The Purpose Of Art

Hint: they look at your shoes! Dress down in art galleries? If you really do want to buy a work in Soho, NYC, I would wear my best shoes! Otherwise, they are likely to ignore you. I can see how the stoic, putting on airs approach works for a lot of galleries -- especially those where the art is suppose to be taken seriously. In other words, if they're too friendly, be wary. If they immediately try to drag you into a viewing room (really, a closing room like a car dealership), look out for the hard sell.

Art is also a form of communication, often not just showing what an image looks like but also what the meaning within the image. The early religious art was simply iconic. The artist is really trying to define that within himself. It's as introverted as fiction writing can be. When one finds he loves a work of art, it isn't always for the same reason or feeling of the creator. Wouldn't every art collector like to meet the artist and ask about a work they own of theirs, "What were you thinking of when you painted it?" Yikes, loaded question for an artist and I've heard a myriad of answers, mostly diverting the subject.

Oh LightWizard, how truly you speak of the shoes place in NYC.
It's all about shoes and ties but shoes are the clear winner. On my first visits to NYC from Montreal everyone treated me royally because I had interesting shoes no one else had seen. Later wearing antique ties from Montreal while working around Broadway and 37th street, people would actually notice and comment on the nice tie. So those are my NYC tips. Now that I think of it, back then all of my Gallery contacts were good because I had Good Shoe. Now that I realize that, On with the Shoe.

There's definitely other observations that art salesman can pick up on that are unique to that milieu but shoes seems to be the focus. Those walking into the mall galleries and the ilk are in their shopping garb but there's going to be at least one salesperson whos is savvy. They may are may not be a shark but if you're armed with a good knowledge of art, you're unlikely to purchase anything. These galleries are for the amatuer collector and those looking for things to decorate with. They really believe that if they buy a piece of art over $1000.00 that they are buying something special to impress themselves and their friends but often they believe it's a good investment.

Art is us the way we are. Art is a reflection of our society seen through the soul of the artist. Sometimes it is difficult to look at becasue it is hard to admit how we are.

More *****'s

Art as a reflection of society or as social motivator has had an uneven history. The ideal of the purpose of art is to create beauty. Sometimes artists want to expose ugliness as actually
being beautiful, not the surface ugliness of the subject. Of course, we try to be objective in discussing the purpose of art rather than the purpose of the artist but it is difficult to define a seperation. A picture is worth a thousand words, of course, and the artist sits down in front of a blank canvas to create an image that contains feelings and ideas for that moment in time. So it doesn't matter if it's conceptual, a landscape, a nude, an abstract or whatever it is but it does matter whether it is seen by other eyes. That completes the purpose of art.

In that sense LW ,you get me off the hook.

the purpose of art
A small point. When we talk about the PURPOSE of art, it must in terms of goals, not functions. For example, Patiodog suggested a cognitive function for art. This is most likely true. But it is not man's reason for making art. Nor is it Nature's function (qua teleological purpose). A purpose is a goal; a function is a consequence. The first precedes art while the second follows from it. So, what's this stuffy point leading up to? Simply that we do art for human reasons, and these have to do with making our lives more meaningful, more worth living. USING it for profit, ala Kincaid or some gallery merchants is a commercial but not an artistic purpose.

Personally I don't even try to be objective when I view art I cannot see how any one could be. To me the art is totally subjective and internalized based on my individual perceptions and conceptions of the world. For instance LW you mention ugliness portrayed by artists. The ugliest paintings I have ever seen were the ones Munch did of his sister dying of TB. Actually those paintings were worse than ugly to me they made me sick to my stomach and I had to leave and come back to finish the show. But as ugly and disgusting as those paintings were to me I cannot reject them as they were technically well done and very representative of a historical period when people regularly died of TB and evoked emotions in me that I did not know existed until I viewed them. Yet look at the commercial success of The Scream certainly Munch did not expect it or paint it for commercial reasons but it is so representative of how so many of us feel in this modern age we have made it a commercial commodity.

purpose of art
Joanne, I agree about the subjective nature of art. But I think a moderation of that thesis is necessary. No doubt, art touches us subjectively and our creations must meet our internalized standards. Notice I said internalized, not just internal, standards. This is because I believe that MY personal tastes are a product of my own temperament AND the influences (the standards I've internalized) I have received. If it were not for the aesthetic values of Abstract Expressionism, for example, I'm sure my aesthetic tastes would not be exactly what they are now. Thus, my artistic experience (both in creativity and appreciation) have both subjective and objective aspects. But I agree that the subjective far outweigh the objective in significance.

JLN I had not thought of my temperament effecting my viewing of art. But certainly personal temperament has to be part of the process and the development of aesthetic values (new idea for me to ponder). You mention Abstract Expressionism as an example of the development of aesthetic taste and that is very perceptive since it was at the Picasso Retrospective at the MOMA in 1980 that I became some what enlightened about the creative process. And as I recall that memory I can see my personal discoveries were that Picasso could paint in any style and he did. But then he chose not to as he developed his talents and skills he expressed very traditional forms in an abstract way which I am now thinking must have been part of his temperament, it was what and how he saw in the world around him and he wanted to share it with us. From this show I moved on to Rothko and Barnet Newman and low and behold I got it.

Would the different moods or style changes Picasso used as he progressed though life be based on changes in his temperament?

purpose of art
Joanne, my reference to "temperament" was intended as reference to the deeper side of an individual's aesthetic life, much as the psychologist talks of a person's "character," something not easily subject to change. But I think it may be said that the temperament of an artist is something that is complex, multidimensional. This is seen very clearly in the case of Picasso. He was capable of many modes of expression. Yet they all had his aesthetic stamp. His works never looked even remotely like that of someone else, Nicholson or Pollock, for example. But this brings to mind the possibility that his aesthetic temperament (deep taste) may overlap with those of Klee, Miro, and Tamayo. At least I see similarities between them. I would like very much to hear others' views on this point. Dufy and Marin are close, according to my eye, but very different from, say, Max Ernst. And I'm referring not only to genre but aesthetic temperament. I hope I'm making some sense here.

Can we add Barnet Newman. His work fascinates me. I used to go to the East Wing at the NGA where there is a small gallery containing his Twelve Stations of The Cross. Not only did I love the paintings but what fun to watch the people looking at his work.

http://www.nga.gov/cgi-bin/psearch?Request=S&imageset=1&Person=203310

purpose of art
Joanne, I would think that if this idea about "deep" aesthetic taste" (artistic temperament) applies to anyone, it applies to everyone--assuming they have any taste at all. Newman would seem to be an obvious candidate for example--given the distinctiveness of his statement. His color field approach, if it can be called that, suggests to me that he, Rothko, Still and perhaps Turrell would have strong mutual appreciation.

Thanks for the Newman link, JD - had to copy some of these into my files of images.

I would agree with JL that temperament shows up in imagery -- Newman, a sublime introversion and Pollock a flamboyant extroversion but coming from parts of them that perhaps doesn't show up when one would have met them. That follows the purpose of art as I see it -- expressions of emotions and intellect that is really the only way the artists has to communicate. It's unlikely you'd find any of that in anything they would write. Artists and a showing usually all come out as withdrawn and aloof --
I once met Robert Rauschenberg at an exhibition and his was outgoing to an extent but he told me it was because of the Jack Daniels hidden away in a desk drawer in the gallery! He was very glib about revealing that, too.

purpose of art
LW I appreciate your reference to introversion and extroversion as temperaments that might find reflection in one's art, but I was using the term, temperament, almost metaphorically to connote a level of aesthetic preference lying deep within the artist. I would see it as almost equivalent to the metaphysical assumptions distinguishing groups (categories) of philosophers as hard-headed positivistic/scientific types on the one hand and soft-headed existential/mystical types on the other. Members within each type may differ tremendously but share either of the two deeply ingrained or embedded perspectives--their philosophical temperaments, as it were. I would sure like to have this notion of mine cleaned up, qualified, refined, etc.

That is some deep water to immerse oneself in -- I've never been able to reconcile any metaphysical forces with psychological temperaments. I was being rather simplistic as I wasn't ready to dive in there with you! The purpose of art is in the image, so I'm wondering if we really want to know about any of the undertow?

I agree, LW, that I'm dragging the issue into murky waters. I'm not even sure what I mean at this point, except that I do suspect that individuals can vary as aesthetic types (in terms of their preferences).

True enough it is getting Jungian but Walter's question is The Purpose of Art it seems natural to me that we would end up in this discussion about these issues.

http://www.ship.edu/~cgboeree/jung.html

As a matter of fact, where are you on this issue Walter?

...the purpose of art IMHO is to use the subjective and
objective aspects of which JL speaks to clarify, refine, illuminate.......