3 ms·

Seems like art for the sake of art has become all art is these days, and honestly I don't see much to it. Art in and of itself is pretty useless, but generally

Seems like art for the sake of art has become all art is these days, and honestly I don't see much to it. Art in and of itself is pretty useless, but generally I think people are quick to make political or deeply emotional assumptions about the meaning.

JoeAltmaier 8y ago
'Useless'? No, its everywhere and a fundamental part of being a human. Culturally we use it throughout out lives - clothes, hair, car styling, advertisements, everthing from buildings to computer keyboards is designed for aesthetic appeal suitable for the culture and situation.
- kyleperik 8y ago
  I think this is a misunderstanding, you're referring to the way you can use art within society and the different cultural things we do. I should have been more specific, I think abstract art is truly art for it's own sake, being measured in value by arbitrary interpretations of meaning. Still, some people make art to practice drawing a certain way or increasing their skill. That even is not art for it's own sake, it's art to increase your skill, and is a representation of the way someone likes to practice and is still a cool thing to look at. I'm simply making the argument that complementing someone on their art that a child drew came about because of the arbitrary interpretation of what "valuable art" is in school.
  - vertline3 8y ago
    Art for art sake doesn't mean you can't draw realistically, it means that art does not have to support a narrative or serve a utilitarian function, such as for holding tea. At least that was my understanding from whistlers ten o clock lecture.
Broken_Hippo 8y ago
Well, in all seriousness... At one time, a lot of art was simply commissioned by religion or rulers or rich folks. No one else could afford it. Part of this was also to make those same people have their image known... with improvements, of course (old-time instagram filters!). The other art was things like political cartoons (which have a long history) and such - this was somewhat because a lot of folks couldn't read (church icons served a similar purpose). More folks can afford to make artwork, thanks to both photography and much better printing. So yeah, the reasons for making art have changed. I'm not sure it has ever been actually useful except to show off wealth or to improve surroundings. None of this matters, though. If you don't like art, don't buy it or make it. Maybe you enjoy some sorts of art (music and movies, for example) but not traditional artworks. Again, pass. Now, as far as people being quick to make assumptions: I find that people need a reason for folks to do art. People attribute all sorts of meanings to artwork that I simply made because I thought it looked neat. I'm not sure why I can't just make something I like to look at and leave it at that.
Razengan 8y ago
What isn't "useless?"

JoeAltmaier 8y ago

'Useless'? No, its everywhere and a fundamental part of being a human. Culturally we use it throughout out lives - clothes, hair, car styling, advertisements, everthing from buildings to computer keyboards is designed for aesthetic appeal suitable for the culture and situation.

kyleperik 8y ago
I think this is a misunderstanding, you're referring to the way you can use art within society and the different cultural things we do. I should have been more specific, I think abstract art is truly art for it's own sake, being measured in value by arbitrary interpretations of meaning. Still, some people make art to practice drawing a certain way or increasing their skill. That even is not art for it's own sake, it's art to increase your skill, and is a representation of the way someone likes to practice and is still a cool thing to look at. I'm simply making the argument that complementing someone on their art that a child drew came about because of the arbitrary interpretation of what "valuable art" is in school.
- vertline3 8y ago
  Art for art sake doesn't mean you can't draw realistically, it means that art does not have to support a narrative or serve a utilitarian function, such as for holding tea. At least that was my understanding from whistlers ten o clock lecture.

Broken_Hippo 8y ago

Well, in all seriousness... At one time, a lot of art was simply commissioned by religion or rulers or rich folks. No one else could afford it. Part of this was also to make those same people have their image known... with improvements, of course (old-time instagram filters!). The other art was things like political cartoons (which have a long history) and such - this was somewhat because a lot of folks couldn't read (church icons served a similar purpose). More folks can afford to make artwork, thanks to both photography and much better printing. So yeah, the reasons for making art have changed. I'm not sure it has ever been actually useful except to show off wealth or to improve surroundings. None of this matters, though. If you don't like art, don't buy it or make it. Maybe you enjoy some sorts of art (music and movies, for example) but not traditional artworks. Again, pass. Now, as far as people being quick to make assumptions: I find that people need a reason for folks to do art. People attribute all sorts of meanings to artwork that I simply made because I thought it looked neat. I'm not sure why I can't just make something I like to look at and leave it at that.

Razengan 8y ago

What isn't "useless?"