  What is its function?  Has it changed over time?  All unanswerable questions for mere mortals.  He reminded us that art is taken in by means of our senses and as such is an absolutely subjective thing.  Beauty is considered as part of art, but is not really a necessary part of it.  We try to understand things, and people who are curious advance.  He became guarded and suspicious, saying that beautiful things are tremendously dangerous, and that art might easily become a part of the base machinery and propaganda that try to control us.  He wondered about the role of emotion, asking if it was enough that we cry listening to music for it to be art.  Everything is a matter of degree in the end, however.

The True Philosopher agreed that art was perceived by the senses, but then he insisted that we go beyond the senses to arrive at real art.  Art is always in danger of being coopted by power and politics as part of its propaganda, but true art is inspiring to the human being.  Art is misused, and that which is considered functional is but a distortion of what art truly is.  This is not to say that commercialization is necessarily bad, since advertisement has its place in the modern world.  Commercial art is in fact a field of study.  While the main goal of art is not manipulation, it may occur in the act of inspiring and entertaining, which is the objective of every work of art.  Later he emphasized that art and appreciation of art is subjective, but we seem to enjoy criticizing those who do not share our subjective opinion.  He also wrote a short article on the topic.

Others disputed the presence of beauty as necessary for art, and pointed out that even the most abstract forms need to be based on studied reality to have meaning for most of us.  The Leader was traipsing through more tolerable climes, probably with more artistic settings, and also wrote a bit for us to ponder before the meeting.  There will be a month or so of rest, which some of us definitely seem to need, but maybe a short break will allow some brains to be more reasonable and rational in the fall.