Discussion I used to care deeply about art, but not anymore, does anyone feel the same?

[Nauyaca]

We always say art is this transcendental tool, that it somehow "liberates" us, but art is a human endeavor, made by us to us, outside our sphere of influence it means absolutely nothing, and even then, it fails at it's task...

"To write poetry after Auschwitz is barbaric."

-Theodor Adorno


Let's look at a few examples:

-The Eroica symphony, Beethoven furiously scratching Napoleon's dedicatory, for what? The military leader did not even bat an eye, armies marched and millions died

-Picasso's Guernica, for what? Bombs kept and are still falling, to aestheticize horror (i never liked Picasso anyway even when i somewhat cared, but that could be just me being an irrational ass)

-Daniel Baremboim's west–eastern Divan Orchestra, it was founded to promote understanding between israelis and palestinians, for what? Have you seen Gaza lately? F*****g hell! what was that gesture good for?

I used to care about art, not anymore, you could say it started as rejection, now indifference is taking place, like i'm a self made philistine, art did nothing to help me at all, it doesn't have the power we say it has, am i alone in this? has someone besides me said "art is just human self congratulatory narcissism"?

 

[bleeding_heart_show]

Art is pointless self actualized behaviour. It seeks to impose some part of the artist onto the observer.

 

[Nauyaca]

Art is pointless self actualized behaviour. It seeks to impose some part of the artist onto the observer.

Totally agree, the most important word of your response in my opinion is this one:

"Impose"

The irony that I find in the evolution of art (specially the western tradition) is that if we stopped assigning art this magical "transcendental" powers to triumph over existence itself (powers that it doesn't have), and instead we could recognise it for what it really is, an honest tool of simple human expression, art would become way more, simple, elegant and aesthetic, instead of the bloated monster that it is now.

Ironic really, the more we value and extol art, the more we devalue it.

 

[Forever Sleep]

I love art. All art pretty much. It has been the crutch that has gotten me through life. Both trying to do my own and, enjoying other people's. I don't expect people to appreciate what I do or, agree with my appreciation of other people's work. But, it's nice when they do. It creates enough of a demand for me to be paid and, if I can bring them a flicker of joy- even better. If I happen to enjoy something popular then, that's good too- it probably means there will be more of it.

But sure- it's absolute self indulgence. It's nowhere near as important and useful as other professions practically. Still- How good would life actually be without music, books, films, games, sculpture, architecture etc? I'd likely be even more depressed without those things. What things have brought you joy in life? I imagine one artform or another is in the top ten. Who wants to live without joy?

Ok, art does little to stop war and suffering. What can though? Will refraining from art prevent someone being shot or tortured? It's different when we can take direct action to reduce suffering. Vegans and vegetarians change their lifestyles in order to try to reduce the demand for animals to be exposed to mass cruelty and slaughter. Maybe destroying some art forms would reduce waste and suffering but, I suspect we'd simply find new ways to do the same damage.

That said, it means less to me than it used to. My own anyhow. That's why I'm so lost.

 

[DarkRange55]

"Art is pointless self actualized behavior. It seeks to impose some part of the artist onto the observer."

Pointless? Only from the perspective of one who doesn't appreciate the art...

"We always

Who is "we"?

say art is this transcendental tool, that it somehow "liberates" us, but art is a human endeavor, made by us to us, outside our sphere of influence it means absolutely nothing,

Art is a form of communication, made by us to us. Why should it mean anything outside our sphere of influence?

and even then, it fails at it's task..."

Is that the fault of the art, or of the viewer of the art?