What is the purpose of art to you?

This is a question i find very interesting as different people have different opinions on the matter. For me its personal, i hide messages symbilically when doing art whether it be photographic, video, digital, hands on etc. These messages embody a part of me, my soul if you like yet i make it difficult for anyone to read into them.

When im viewing art now matter what format, i want to experience emotion that changes me. Im not interested myself in pure aesthetics but i understand why so many people are.

Im interested if there are any artitic types on here that have an opinion to share.

I've always been very artistic.. since I was a really little girl.

I just love creating. I like starting with nothing and then having something that you can say you made from scratch. Something complete. I think that's why I like art so much.. I get to use my own hands to make something new that's never been made before.

Also, I tend to view a lot of things as art. I like finding the beauty in day to day situations. I don't know if that's normal, but I tend to point it out more than others and sometimes I am just mesmerized by it. Things like a tree silhouette in front of a sunset... makes me want to go home and paint it so I can keep the moment for me.

I'm not in the least artistic, but I see it as a form of communication. Some people can write, others are great speakers, and some speak through their art. It is an important outlet for the artist that the rest of us can enjoy as well. Art is one of the most important outputs of any society.

I've always been very artistic.. since I was a really little girl.

 

I just love creating. I like starting with nothing and then having something that you can say you made from scratch. Something complete. I think that's why I like art so much.. I get to use my own hands to make something new that's never been made before.

 

Also, I tend to view a lot of things as art. I like finding the beauty in day to day situations. I don't know if that's normal, but I tend to point it out more than others and sometimes I am just mesmerized by it. Things like a tree silhouette in front of a sunset... makes me want to go home and paint it so I can keep the moment for me.

Beautiful, you seem to be attracted to creation whether it be your own or natures. I find it interesting how its different for everyone. I like to use art as a form of communication and psychological study, although most recently ive been working with digital mediums i too love that hands on creation that will be unique every time because of the human involvement.

I'm not in the least artistic, but I see it as a form of communication. Some people can write, others are great speakers, and some speak through their art. It is an important outlet for the artist that the rest of us can enjoy as well. Art is one of the most important outputs of any society.

I agree, art is definitely one of the great things in society. Without art where would we be?, imagine a world without music, literature, poetry etc. I think its a shame its not encouraged as much as it deserves and sometimes shunned by parts of society.

In some ways it's definitely expression of emotions and thoughts at any given time much like music. Other times to me it's what I actually get in return by creating certain art. What feels right, the feedback I get personally from the art itself, etc if that makes sense.

I share a similar feeling to all the posters.

I'm very much like you, OP -- I put "hidden" symbolisms into my work and often then I fight with how much should remain just my personal secret and how much should be "readable" as a message that others can share in. But these symbolisms are very personal and usually I leave it to the viewer/reader to make their own meaning. I don't usually prefer doing totally abstract stuff, because for me, conveying some message, some STORY is important. I think my true nature is as a storyteller, which is why my first love is illustration (in visual art.) Which is odd because in writing, I am much better at "painting" a scene with descriptive words, but I'm not good at making up fictitious stories, and I'm bad at creating plots.

I like to try to represent and interpret life.

And if I had to summarize an answer to this post in one sentence it would be: To celebrate all that has been created, so that it can be recognized better.

As David Lynch has said once take reality and create abstractions of it, sometimes abstractions are more real than reality itself. So called reality is only what we see, true reality is what we dont see and abstractions can symbolise this. Its worth noting i dont do full on abstract work, because for me there is no longer a message if it doesnt represent in some way. I base my work on reality, but change the way its viewed through perspective. Digital work and Photography are great for this as can come directly from reality, as drawing despite the fact i can draw realistically will always be abstracted reality so cant be viewed as real. But i love hands on work, especially printmaking like etching etc just so addictive. Whats the connection between a man fishing in a lake and an icicle in a mountain. The river that connects them. Like you i start with a very deep and personal message, and take away gradually until youre left with the fisherman and the icicle (symbolically). This way it still conveys the message but the connecting river has been removed so its true message is not fully readable unless you have a high form of perception. Reality is a form of deception, i find to convey this its best to not look purely at reality but what makes it a deception and only then can you convey a true message.

Great post, thanks for sharing.

Art- well what a broad question! When I view art (I include reading novels/poetry) I often read as a creative writer, wondering about why the author made the choices she did, not really to get my own ideas but to experience the book from that perspective. When I go to the theater, sometimes I focus on the design elements (because I know some designers and learned about that art form from them) and sometime I focus on the audience's reaction-I love how the audience-actor interplay affects the experience. Fine art? Many different purposes-to experience history in a different way, to experience color in a different way. Music - so often the purpose is nostalgic and emotional -I have strong emotional ties to music! I also love to sing to my child as a way to communicate even though I can't carry a tune.

When I write creatively the purpose is often to see what happens when I just let the words flow - and I like the different feeling when I go back to edit.

I also like experiencing the art in nature because it reminds me not to take it for granted.

I wanted to add that I like when people can get very specific about art so that it doesn't seem too abstract and inaccessible. When it's narrowly defined you get "museums are boring" and "I can't sit still for a 4 hour opera".

Thats why there are so many variables in art form meaning, substane and form. Art for me aswell can be anything, for instance Floyd Mayweather(boxer) fights with such skill that he the makes it art(although what an moron in real life). The problem for me is, art worth experiencing must invovlve a deep emotional nature otherwise i likeley wont be drawn to it. You seem to be the opposite, and i feel like many think like you do. Im not criticizing you as i understand why. The deeper and more specific a subject matter takes form in the less accessible it becomes, which is why so much art is more on the lines of craft showing skill anyone can understand but with no meaning.

Thanks for sharing your opinion.

I don't think art can be anything -my point was to express how I experience art. I don't think art is limited to museums/opera/great literature but on the other hand I don't think everything has artistic value.

I don't think art can be anything -my point was to express how I experience art. I don't think art is limited to museums/opera/great literature but on the other hand I don't think everything has artistic value.

For me art can be anything. Though, i believe that at times there is a slim line between craft and art, the craft comes with artistic skill yet doent evoke emotion. So i think for me art has to evoke emotion, otherwise it is craft.

That seems pretty subjective - who decides whether it evokes emotion -or does it mean that you might consider a Renoir painting craft because it doesn't evoke emotion for you but if a string of beads evokes emotion for me that is art, not craft?

That seems pretty subjective - who decides whether it evokes emotion -or does it mean that you might consider a Renoir painting craft because it doesn't evoke emotion for you but if a string of beads evokes emotion for me that is art, not craft?

Art is always subjective, what evokes emotion is personal to each perosn obviously. But, generally you can tell if something has been done with or is trying to convey emotion, art does not have to be successful to be art. I think a good example of craft is a realist portrait drawer with whos only goal is to achieve technical perfection, its craft because it requires intense skill but has no message, no emotional response. Every artist is trying to convey a message, this doesnt mean that the viewer can read it, but you can usually tell if its there. If a string of beads has been made with an emotional process, and is conveyed is some way then yes this becomes art. If its not conveyed then its craft to the viewer and art to the artist.

Interesting opinion on the definition of art- for me, I find it unworkable and I don't think that is how most artists and patrons of the arts/art scholars would define it -too limiting for one thing -but you've certainly given it a lot of thought!

Interesting opinion on the definition of art- for me, I find it unworkable and I don't think that is how most artists and patrons of the arts/art scholars would define it -too limiting for one thing -but you've certainly given it a lot of thought!

My point of view is not limiting, if anything its very broad. For me i get fed up with so many people be it the public or artists themselves getting preoccupied with aesthetics, saying i want to play with materials for new effects. Its important as an artist to do this, but its not the reason a true artist will do it. The aesthetics and medium should merely be a tool to express your inner self, not the the be all and end all of making art. The thing with the term art, is that its like say love, everyone has there own view on what it actually means. Art is so specialised that the majority can never understand the artist, what his/her true motives are are often so individualistic that the public could never understand. Art critics can often be just highly intelligent writers that see into things that arent there and miss out what is there, they want to feel they have power and so try to make a science of it. Not all of the time, its just an observation of mine. Different art critics, scholars etc have their own opinions. At the end of the day we can only understand what we know, to know we have to have experienced.

Yes, i have given it a lot of thought. My perspective on life is not the usual, ive lived in a way in which ive seen things from another angle to other people. I analyze, alot. My perspective has given me many questions and theories, by the sound of your posts you could could never understand this. Ive realised that until the past year or so ive been making craft, trying to represent rather than work from what is deep inside me. Certain people have changed my outlook, ive experienced what im talking about first hand. So for me it is a workable theory, it does represent what art is to me. Its obvioulsy not this way for you, im not saying it should be. Just dont judge me, saying that im wrong when you cant understand where im coming from. Agree to disagree.

I understand but do not agree. What I find limiting is that you require that what is considered "art" convey emotion or inspire emotion - to you, one person -and if not then to you, it's not art. I don't think something needs to convey emotion to anyone -including to the artist -to be considered art but if it did, then I would say it is up to the artist to decide, not a viewer (even then I would find it too limiting but at least it would put the control in the creator not a random viewer). I also find your view of "the public" and "the majority" limiting - I think most people understand and appreciate art in their own way - a 3 year old might see it differently than a middle aged art historian but so what. On the other hand when it comes to deciding which artists get grants, get into certain schools, win certain awards, at that point it's helpful to have a common understanding of what art is or at least the type of art that is being observed.

What I also find limiting is that you assume that since I do not agree and have a different opinion then I presumably don't understand what you are saying. To me that's a limited way to look at the world. I think more broadly - that people are entitled to their own opinions and theories and are entitled to disagree and I shouldn't assume that the disagreement comes from a lack of understanding.

No you dont understand, im ok with that i think everyone should have their own opinion. If you did understand you still might not agree and thats fine, but its clear from what you are saying that you dont. The limiting quality you keep refferning to is actually your interpretation of my words. I often say things in a way that i miss out on certain details or over emphasize because i assume people understand what im talking about. This causes alot of this back and forth like we are having now. People often say to me, whats the difference between craft and art. This has made me think and through perosnally exploring the two worlds ive come up with my own interpretation on what the border is, its not an exact science so im not saying oh art stops here and craft starts here because the boundaries are getting so blurred with the current art society. For instance what is drawing? Can you actually answer that anymore, because if you analyze it you will find that the qualities blur between painting, drawing, printing and so on. You can draw with paint, you can print with paint etc. But we all have an idea in our heads that we know what there qualities are, but if you go deeper into the subject you realize things arent that simple. I know someone that can relicate near perfect reality with drawing except they use a paint brush to draw with. When talking he came to a point of view that he doesnt know anymore, does he then paint or draw. My point is art is limitless, my view is not limited, its just that for me art should be an expression. If you create something that has no expression, it then likely has some social function which then for me (note i said for me) makes it craft. For me when i make art, the work is more important to me than it ever will be to anyone else because only i can understand that specific process and meaning behind the work. The non artistic side of the public likely cant understand the life of a specific individual that has lived in a way that most have not. I respect say, veterans of ww2. I respect them for what they did, but i can never understand their perspective because i was not there fighting in ww2. Same with art, an artist is likley such because his/her life has made then different, they either have inner thoughts and emotions that they feel the need to express or maybe feel they have something to participate to society with through art means. Note im not limiting artists to these steriotypes, just giving two examples.

I should say then that for me, from my perspective my theory would seem to be accurate. From your perspective it obviously isnt accurate, you see art and its purpose differently. I want to hear what different people have to say as i find it interesting, thats why i set up the thread. The Constructivism movemnet in Russia during the 20s spawned an idea that art should have a social function, that the mass was more important than the individual, alot of the work in this movement lies more along the lines of craft to me because they tried to appeal to an audience. Its also good research for me as i use elements of psychology in the work i do, its about trying to understand matters like these using very personal themes. This is not something ive just come up with. This is something that has developed over a period of time looking through my eyes, this is what ive come to believe from the environment i live in.

I don't think there's a right or wrong here. I am glad your theory works for you (and perhaps for others, too) and that you've enjoyed, presumably, giving this the thought you have. I respectfully disagree with your theory and the bases for it and perhaps you also misinterpreted my words.

I don't think there's a right or wrong here. I am glad your theory works for you (and perhaps for others, too) and that you've enjoyed, presumably, giving this the thought you have. I respectfully disagree with your theory and the bases for it and perhaps you also misinterpreted my words.

Im sorry if i did misinterpret you words, i was under the impression that you were trying to say that the theory didnt work at all even for me. As you say theres no right and wrong, there isnt a perfect formula out there that describes everything in art as in science. Thats why art is so great as it has a sense of mystery about it. Its been good to have a friendly argument with you about this subject, i respect your disagreement as im not saying my theory works for everyone. Yes i have enjoyed giving it the thought i have, but its alot deeper than that. I am constantly trying to analyze myself and my surroundings, reason being that things dont work out for me the way they do others so i find my own way. It depends what you are made of, what makes yoo tick. My theory describes the way i feel and think about art, this is the way i connect to art be it my own or others. From your posts i would say you dont make art, as one thing you dont seem to understand is the connection emotionally one gets from making art. This in turn affects the way you view art in the bigger picture. Agree to disagree.

Nice debating with you.

No, I've been creating artistic works (writing) since I was four. That's 40 years. I'm working on a project right now. I also spent many years working with artists in various genres and have many artist friends and acquaintances.

I'm a musician and photographer and I've been pondering this question myself lately. I came to the conclusion that creating for the purpose of creating (not as a living) is a self-indulgent activity. I feel guilty for using my time in such a selfish way. No one benefits from it except me. I'm the only one that it pleases. Even if I created something that was pleasing to others--what purpose does it serve? There are people that are so busy making it from day to day that they do not have the luxury to create art. I'm not saying that all artists are self-indulgent.

Oh no, im really starting to wish i hadnt set up this thread. Artistic types are just too diverse in their opinions, in the nature of everything being subjective. Look, for me my art is personal, if someone other than me can get something from it that makes me feel really good. Most of what i do revolves around myself, its more than art its about life. Its not selfish to be this way. I have things that i want someday to do that might be able to reach a specific audience though, a certain type of person that has trouble finding their way in this world, i would like one day to find a way of reaching these people with the idea of hope. I am trying to build a skill set that will one day give me a chance of doing this.

Batya 33, so you are an artist. I would very much like to read what you do, it would give me an insight into what your viewpoint actually is and where you are coming from. Im detecting abit of aggression in your most recent post, im not going to argue with you because we obviously are both strong minded people that are stubborn with our views. I know it wont resolve anything. The way your life has been has given you your view, the way mine has been has given me mine. Lets leave it at that shall we.

Art of any type has multiple purposes, and everyone will see it differently. Though for me I feel Art's purpose is to share a feeling or thought with the intended audience. I love it when my photograph or painting moves the viewer.

I don't consider myself an artist -what I wrote was that I have created art mostly in the form of writing. No aggression meant in my posts.

That's interesting the comments about self-indulgence. How about the view that expressing yourself through creating something ultimately helps you be a better, more insightful person which can only be positive in your dealings with and contributions to others?