At some point, someone has to make a decision about what art is valuable. If resources were no limitation, many people (if not most) would rather make art than write SQL queries or perform surgery or take tolls. So if we could support everyone who wanted to be an artist and make art, we wouldn't have many people left to do the other things that need doing. Ergo we must choose which art we want to support. The question is whether individual people will pick which art they value (and I agree -- the consuming public's taste can be highly suspect!), or whether governmental/public/larger agencies will be given that mission.
I believe that the role of art is to inspire *something* in the viewer/listener/appreciator. I do not believe art exists for art's sake. So if 2,000,000 are moved to something by Thomas Kincaid's paintings, and there are 200 people in the whole world who understand a particular piece of abstract art... why do we say that the abstract art is real and valuable, while the Kincaid picture is dross and of no worth? The actual measure of people affected and influenced might be greater with the picture of the lighthouse.
I'm not sure how else to value art, other than to priviledge the effect art has on people.
no subject
Date: 2005-05-10 06:48 pm (UTC)I believe that the role of art is to inspire *something* in the viewer/listener/appreciator. I do not believe art exists for art's sake. So if 2,000,000 are moved to something by Thomas Kincaid's paintings, and there are 200 people in the whole world who understand a particular piece of abstract art... why do we say that the abstract art is real and valuable, while the Kincaid picture is dross and of no worth? The actual measure of people affected and influenced might be greater with the picture of the lighthouse.
I'm not sure how else to value art, other than to priviledge the effect art has on people.