The following post was inspired by Ursula K. Le Guin's "A Message About Messages". You can find it here: http://www.ursulakleguin.com/MessageAboutMessages.html.
A while back as I was idly perusing the Internet, I saw someone online complain about the meaning and purpose of art. They said (and here I paraphrase) that art was inherently useless to the world, and it was doing nothing but impeding our progress as a species. It wasn't the first time I had observed this kind of thinking, nor do I think it will be the last. Naturally, this person’s argument seemed rather unfounded to me, and I don't know where it originated from, but nonetheless it got me thinking: is there any inherent meaning in art, or some sort of universal purpose to make it in the first place? And if there is, how does one go about discovering it? Does authorial intent play any part?
My initial response to this question I asked myself was rather intuitive: there is no inherent meaning in art but what we assign to it. A single piece of art can have any variety of impact on its observer, depending on the context it’s placed in. Maybe art is not where meaning lies then, but in the people who experience and enjoy it, and the aforementioned context they see it in. So is that the answer? Perhaps. You see, a work of art is unlike most other academic disciplines in that it does not contain any self-evident truths that can make it “right” or “wrong”. Therefore, the experience one draws from art is generally unique, and so is the meaning it imparts. But in the end, we are all human, and so when we see a work of art we're usually able to agree on any homogeneous meaning it may have, and by extension the "purpose" it was created for. This especially stands true for people living in the same culture at the same time. These people often share worldviews, and so often interpret a work of art in similar ways.
With that said, perhaps now might be a good time to bring up authorial intent. When an artist creates a new piece, they do it with some purpose, right? Some point they want to get across? Sometimes, yes. And in those cases, the artist’s intent can definitely be relevant, and at the very least provide context, and by extension nuance, for the experience that their art provides. Other times the very pointlessness of a work of art is its intended meaning. But even more often, I think that the beauty of art lies not in any inherent meaning or message that the artist wishes to deliver, but in the mere experience.
Yes, experience. I’ve used that word quite a lot in this post, and that’s for a reason. I think that the true universal meaning in any form of art lies not in any message we attempt to divine from it, or any point the artist wanted to get across, in the experience it gives us. In the emotions it makes us feel and the thought it makes us think. Art inspires us; it gives us hope to keep living and keep creating. It gives us reason and purpose. It gives us empathy and connection with our fellow humans. It teaches us about the perspectives of others, and even more often, about our own perspective.
All this provides nice circularity back to the latter of the questions I posed at the beginning of this post: do we have any consistent purpose in making art in the first place? Taking a closer look at all I’ve said so far, I think I’ve already answered this to some extent. I don’t believe we need any purpose to make art – I believe that art is a natural reflection of the human condition. Art is a mirror through which we see ourselves. It defines us; it makes us who we are by teaching us about ourselves. It gives us a language that rises beyond society and geography. Humans have always been making art, and we will continue to always make art, for the day we stop, we will no longer be human.
So to answer my original question: is there any inherent meaning in art? I would say so. But I don't think that meaning lies in any message imbued within the art by the artist, or even in the context the art is viewed in, but by the mere experience that it provides. That experience may or may not be unique, and it may or may not be what the artist intended, but in the end, it is what gives art its importance. It's what gives it that meaning we have been searching for all this while.
And does art have any purpose? That question, I believe, is intrinsically flawed. We need no more of a purpose to make art than we need a purpose to love, to cry, or to laugh– it's simply one of the several things that make us who we are.
Thank you for reading this rather incoherent collection of thoughts that I have been musing over for quite some time now. In this current state of the world, I feel like it’s more important than ever to remember the importance of art, and I hope that I have done a decent job of explaining some part of that today. I hope to see you again soon!
____________________________
A while back as I was idly perusing the Internet, I saw someone online complain about the meaning and purpose of art. They said (and here I paraphrase) that art was inherently useless to the world, and it was doing nothing but impeding our progress as a species. It wasn't the first time I had observed this kind of thinking, nor do I think it will be the last. Naturally, this person’s argument seemed rather unfounded to me, and I don't know where it originated from, but nonetheless it got me thinking: is there any inherent meaning in art, or some sort of universal purpose to make it in the first place? And if there is, how does one go about discovering it? Does authorial intent play any part?
My initial response to this question I asked myself was rather intuitive: there is no inherent meaning in art but what we assign to it. A single piece of art can have any variety of impact on its observer, depending on the context it’s placed in. Maybe art is not where meaning lies then, but in the people who experience and enjoy it, and the aforementioned context they see it in. So is that the answer? Perhaps. You see, a work of art is unlike most other academic disciplines in that it does not contain any self-evident truths that can make it “right” or “wrong”. Therefore, the experience one draws from art is generally unique, and so is the meaning it imparts. But in the end, we are all human, and so when we see a work of art we're usually able to agree on any homogeneous meaning it may have, and by extension the "purpose" it was created for. This especially stands true for people living in the same culture at the same time. These people often share worldviews, and so often interpret a work of art in similar ways.
With that said, perhaps now might be a good time to bring up authorial intent. When an artist creates a new piece, they do it with some purpose, right? Some point they want to get across? Sometimes, yes. And in those cases, the artist’s intent can definitely be relevant, and at the very least provide context, and by extension nuance, for the experience that their art provides. Other times the very pointlessness of a work of art is its intended meaning. But even more often, I think that the beauty of art lies not in any inherent meaning or message that the artist wishes to deliver, but in the mere experience.
Yes, experience. I’ve used that word quite a lot in this post, and that’s for a reason. I think that the true universal meaning in any form of art lies not in any message we attempt to divine from it, or any point the artist wanted to get across, in the experience it gives us. In the emotions it makes us feel and the thought it makes us think. Art inspires us; it gives us hope to keep living and keep creating. It gives us reason and purpose. It gives us empathy and connection with our fellow humans. It teaches us about the perspectives of others, and even more often, about our own perspective.
All this provides nice circularity back to the latter of the questions I posed at the beginning of this post: do we have any consistent purpose in making art in the first place? Taking a closer look at all I’ve said so far, I think I’ve already answered this to some extent. I don’t believe we need any purpose to make art – I believe that art is a natural reflection of the human condition. Art is a mirror through which we see ourselves. It defines us; it makes us who we are by teaching us about ourselves. It gives us a language that rises beyond society and geography. Humans have always been making art, and we will continue to always make art, for the day we stop, we will no longer be human.
So to answer my original question: is there any inherent meaning in art? I would say so. But I don't think that meaning lies in any message imbued within the art by the artist, or even in the context the art is viewed in, but by the mere experience that it provides. That experience may or may not be unique, and it may or may not be what the artist intended, but in the end, it is what gives art its importance. It's what gives it that meaning we have been searching for all this while.
And does art have any purpose? That question, I believe, is intrinsically flawed. We need no more of a purpose to make art than we need a purpose to love, to cry, or to laugh– it's simply one of the several things that make us who we are.
Thank you for reading this rather incoherent collection of thoughts that I have been musing over for quite some time now. In this current state of the world, I feel like it’s more important than ever to remember the importance of art, and I hope that I have done a decent job of explaining some part of that today. I hope to see you again soon!
"We need no more of a purpose to make art than we need a purpose to love, to cry, or to laugh– it's simply one of the several things that make us who we are."
ReplyDeleteWell said.
I can't imagine a world without art, because if we have no way to express who we are, what we are, what does that make us? All locked up and as blank as a white canvas. The gift of the human race is individuality, for everyone to perceive everything a slightly different way. If we all see the same thing, there's not really much point in creating even something wonderful, is there?
Thank you, Lily! That's precisely the point I was aiming to make. Art is one of the tenets of the human condition, and without it there would be no difference between us and a piece of algae growing at the bottom of the sea. Thanks for reading and commenting!
Delete