# "Art is useless, music is for entertainment."



## DSCH (Jun 17, 2013)

Sigh. No, those are not my words. My uncle said it this past Sunday. Background, I'm a jazz guitarist and contemporary classical composer. My uncle has been a long time tenured math professor at a Cal state university. He teaches advanced math to graduate students. He is far more intelligent than I, and I respect his opinion. However...

Neither of us keep up with pop culture, but at a family gathering, someone had the TV on during the Oscars. The performance of Glory came on, which I didn't think was bad per se, but it wasn't my cup of tea. Moments later, the song won an award for best song of the year. I made a WTF comment about the music awards being a popularity contest nowadays, and my uncle says the song was great exactly because everyone loved it. He said it was entertainment and the fact that the majority loved it was all that mattered. I replied that music is art and should be awarded based on merit not popularity. He said people vote with their wallets. He then said, "what is art? Art is useless." I sat in stunned silence.

Now, after having had some time to think about it, my definition of art would be, something of a mirror that grabs society by the shoulders and shakes it, showing society all of its own beauty and flaws. How would you define art? Is music nothing more than entertainment?

Stray observation: A bit later during the ceremony, Lady Gaga performed, and I was surprised that she had such a nice voice (since I live under a rock when it comes to pop culture, I thought she was just a costume act). I asked my aunt why did LG do all the makeup/costumes, when she could have been successful based on her talent alone, and my aunt thought that stuff was necessary for her to get her foot in the door of the entertainment industry. Your thoughts?


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

Art is useless for your uncle - maybe - I don't know him

But art, poetry, architecture, the wonder of nature, the smile of a small child, the sound of the birds singing etc etc etc enriches my life in so many ways and on an almost daily basis :tiphat:


----------



## Guest (Feb 24, 2015)

Intelligence is not a linear spectrum; there are intelligences (plural). We are all more intelligent in some ways, not so much in others. Your uncle is good at maths.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

DSCH said:


> Now, after having had some time to think about it, my definition of art would be, something of a mirror that grabs society by the shoulders and shakes it, showing society all of its own beauty and flaws. How would you define art? Is music nothing more than entertainment?


I don't know, but entertainment, as anything that gives pleasure in life is very important. 
It could be useless only to those who think that don't need to live a good life but we have just to survive. Because to survive we don't need sex if not for reproductive function, we don't need good food, beautiful houses and great views. Are those things useless too?


----------



## QuietGuy (Mar 1, 2014)

A friend of mine explains it this way: Mathematicians, Scientists and Engineers see the world in black and white only, and only rarely see the gray; whereas people in the humanities see the world in shades of gray all the time, including the black and white. Your life is so much richer than your uncle's!


----------



## Badinerie (May 3, 2008)

> I'm a jazz guitarist AND contemporary classical composer.


?

Your going straight to hell! :lol:


----------



## DSCH (Jun 17, 2013)

Badinerie said:


> ?
> 
> Your going straight to hell! :lol:


Lol! And I'm going to get there via starvation by dissonance. Actually, I kid. I also teach, that's where the BIG money is. 

By the way, my classical friends tell me about how they hate jazz and their blood pressure levels when listening to it, and my jazz friends tell me they thought I was more hip than I actually am. Lol


----------



## Richannes Wrahms (Jan 6, 2014)

QuietGuy said:


> A friend of mine explains it this way: Mathematicians, Scientists and Engineers see the world in black and white only, and only rarely see the gray; whereas people in the humanities see the world in shades of gray all the time, including the black and white. Your life is so much richer than your uncle's!


Sorry, but your friend has absolutely no idea.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

DSCH said:


> Sigh. No, those are not my words. My uncle said it this past Sunday. Background, I'm a jazz guitarist and contemporary classical composer. My uncle has been a long time tenured math professor at a Cal state university. He teaches advanced math to graduate students. He is far more intelligent than I, and I respect his opinion. However...
> 
> Neither of us keep up with pop culture, but at a family gathering, someone had the TV on during the Oscars. The performance of Glory came on, which I didn't think was bad per se, but it wasn't my cup of tea. Moments later, the song won an award for best song of the year. I made a WTF comment about the music awards being a popularity contest nowadays, and my uncle says the song was great exactly because everyone loved it. He said it was entertainment and the fact that the majority loved it was all that mattered. I replied that music is art and should be awarded based on merit not popularity. He said people vote with their wallets. He then said, "what is art? Art is useless." I sat in stunned silence.
> 
> ...


Well, I certainly won't agree with your uncle, but I don't have an opinion on how art should be rewarded. I don't believe in objective "merit" in art. As far as I can tell, whereas your uncle meant "popular with everyone," your proposal about "merit" would amount in practice to something like "popular with the right sort of people."

Lady Gaga has made jigatimes more money getting attention (and probably had more fun) than she could've made just about any other way; her talent includes the entire creation. Once she had her foot in the door, she wanted her hand in the till.

The idea that art is useless is very interesting. I think that might be the essential defining feature of art, actually. One of the beautiful things about humanity is that we do things that are useless. Doing useful things is great too, of course. But we need to stop saying things like "nothing more than entertainment." Take away all the useless things - all the decorations and games and jokes - and we're "nothing more than" clever reptiles.


----------



## Fox (Feb 20, 2015)

I'm going to be crude but to me "Art" is a "work" a painting, piece of music, book, film, poem, photograph, play, dance performance, sculpture etc that makes me take a step back and say to myself f++k me. 

This may sound pompous or a bit grand but in that moment I know that my life is better for having experienced that. It changes you and the art may not always be pleasant but the change is always good and it always makes you ask questions even if your not sure why your asking them.

I'd just like to say I am not one who curses regularly but that's honestly what I think so felt I had to say so. 

I could list numerous examples of "art" but I am going to use one. It's not even the best example I could give but I feel it illustrates my point perfectly.

The 2002 film Irréversible it was directed by Gaspar Noé and starred Monica Bellucci, Vincent Cassel and Albert Dupontel. That is as much information as I will give as far as plot goes but anyone who has seen it will no there is no deep story to be told here.

It is a very violent film I have nothing against violence in films that's fine. However this was one film for one reason I did not enjoy in fact I have never watched it again. The reason in question is actually one scene which is the central plot point around which the main events unfold. It made me very uncomfortable to the point I thought about turning the DVD off on several occasions over the length of this maybe 5 to 10 minute scene.

The rest of the film is not without merit and you are filled with emotions during and after this scene so you are gripped and you couldn't turn it off. Looking back on it now without being caught up in the moment the rest of the film is fairly banal but satisfying enough that it's never considered bad.

Now the acting was fine the film was good I'm not saying this was a poorly made/shot/acted film but I hate this film. Yet to me I would say to anyone who was interested in serious film it's a must watch (but only once).

At the end of the film I was heartbroken to the point I was actually upset but I felt better for having seen it and I was asking myself questions. Let me put it this way I didn't think I would be asking myself those types of questions after seeing a film like this.

To me that's the power of art you can move mountains without moving from your chair.

Regards,

Fox


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

My dear Sir:

Art is useless because its aim is simply to create a mood. It is not meant to instruct, or to influence action in any way. It is superbly sterile, and the note of its pleasure is sterility. If the contemplation of a work of art is followed by activity of any kind, the work is either of a very second-rate order, or the spectator has failed to realise the complete artistic impression.

A work of art is useless as a flower is useless. A flower blossoms for its own joy. We gain a moment of joy by looking at it. That is all that is to be said about our relations to flowers. Of course man may sell the flower, and so make it useful to him, but this has nothing to do with the flower. It is not part of its essence. It is accidental. It is a misuse. All this is I fear very obscure. But the subject is a long one.

Truly yours,

Oscar Wilde


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Art is useless? Certainly not music! "When we hear a mass, we go to church. When we hear a march, we go off to war."


----------



## Guest (Feb 25, 2015)

I would agree that music is essentially for entertainment.

Music and arts more generally can be used to make statements about reality, life, current events, etc. Sometimes even with great effect. But I would guess that at least 99% of music and art has little or nothing to say. About par for humanity I suppose.

Still, it's fun to listen to it!


----------



## Fox (Feb 20, 2015)

You know when you just don't fit in and you feel your worth nothing. Your different from everyone else and you don't know why, you may think about trying to end it all or maybe you've tried and failed. What's stops you from trying again? For some people it's their art I would say it's not worthless to them.

From a GDP economic point of view art is not worthless either because it is sold for multi-millions and is seen as a good way to avoid currency devaluation. So the argument art has no real tangible benefits if you exclude the purely entertainment aspect is not valid.

Fox


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

_Some_ art is useless. _Some_ art is for entertainment.

Examples: Lady Gaga (music), Jeff Koons (visual art)

The idea that _all_ art is entertainment and therefore useless, is _laughable_. Anyone with such a view has no imagination and no creative power.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

"All art is quite useless."- Oscar Wilde


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> "All art is quite useless."- Oscar Wilde


Oscar Wilde should have a chat with James Joyce or J.S. Bach.


----------



## Fox (Feb 20, 2015)

Morimur said:


> _Some_ art is useless. _Some_ art is for entertainment.
> 
> Examples: Lady Gaga (music), Jeff Koons (visual art)
> 
> The idea that _all_ art is entertainment and therefore useless, is _laughable_. Anyone with such a view has no imagination and no creative power.





StlukesguildOhio said:


> "All art is quite useless."- Oscar Wilde


"Not all music is art and not artwork is art but all art is worth something." ~ Fox


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> "All art is quite useless."- Oscar Wilde


Perhaps if its state of the fart.

Otherwise, its Louvre at first sight.

_;D_


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

science said:


> The idea that art is useless is very interesting. I think that might be the essential defining feature of art, actually. One of the beautiful things about humanity is that we do things that are useless. Doing useful things is great too, of course. But we need to stop saying things like "nothing more than entertainment." Take away all the useless things - all the decorations and games and jokes - and we're "nothing more than" clever reptiles.


Exactly.

Also, of the nominated songs, "Glory" was clearly the best, so I wouldn't say its win was a popularity contest. If you write a song in a pop genre for a Hollywood movie, you're working within certain pretty narrow strictures. That doesn't mean it can't be good.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

isorhythm said:


> Exactly.
> 
> Also, of the nominated songs, "Glory" was clearly the best, so I wouldn't say its win was a popularity contest. If you write a song in a pop genre for a Hollywood movie, you're working within certain pretty narrow strictures. That doesn't mean it can't be good.


Who takes the oscars seriously anyway? It's a business, and there's nothing wrong with that, but let's drop any pretense that it awards artistic excellence.


----------



## Fox (Feb 20, 2015)

science said:


> The idea that art is useless is very interesting. I think that might be the essential defining feature of art, actually. One of the beautiful things about humanity is that we do things that are useless. Doing useful things is great too, of course. But we need to stop saying things like "nothing more than entertainment." Take away all the useless things - all the decorations and games and jokes - and we're "nothing more than" clever reptiles.





isorhythm said:


> Exactly.
> 
> Also, of the nominated songs, "Glory" was clearly the best, so I wouldn't say its win was a popularity contest. If you write a song in a pop genre for a Hollywood movie, you're working within certain pretty narrow strictures. That doesn't mean it can't be good.


I don't follow pop-culture I'm not a snob if there is something that's popular and I happen to like it I'll watch or listen to it but a I'm fairly niche individual. I don't watch the Oscars in fact I didn't even know they still televised it I thought that stopped for some strange reason.

Anyway I think people are making the mistake that if it's art it can can't entertaining of course it can. Also there is "high-brow" art and there is "low-brow" art just as there is high-brow entertainment and low-brow entertainment.

So the idea that fun or entertainment and art that is "serious" or has some sort of meaning or worth beyond just "ins't that nice" are mutually exclusive is nonsense.

To top it all off worth is subjective so in a way yes art can be worthless but I would say if you look at something that someone has poured their soul into their blood, sweat and tears to create for no other reason than they felt compelled to and you "meh that's worthless" (not trying to be cruel) that says more about you than the artwork.

Best Wishes

Fox :tiphat:


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Fox said:


> I don't follow pop-culture I'm not a snob if there is something that's popular and I happen to like it I'll watch or listen to it but a I'm fairly niche individual. I don't watch the Oscars in fact I didn't even know they still televised it I thought that stopped for some strange reason.
> 
> Anyway I think people are making the mistake that if it's art it can can't entertaining of course it can. Also there is "high-brow" art and there is "low-brow" art just as there is high-brow entertainment and low-brow entertainment.
> 
> ...


I'm not sure how your response relates to the posts you quoted, so I want to make sure (just to be on good terms) that you know that neither I nor Isorhythm meant that anyone's art was worthless.


----------



## Fox (Feb 20, 2015)

science said:


> I'm not sure how your response relates to the posts you quoted, so I want to make sure (just to be on good terms) that you know that neither I nor Isorhythm meant that anyone's art was worthless.


I may have quoted you wrong my eye sight is deteriorating due to illness so it's hard for me to see that's why I edit my posts so much. If I change the post now it's not to be underhanded in anyway it's simply to rectify my error if indeed I made one.

I'm really sorry if I came off a bit a harsh on either of you or Isorhyth I don't "know" you personally really but from what I have seen of your posts you are both very nice well-mannered members who contribute a lot to the forum, I like you both. It wasn't meant a personal message to either of you.

Science said something and the isorhythm quoted you and I thought I could use your posts that's why I double quoted. Let me try and fix it to see if it makes more sense.

Regards,

Fox


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

_"All art is quite useless."- Oscar Wilde_

Morimur- Oscar Wilde should have a chat with James Joyce or J.S. Bach.

"Nothing is more useful to man than those arts which have no 
utility." -Ovid

"Art has no end but its own perfection." -Plutarch

What is the "use" or the "meaning" of Mozart's Clarinet Quintet? What is the use or meaning of life itself?


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

Art useless? I think that math has been less useful than art to me. I listen to way more classical music than I ever did third degree derivatives on a daily basis.


----------



## DSCH (Jun 17, 2013)

Thanks for sharing all the interesting comments. I just want to say that even if I don't agree with all of the opinions, I value each one. Also, may I share with you all an amazing piece I found:

http://psband.org/Spirit_of_the_Sands/The_Value_of_Music.html

Teaser from article:

Welcome address to freshman at Boston Conservatory, given by Karl Paulnack, pianist and director of music division at Boston Conservatory.

"One of my parents' deepest fears, I suspect, is that society would not properly value me as a musician, that I wouldn't be appreciated. I had very good grades in high school, I was good in science and math, and they imagined that as a doctor or a research chemist or an engineer, I might be more appreciated than I would be as a musician. I still remember my mother's remark when I announced my decision to apply to music school-she said, "you're WASTING your SAT scores." On some level, I think, my parents were not sure themselves what the value of music was, what its purpose was. And they LOVED music, they listened to classical music all the time. They just weren't really clear about its function. So let me talk about that a little bit, because we live in a society that puts music in the "arts and entertainment" section of the newspaper, and serious music, the kind your kids are about to engage in, has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with entertainment, in fact it's the opposite of entertainment."


----------



## Fox (Feb 20, 2015)

I edited your quote Science to make it cleaner which bit I was referring to. It was your use "useless" I equated that to mean worthless as an artist myself I would be offend if my work was considered useless or worthless. Bad, terrible, tasteless things of that nature I could handle but I would be annoyed at useless. 

I didn't think you were totally wrong either because and that's why I quoted isorhythm I don't know "Glory" but I'm amusing it's not Bach it's fairly low-brow but isorhythm thinks it was good enough to win and obviously some people find it entertaining so you can tick all the boxes is what I was trying to say.

I just didn't like the word useless although I appreciate the kind of philological point you were trying to make that other living things generally don't do things for no reason. Although quite a few of them actually do not to the extent that humans do so your point is still valid.

It was never meant as a attack or criticism of either of you and I genuinely sorry if you felt it was.

Best Wishes,

Fox.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Oscars are meaningless in "artistic" terms? Can't see that at all. Over the years, Oscars have been awarded to many movies that we recognize today as among the best. Also to many others, of course, but look at Pulitzer prizes for music for a parallel case. Or the Prix de Rome for music for that matter. It was awarded annually from 1803, and how many names do we even recognize today?

You'd have to argue that movies aren't "art" at all, and that would seem a strange position to take.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prix_de_Rome#First_Prize_Winners_in_the_Musical_Composition_category


----------



## Fox (Feb 20, 2015)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> _"All art is quite useless."- Oscar Wilde_
> 
> Morimur- Oscar Wilde should have a chat with James Joyce or J.S. Bach.
> 
> ...


The hat is tipped, goodness the pants are off hail the master of the quotes :tiphat:


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

So let me talk about that a little bit, because we live in a society that puts music in the "arts and entertainment" section of the newspaper, and *serious music*, the kind your kids are about to engage in, *has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with entertainment*, in fact it's the opposite of entertainment."

Is that indeed true? Bach and Beethoven bring me pleasure. I find _Cosi fan tutte_ and _La Traviata_ to be quite entertaining.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Oscars are meaningless in "artistic" terms? Can't see that at all. Over the years, Oscars have been awarded to many movies that we recognize today as among the best. Also to many others, of course, but look at Pulitzer prizes for music for a parallel case. Or the Prix de Rome for music for that matter. It was awarded annually from 1803, and how many names do we even recognize today?
> 
> You'd have to argue that movies aren't "art" at all, and that would seem a strange position to take.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prix_de_Rome#First_Prize_Winners_in_the_Musical_Composition_category


I think the Pulitzers have generally been awarded to great and accomplished composers, but usually not for their best works. Does anyone really think that John Adams' "On the Transmigration of Souls" is in the upper echelon of his oeuvre?

Other prizes like the Oscars often work the same way, on the basis of goodwill towards the artists involved as much as or more than towards the work itself.


----------



## Autocrat (Nov 14, 2014)

Mahlerian said:


> Other prizes like the Oscars often work the same way, on the basis of goodwill towards the artists involved as much as or more than towards the work itself.


There's no other explanation of how Charlton Heston or Michael Douglas have won.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

_Art is a revolt against fate. All art is a revolt against man's fate.
-Andre Malraux

Art is the most intense mode of individualism that the world has known.
-Oscar Wilde

Art is the only way to run away without leaving home.
-Twyla Tharp_


----------



## Fox (Feb 20, 2015)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> So let me talk about that a little bit, because we live in a society that puts music in the "arts and entertainment" section of the newspaper, and *serious music*, the kind your kids are about to engage in, *has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with entertainment*, in fact it's the opposite of entertainment."
> 
> Is that indeed true? Bach and Beethoven bring me pleasure. I find _Cosi fan tutte_ and _La Traviata_ to be quite entertaining.


That's the point I'm trying to make not all music is art but Bach and Beethoven are art. Music was simply the medium in which Bach and Beethoven expressed themselves.

The point is it's art it has meaning, it has purpose but over all the main reason for it still being in existence hundreds of years after it was written is that it brings pleasure to tens of thousands of people every year.

Fox


----------



## 20centrfuge (Apr 13, 2007)

DSCH said:


> I made a WTF comment about the music awards being a popularity contest nowadays, and my uncle says the song was great exactly because everyone loved it. He said it was entertainment and the fact that the majority loved it was all that mattered. I replied that music is art and should be awarded based on merit not popularity. He said people vote with their wallets.


In some ways your uncle is right, in that, for the most part, money is the fuel that allows all art and music to continue. But in more important ways he is wrong. What is it that makes any work of art/music/literature great? It is definitely not the number of copies that are sold, but is the quality and meaning of the work. The greatest art/music/literature CAN be appreciated by the masses but is NEVER appreciated by the masses because it involves a certain amount of effort on the part of the BEHOLDER to appreciate the art.

I guess what I am saying is that the greatest works of art/music/lit are those that are usually not the simplest and most readily digestible. FWIW.

I would ask your uncle what his favorite novel is. Then ask him how popular that novel is. If your uncle has no appreciation of great art/music/lit then, I am sorry to say, he is Neanderthal, albeit an intelligent one.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Fox said:


> The point is it's art it has meaning, it has purpose but over all the main reason for it still being in existence hundreds of years after it was written is that it brings pleasure to tens of thousands of people every year.


Does that mean that if a piece of music becomes less popular (brings pleasure to fewer people) over time, it loses artistic greatness?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> _Art is a revolt against fate. All art is a revolt against man's fate.
> -Andre Malraux_


Bach was revolting against man's fate? (Herr Bach looks at M. Malraux with a puzzled expression...)


----------



## DSCH (Jun 17, 2013)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> So let me talk about that a little bit, because we live in a society that puts music in the "arts and entertainment" section of the newspaper, and *serious music*, the kind your kids are about to engage in, *has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with entertainment*, in fact it's the opposite of entertainment."
> 
> Is that indeed true? Bach and Beethoven bring me pleasure. I find _Cosi fan tutte_ and _La Traviata_ to be quite entertaining.


I agree with you. I don't think that art and entertainment are mutually exclusive. However, I hope that that statement doesn't prevent you from reading the rest of the piece, it is really insightful.


----------



## Kevin Pearson (Aug 14, 2009)

dogen said:


> Intelligence is not a linear spectrum; there are intelligences (plural). We are all more intelligent in some ways, not so much in others. Your uncle is good at maths.


I don't know about that because something doesn't add up here!


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

QuietGuy said:


> A friend of mine explains it this way: Mathematicians, Scientists and Engineers see the world in black and white only, and only rarely see the gray; whereas people in the humanities see the world in shades of gray all the time, including the black and white. Your life is so much richer than your uncle's!


The ability to see in black/white or shades of grey has exactly nothing to do with whether we are in the Humanities, Mathematics, Science or Engineering, it is a more general thought and perception issue. I am not so sure about whether the ability to see shades of grey makes a life richer but it certainly makes it far more nuanced.

I should note that I say this as someone with degrees in science, and who is often accused of seeing too many shades of grey!


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

Art and music isn't useless to any of the record label executives


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

Art_ is _useless.
But it is _not _valueless.

We could certainly exist without art. But we probably wouldn't much enjoy that existence. Or value it. Or believe it to be worthwhile.


----------



## OldFashionedGirl (Jul 21, 2013)

SONNET CLV said:


> Art_ is _useless.
> But it is _not _valueless.
> 
> We could certainly exist without art. But we probably wouldn't much enjoy that existence. Or value it. Or believe it to be worthwhile.


True. Live would be boring. Only eating, drinking, having sex and sleep. Having just a monotone life.


----------



## GKC (Jun 2, 2011)

Of course art is not useless, and good music is much more than entertainment. But it does remind me of something I once read about the psychologist Steven Pinker at Harvard (?). He was going on about how we were just accidental chemical constructs and anything we come up with has no real deep meaning. He was asked about great music (I think Bach was mentioned), and he dismissed all of music by calling it "auditory cheesecake".
Maybe he's changed his mind since then ;-).

Albert Einstein played the violin (story is that once he was playing with a famous cellist. Afterwards he asked the cellist "did I play well?" Cellist said "you played relatively well." ;-) 

Another scientist, Stephen Jay Gould, sometimes wrote liner notes for classical music records. I think he wrote ones for a recording of Mozart's Requiem I have.

I know a mathematician who plays the viola, and with whom shared my great enthusiasm for Schubert's string quintet (a real favorite of his). 

Sometimes I think that the "useless, auditory cheesecake" business is a product of the materialism of the current batch of scientists, and not past ones (who were often materialists too, but seemed to be less one-dimensional about non-scientific things) . But that is a completely different subject, so I will stop here. ;-)


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

SONNET CLV said:


> Art_ is _useless.
> But it is _not _valueless.
> 
> We could certainly exist without art. But we probably wouldn't much enjoy that existence. Or value it. Or believe it to be worthwhile.


Art isn't useless. If Werther committed suicide over it, then there has to be some use to some human being out there.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

I know science types who promote science over art, proposing that science better meets man's needs. 

Indeed. Science allows for life to be easier, allows for us to have more time free from the toils and drudgery of existence, these science types proudly claim.

I ask them: Why do we want more free time? To do what? To enjoy the arts, perhaps?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

SONNET CLV said:


> We could certainly exist without art. But we probably wouldn't much enjoy that existence.


All depends on our condition. Suppose you were starving in the desert, I mean REALLY starving. Along comes Mr. Scratch who says, "I'll give you this nice juicy hamburger, plus a shake in your choice of flavor, if you agree to give up music forever." What would you do?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

KenOC said:


> All depends on our condition. Suppose you were starving in the desert, I mean REALLY starving. Along comes Mr. Scratch who says, "I'll give you this nice juicy hamburger, plus a shake in your choice of flavor, if you agree to give up music forever." What would you do?


I'd ask if it would be all right to sing.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

KenOC said:


> All depends on our condition. Suppose you were starving in the desert, I mean REALLY starving. Along comes Mr. Scratch who says, "I'll give you this nice juicy hamburger, plus a shake in your choice of flavor, if you agree to give up music forever." What would you do?


Why do I immediately think about Alberich?


----------



## DSCH (Jun 17, 2013)

KenOC said:


> All depends on our condition. Suppose you were starving in the desert, I mean REALLY starving. Along comes Mr. Scratch who says, "I'll give you this nice juicy hamburger, plus a shake in your choice of flavor, if you agree to give up music forever." What would you do?


If you have the time, please read the article I linked. Here is a segment that is related to what you're saying, with the example of Olivier Messiaen who composed and performed a piece of music from within a Nazi concentration camp:

"Given what we have since learned about life in the concentration camps, why would anyone in his right mind waste time and energy writing or playing music? There was barely enough energy on a good day to find food and water, to avoid a beating, to stay warm, to escape torture-why would anyone bother with music? And yet-from the camps, we have poetry, we have music, we have visual art; it wasn't just this one fanatic Messiaen; many, many people created art. Why? Well, in a place where people are only focused on survival, on the bare necessities, the obvious conclusion is that art must be, somehow, essential for life. The camps were without money, without hope, without commerce, without recreation, without basic respect, but they were not without art. Art is part of survival; art is part of the human spirit, an unquenchable expression of who we are. Art is one of the ways in which we say, "I am alive, and my life has meaning."

Although a concentration camp isn't guaranteed death like your example, it is similar in hopelessness. And yet the prisoners created art even in that environment of despair.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Well, just to point out that Messiaen's camp wasn't what we normally think of as a "concentration camp." It was a prisoner of war camp, the same as kept by all combatants in WWII, since he was a captured enemy soldier (a medical auxiliary in his case).

Conditions weren't the best, obviously. But the performance of his music was attended by both prisoners and guards, who no doubt wrangled about its merits much as we do here. I don't think this has much to do with my hypothetical question.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalag_VIII-A

And of course you avoided my question: What would YOU do?


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

KenOC said:


> All depends on our condition. Suppose you were starving in the desert, I mean REALLY starving. Along comes Mr. Scratch who says, "I'll give you this nice juicy hamburger, plus a shake in your choice of flavor, if you agree to give up music forever." What would you do?


Of course if one embraces the perverse esthetics of Cage one could spend the rest of his life listening to _433_.


----------



## DSCH (Jun 17, 2013)

KenOC said:


> Well, just to point out that Messiaen's camp wasn't what we normally think of as a "concentration camp." It was a prisoner of war camp, the same as kept by all combatants in WWII, since he was a captured enemy soldier (a medical auxiliary in his case).
> 
> Conditions weren't the best, obviously. But the performance of his music was attended by both prisoners and guards, who no doubt wrangled about its merits much as we do here. I don't think this has much to do with my hypothetical example.


To answer your example directly, I know what my body would say, I know what my mind (and/or soul) would say, but I don't know exactly what I'd say until it actually were to happen. That's your point though isn't it? That the needs of humans are prioritized in the order of id, ego, and then super-ego? While food fufills the need of the id, art belongs in the realm of the super-ego. However, I'd argue that without the food, one would physically die, but without art, one would also in a way spiritually die, from loss of food for the soul.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

DSCH said:


> To answer your example directly, I know what my body would say, I know what my mind (and/or soul) would say, but I don't know exactly what I'd say until it actually were to happen. That's your point though isn't it? That the needs of humans are prioritized in the order of id, ego, and then super-ego? While food fufills the need of the id, art belongs in the realm of the super-ego. However, I'd argue that without the food, one would physically die, but without art, one would also in a way spiritually die, from loss of food for the soul.


You still avoid the question. Why the Freudian stuff? What would YOU do?


----------



## DSCH (Jun 17, 2013)

KenOC said:


> You still avoid the question. Why the Freudian stuff? What would YOU do?


I DID answer the question. I don't know what'd I'd do until it were to happen. Of course I'd say from the comfort of my own home that I'd choose physical death over spiritual death, but who knows what I'd actually say when death comes knocking?


----------



## DSCH (Jun 17, 2013)

KenOC said:


> You still avoid the question. Why the Freudian stuff? What would YOU do?


What would you do?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

I'd take the hamburger for sure. But I don't believe that being deprived of music is "spiritual death." A whole lot of people don't listen to it and they seem reasonably spiritually alive.


----------



## DSCH (Jun 17, 2013)

KenOC said:


> I'd take the hamburger for sure. But I don't believe that being deprived of classical music is "spiritual death."


Makes sense. Maybe you're right and perhaps if it actually were to happen, I wouldn't have the strength to choose death. But there are many examples in history where people were offered their lives or their beliefs and a few of them did choose death.

Kind of off topic, but I'd choose my own death over loss of music, loss of freedom, or if it would save the lives of any of my loved ones.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Bear in mind that if you lose life, you lose music as well. You're not choosing beliefs here, but something that serves your own gratification.


----------



## DSCH (Jun 17, 2013)

KenOC said:


> Bear in mind that if you lose life, you lose music as well. You're not choosing beliefs here, but something that serves your own gratification.


That's where we'll have to agree to disagree then. A few years ago, I was in a really dark place in my life, ready to pull the trigger on myself (yes an actual one) but realized that music was one of the few bright spots in my life. From my point of view, music or rather the hope to create it saved my life. That's all I'm going to say about that, as I don't want to relive the memory. But everyone has different priorities. Life without art, is it really worth living for? To me it isn't.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

I love music and it certainly enriches my life. We do need to know how fortunate we are to be able to enjoy it. I have visited villages in Africa where they don't have time for anything like that. There is no electricity and probably a walk of about a mile every morning to get some clean water. the day is usually spent in back breaking labour in the fields knowing that if the rains fail there will be starvation and no harvest anyway. After that it's time to eat before it gets dark. 
100 or so years ago working class people in the West were in the same sort of situation. 
I don't say this to make us feel guilty. But we should be thankful that after a day at work we can sit in our living room and listen to some great pianist playing Beethoven. Most people in the world still do not have that luxury.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

* Music (or art generally) is not useless - it has many social uses, in drawing people together, and being part of a community is part of what keeps us healthy.

* Music *is *a form of entertainment - but entertainment doesn't just have to be passing the time in an amusing way. The catharsis of watching a tragedy is in some strange sense gratifying, so 'entertaining'.

* Music does more things than entertain. It can elevate our mood, and make us use our grey cells. Both useful activities.

* There is nothing wrong with entertainment anyway.

* There is nothing wrong with something being less useful than a hamburger.

* The OP's uncle is entitled to his views. In fact, I think that we at TC should thank him for seeding a great thread. 
:tiphat:


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

A hamburger would certainly take care of one's immediate needs if one is starving. But man does not live on bread alone, as Christ said. One's spirit must also be fed, and art satisfies part of that hunger. Art is an expression of creative skill and imagination—any skill acquired through practice is an art. What if the gift of creative self expression was taken away from us? How long, or how well would we live? Without the freedom of self expression, hope soon disintegrates and where there is no hope, people die. Why did Varlam Shalamov write "Kolyma Tales" after spending 20 years in soviet labor camps? Was it for kicks, or was it because he felt the need to express something deeper?


----------



## Fox (Feb 20, 2015)

No I don't think so but I do think with music in particular it composed to be listened to and loved the way a book is written to be read. I would think this applies to all music and books but I don't think they all fall into the "Art" category so they wouldn't all have some deeper meaning or point to carry. 

Regards,

Fox


----------



## Marilyn (Jan 26, 2013)

Art is actually the opposite of useless. Throughout the human history, art (and subsequently music as a form of art), has been a very powerful tool in the hands of the authorities or in the hands of their opponents. A tool used to form and/or manipulate the public opinion. I do not wish to imply in any way that art always contains political messages. What I am trying to say is that it cannot be seen seperately from the magor historical events of its time and therefore it is very significant.

If I were you, I would buy your uncle E.H. Gombrich's _The Story of Art_. It's a great book and one cannot help but fall in love with art, once they read it.


----------



## GGluek (Dec 11, 2011)

Art is essential to civilization.


----------



## papsrus (Oct 7, 2014)

The mathematician or scientist may view the act of creating art as simply another form of problem solving -- a mental exercise whose outcome has no utility, solves no real-world problem, and is therefore useless in a practical sense. 

It doesn't produce a better burger. (Unless you're a chef, in which case it does.)

All creative output is the result of the same sort of mental exercise, the mathematician may reason, and so its only worth is in how successfully it entertains. How broadly it is accepted. 

Ergo, the most popular art is the best art, in practical terms. Seems like a logical, calculated conclusion.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

DSCH said:


> Sigh. No, those are not my words. My uncle said it this past Sunday. Background, I'm a jazz guitarist and contemporary classical composer. My uncle has been a long time tenured math professor at a Cal state university. He teaches advanced math to graduate students. He is far more intelligent than I, and I respect his opinion. However...
> 
> Neither of us keep up with pop culture, but at a family gathering, someone had the TV on during the Oscars. The performance of Glory came on, which I didn't think was bad per se, but it wasn't my cup of tea. Moments later, the song won an award for best song of the year. I made a WTF comment about the music awards being a popularity contest nowadays, and my uncle says the song was great exactly because everyone loved it. He said it was entertainment and the fact that the majority loved it was all that mattered. I replied that music is art and should be awarded based on merit not popularity. He said people vote with their wallets. He then said, "what is art? Art is useless." I sat in stunned silence.


My uncle's a physicist and says the same thing about mathematicians. I wouldn't worry too much about blanket assertions of the triviality of any professional or artistic endeavor (with the possible exception of hedge funds, but I digress).


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

papsrus said:


> The mathematician or scientist may view the act of creating art as simply another form of problem solving -- a mental exercise whose outcome has no utility, solves no real-world problem, and is therefore useless in a practical sense.
> 
> It doesn't produce a better burger. (Unless you're a chef, in which case it does.)
> 
> ...


You are wrong in your reasoning. A scientist might do 'pure' research as problem solving but knows the knowledge will probably have some practical application down the line.


----------



## papsrus (Oct 7, 2014)

DavidA said:


> You are wrong in your reasoning. A scientist might do 'pure' research as problem solving but knows the knowledge will probably have some practical application down the line.


I may have been unclear. I don't disagree. I'd suspect a scientist is always (or primarily) aiming at practical applications for their problem solving. But a scientist may view the artist as solving problems with no practical applications.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

papsrus said:


> I may have been unclear. I don't disagree. I'd suspect a scientist is always (or primarily) aiming at practical applications for their problem solving. But a scientist may view the artist as solving problems with no practical applications.


Sorry if I misunderstood. Pure research is done for the sake of adding knowledge to the world's store but with science there is often a practical application for the benefit (or detriment) of mankind. As a trained scientist I am thankful for the arts as it would be a grim world indeed if we only had science to occupy us!


----------



## papsrus (Oct 7, 2014)

Yes, we're in agreement here. Which is why I can understand why a scientist may (emphasize "may") view the utility of art in purely empirical terms -- i.e.: its popularity is the only real gauge of its success as art. 

I'm sure this is too fine a point and that obviously there are many scientifically trained minds that love art as well, for a variety of reasons.


----------



## Bas (Jul 24, 2012)

The philosophical debate that can be the result of the question whether art serves a greater purpose than entertainment is interesting, but let me just say this:

I live for (the experience) of art, for (live) classical music, for great poetry, for the effects looking at a Picasso painting have on me, for literature. To me it has all the value in the world and it serves as what I would call the purpose of my life (together with the beauty of sharing such experiences with others.) I'd like to quote Winston Churchill in this regard (and there is discussion whether he might not have said this or if the quote is entirely correct, yet the point stands): 

When he was asked to cut on arts financing for budgetary reason related to the war he refused and said: "Then what are we fighting for?"


----------



## Celloman (Sep 30, 2006)

Music is an essential ingredient of every culture in the world today. It's as important as the Italian language is to the Italians and the German language is to the Germans. It's more important to us than we realize. Have you ever tried to go for a day without music? A week? A month? Music is a staple of human life and we can't go for very long without it.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Art is NOT useless! He provides some of the most interesting polls on TC.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

Music and other arts entertain me and give me something to think about, be passionate about and spend money on.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Art rocks. Even in less than 15 characters.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Somehow Floria Tosca's great aria Vissi d'arte loses a bit when it is changed to Vissi d'music.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

science said:


> Well, I certainly won't agree with your uncle, but I don't have an opinion on how art should be rewarded. I don't believe in objective "merit" in art. As far as I can tell, whereas your uncle meant "popular with everyone," your proposal about "merit" would amount in practice to something like "popular with the right sort of people."


That's my view too.
If just two people are picking one thing over other things, that's a popularity contest.

"the song was great exactly because everyone loved it"
I won't agree with that either, but it's worth asking, would [insert name of great art here] still be considered great if literally nobody loved it?
Being loved is a prerequisite, surely, for being called "great". The issue is over how we consider the quantity or quality of the people who love it.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

Marilyn said:


> Art is actually the opposite of useless. Throughout the human history, art (and subsequently music as a form of art), has been a very powerful tool in the hands of the authorities or in the hands of their opponents. A tool used to form and/or manipulate the public opinion. I do not wish to imply in any way that art always contains political messages. What I am trying to say is that it cannot be seen seperately from the magor historical events of its time and therefore it is very significant.





GGluek said:


> Art is essential to civilization.


One of my favorite images is that of the ancient cave paintings. When I taught, I often featured the painting of the bison as an image in my room. It reminds me of the ascent of humanness. Art is what distinguishes us as human from the species we were prior to the creation of art.

Whether the bison painting is the earliest art or not I cannot say, but I suspect there was some sort of art (music imitating bird calls, body adornment, aesthetic tool shaping....) prior to those paintings.

This is a pre-history era. Certainly a pre-civilization era.

Definitions are certainly the order here. What is civilization? When does it happen? Is it equitable with human consciousness, or is it a later development which has more to do with societal behavior? Such things are open to debate.

But arts have been long a part of our species' nature.

When I propose that "art is useless but not valueless", once again I am dealing with defined terms -- "useful" defined as I understand it, "value" defined as I understand it. These terms are open to further understandings, of course.

But, we can survive without art in our lives. Folks in comas do. But as a value to us, art serves great purpose. It is the very thing that distinguishes us from animals. Animals do not create art. Humans may assign artistic qualities to animal creations like spider webs or bird nests, but the animals themselves are programmed to do what they do and are not consciously creating aesthetically pleasing items.

I remain glad we have arts as part of our human experience. I'm not certain we would have human experience without art. I do not believe we would.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

SONNET CLV said:


> Whether the bison painting is the earliest art or not I cannot say, but I suspect there was some sort of art (music imitating bird calls, body adornment, aesthetic tool shaping....) prior to those paintings.


There is a 45,000-year-old flute: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divje_Babe_Flute

It's not known if it was made by Homo sapiens or Neanderthals, but either way, pretty amazing.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

Art Blakey may object to the dictum "Art is useless." LOL


----------



## Bevo (Feb 22, 2015)

I think it has more to do with society now days. I believe the definition of "art" should have more to do with talent and effort that is respected, regardless of your tastes. That's what separates it from the definition of "entertainment." Entertainment strictly has to do with enjoyment, but you don't have to always enjoy something for it to be considered art. An example would be me and 20th century classical music. I don't usually listen to very much because it's not usually that entertaining to me, but at the same time I still consider it art because I have respect for the talent and effort that went into it.


----------



## Guest (Feb 26, 2015)

DSCH said:


> That's where we'll have to agree to disagree then. A few years ago, I was in a really dark place in my life, ready to pull the trigger on myself (yes an actual one) but realized that music was one of the few bright spots in my life. From my point of view, music or rather the hope to create it saved my life. That's all I'm going to say about that, as I don't want to relive the memory. But everyone has different priorities. Life without art, is it really worth living for? To me it isn't.


Thank you for sharing that. For me too life without art would have no meaning.


----------



## clara s (Jan 6, 2014)

Arnold Schoenberg is not one of my most favourites, but his quote is the most proper to reply to your uncle

“If it is art, it is not for all, and if it is for all, it is not art.” A. Schoenberg


----------



## Guest (Feb 26, 2015)

Richannes Wrahms said:


> Sorry, but your friend has absolutely no idea.


I don't know man. I'm an engineer and I'm pretty one-dimensional. He might be onto something here.


----------



## pierrot (Mar 26, 2012)

The very fact that Art even _exists _means that it serves a purpose for the human mind/soul/whatever.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

It's an important part of culture, but so are many other things. Let's not overrate it either. Many people seem to thrive on braindead-entertainment alone.
On an individual level, it would certainly be hard for me without music, but I'd probably manage to stay happy and occupied with fascination for nature and the universe (next to the usual things in life).


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

clara s said:


> Arnold Schoenberg is not one of my most favourites, but his quote is the most proper to reply to your uncle
> 
> "If it is art, it is not for all, and if it is for all, it is not art." A. Schoenberg


He's not one of my favorites either but after many listens and brain adjustments, I now love his hauntingly beautiful, nostalgic Piano Concerto. But it did take a long, long time.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

After what happened today in Mosul with the horrific sledge hammering of priceless, ancient Assyrian marble statues, there are certainly plenty of misguided people who would agree that "art is useless". Very, very sad.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

hpowders said:


> Art is NOT useless! He provides some of the most interesting polls on TC.


Why thank you sir.


----------



## Guest (Feb 26, 2015)

hpowders said:


> After what happened today in Mosul with the horrific sledge hammering of priceless, ancient Assyrian marble statues, there are certainly plenty of misguided people who would agree that "art is useless". Very, very sad.


Modernity does not appear to be a global occurence. Very sad, and once lost it is lost forever.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

ArtMusic said:


> Why thank you sir.


Just telling the truth as I see it. :tiphat:


----------



## clara s (Jan 6, 2014)

nathanb said:


> I don't know man. I'm an engineer and I'm pretty one-dimensional. He might be onto something here.


please, clarify further "the one-dimensional factor of an engineer" you are mentioning


----------



## clara s (Jan 6, 2014)

hpowders said:


> After what happened today in Mosul with the horrific sledge hammering of priceless, ancient Assyrian marble statues, there are certainly plenty of misguided people who would agree that "art is useless". Very, very sad.


the top comment on TC

respect to hp


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

clara s said:


> the top comment on TC
> 
> respect to hp


:tiphat::tiphat::tiphat:


----------

