I think art is valuable and important, but not useful. And useful is my most important thing, so.

Shelley argued that poets are the unacknowledged legislators of the world. The chief moral value of art (as he posited it) was that art gave you experiences you didn't experience and consequently created intimacy and sympathy with others. That seems plausible to me. That's one thing I get from reading or movies. To know things beyond my experience.

Why do I think culture/art has such a high utility? Because in my experience all of the presumptions within our culture are mutable and part of an ongoing conversation. So the books on urban density that you favor were not pulled out of the air intact, but are the practical result of a long conversation that originates in philosophy and art before it achieves practicable use.

All practical and useful solutions are rooted in prior philosophical, artistic and cultural dialogue. Right down to the scientific method which derives from Aristotle.

I feel inclined to stick up for Art, but I must admit sometimes I get revolted by some of those giant box office numbers, too.(Even though I find movies valuable.)

In other news (or IS it??), I just got pictures from a friend of mine of her and her kid at Baby Loves Disco.

All practical and useful solutions are rooted in prior philosophical, artistic and cultural dialogue. Right down to the scientific method which derives from Aristotle.

Sure. But my dinner was rooted in dirt and seeds, but that doesn't make them food.

Sure. But my dinner was rooted in dirt and seeds, but that doesn't make them food.

No dirt, no food for you. Have fun in hydroponic tomotaland.

I never said all that stuff isn't important! I love art and shit!

Hec,

Would you make a distinction between artists and "artists"? That is, if I spend all day painting because I'm a trustafarian, but never create anything anyone is interested in, am I doing something useful/valuable?

I think art is extremely useful, but I have an exceptionally broad definition of art which enables me to duck many questions.

I do think that the fine arts are useful because, as Hec noted, they promote empathy. But I'm not much of a utilitarian, really. I do not value books because of their practical benefit. That's a gift with purchase.

Would you make a distinction between artists and "artists"? That is, if I spend all day painting because I'm a trustafarian, but never create anything anyone is interested in, am I doing something useful/valuable?

The utility of art may indeed depend on its ability to stir things in the culture. To be apprehendable or to engage with the world around it. However, there are so many examples of artists who were "ahead of their time" - like Van Gogh or Kafka - that you have to also acknowledge that the world, the culture, is a vast, lumbering, slow moving, deaf, behemoth that gets cranky and rejecty in the face of provocation.

The virtue (utility?) of outside artists is their critique of the culture itself. It challenges things as known. At that point you have to engage the art on its own terms and see whether it has merit. I don't think this is simply relativism - you can see fairly easily whether a work coheres or offers a new vision, even if you don't agree with the vision or dislike how it achieves those means. Whether the work has integrity (wholeness) or is simply a dilletante pissing around.

Here's the thing for me. I spent a fair amount of time in college reading old NY Times on microfiche. And it was illuminating to see how many weird, twisted biases are accepted as true in any given time. Which, at least for me, underscored the consenual hallucination of any time. People agree to believe that a piece of paper in your wallet with a presidential portrait is a medium of exchange. Currency. This is consensus.

Most everything we believe as true came through some weird committee procedure, and it's almost impossible to see the intrinsic biases from within the culture itself. Art is one of the only correctives on these weird pyramids of presumption.

Andy Warhol is useful. He said, "Your life is mediated through images which influence you daily and they're both extremely shallow and manipulative but the effect on you is unconscious and profound." That's like a fucking inoculation.

Ah, this is the "is a poem valuable if no one ever reads it?" discussion.

t sits back to watch

Actually, I have to say I'm with David. Art is valuable--even bad art. Not just for the, um, recipients, and the society at large, but for the creator. Pre-industrialization, I think there were more people living ordinary lives who were creators, even if they didn't think of themselves as artists. Artisans and crafts people, and women making quilts, and people singing rounds while shucking corn or putting up the hay.

Art or creativity is an engagement with the world (and often with the community), even if it's not as immediately useful as, say, planting a garden or programming code. It's good for the doer, and I think every poem or painting, no matter how bad, helps stave off the heat death of the universe.

Speaking of bad art...

It's one thing to do it to finance Showboat or Long Day's Journey Into Night. But No, No Nanette?

I did No, No, Nanette in high school. It's not really bad, it's a cute little show, but not amazing. Tea for Two, I Want to be Happy, and my personal fav, Where Have My Hubby Gone Blues.