That last sentence made no sense at all. So, without professional artists, all drawings would be awful? Does that mean that art from societies without artists is not art?CIA said:
The Useless Arts?
- Thread starter Loves2spooge
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Yes most art is useless. Except that, like love, it's the only thing that makes life interesting and worth living. But other than that, yes, no practical financial benefit whatsoever. So why bother?
Without professional artists no one would have discovered how to draw a human form correctly, perspective wouldn't exist, and art would consist of this: http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/NGSPOD/128941~Negative-Handprint-Adorns-the-Wall-of-a-Maya-Cave-in-Belize-Posters.jpgaussiesniper said:
Better now?
Let people learn what they want, it's their choice. Bad as it may be for them.
Give humanity some credit. I don't think we need a bunch of pompous pricks to make people realise that art goes beyond a simple hand-imprint.CIA said:
People who major in the arts and humanities end up with jobs pouring coffee to try and pay off their massive student loan debt. They'd have been better off not going to college at all. Incidentally, even the academic advisor at my school laughed when I said "Core humanities for a business degree? Not sure I see the point of spending good money to hang out with Starbucks majors, but rules are rules..."
Well I'm hopefully taking an English literature degree so that I can create art with the pen, poetry and stories are really art as well, just in a different format but they both do the same thing in portraying an idea, emotion or message. I'd argue nearly every major creates some form of art, Law can help something craft an elaborate case, science can create art through chemicals and physics, everything can craft something artistic, it all depends on perspective.
Well, yes and no. People who haven't done studio arts have no idea what they're talking about. You have to put in a great deal of work to achieve what you want. Now, while on one hand, it seems useless in today's computer generated world of entertainment, it does teach much more than that. You learn the skills to be more observant, and you learn how things work better. It gives you a solid foundation in composition and creative flow.
Apply those to careers such as animation, game design, and visual effects, and you have yourself a neat little skill set on your hands. Now I agree that some arts are becoming archaic and useless, but I don't necessarily believe that they don't teach you something important. They do have a real world relevance, the trick is just seeing how to apply skill sets like those into real world situations. You'd be surprised how hard a lot of us work.
And for the record, I am a game design major with skill sets ranging from the designing and art, to the programming and the science. I will agree that a lot of people sit on their asses and don't do much, but you can't claim a whole unifying group as useless.
Apply those to careers such as animation, game design, and visual effects, and you have yourself a neat little skill set on your hands. Now I agree that some arts are becoming archaic and useless, but I don't necessarily believe that they don't teach you something important. They do have a real world relevance, the trick is just seeing how to apply skill sets like those into real world situations. You'd be surprised how hard a lot of us work.
And for the record, I am a game design major with skill sets ranging from the designing and art, to the programming and the science. I will agree that a lot of people sit on their asses and don't do much, but you can't claim a whole unifying group as useless.
Not to sound like a braggart, but I can get somewhere with art.
I don't care if I'd have to find some other work to suppliment income, I'm happy creating.
And I work my ass off for it. I mean, I'm starting to get caluses on my forearm from all the drawing I do.
Really, though, there are a lot of people who go into the arts that really shouldn't.
Still, you do have to make an effort and bear cumulative knowledge to appreciate the subtleties of art, just as you have to do so with video games. You can't competently judge a video game if you have no understanding of video games in general, right?
I don't care if I'd have to find some other work to suppliment income, I'm happy creating.
And I work my ass off for it. I mean, I'm starting to get caluses on my forearm from all the drawing I do.
Really, though, there are a lot of people who go into the arts that really shouldn't.
Still, you do have to make an effort and bear cumulative knowledge to appreciate the subtleties of art, just as you have to do so with video games. You can't competently judge a video game if you have no understanding of video games in general, right?
*insert obligatory art-student retort here*
Actually, I think I understand what you're trying to say OP, and I will admit that a lot of art majors I know want some sort of fame from their work. But in my experience, most if not all art majors do not go into studio art to just "do the least work possible". Believe it or not, art is not simply intuition and creativity; a truly educated artist creates his or her work through a great deal of conscious effort and attention, not just drawing a line here because they think it looks pretty. There are principles of aesthetics that, while many of them are within us unconsciously, can be utilized much more effectively through education, study, and practice.
I am actually first and foremost an Archaeology student, though I am a minor in studio art. Archaeologists and Art Historians alike can draw countless information about a specific culture or society just by examining their artwork. Art can tell scholars and laymen alike a lot about a society's culture, no matter what time period it was created in.
And in the end, I suppose whether or not anyone else considers art important is meaningless. A true artist is an artist for himself, and no one else.
Actually, I think I understand what you're trying to say OP, and I will admit that a lot of art majors I know want some sort of fame from their work. But in my experience, most if not all art majors do not go into studio art to just "do the least work possible". Believe it or not, art is not simply intuition and creativity; a truly educated artist creates his or her work through a great deal of conscious effort and attention, not just drawing a line here because they think it looks pretty. There are principles of aesthetics that, while many of them are within us unconsciously, can be utilized much more effectively through education, study, and practice.
I am actually first and foremost an Archaeology student, though I am a minor in studio art. Archaeologists and Art Historians alike can draw countless information about a specific culture or society just by examining their artwork. Art can tell scholars and laymen alike a lot about a society's culture, no matter what time period it was created in.
And in the end, I suppose whether or not anyone else considers art important is meaningless. A true artist is an artist for himself, and no one else.
What field do you study RAK?RAKtheUndead said:
As a historian I'll agree with you that we need more focus on the "hard" sciences. That should always be our main focus when it comes to understanding the world around us.
But I'll add that it would be quite a bad thing if we completely disregard the more "soft" sciences, like history or anthropology or whatever. They may not be able to explain the physical world, but I do think that they are a valuable tool in explaining us and our societies and ways of thinking.
I'm not sure precisely what art in the OP encompasses, but I assume it's more than just drawing and painting etc. I base that on my own title of Bachelor of Arts (from history). But I may just lack understanding of foreign educational systems.
However it may be, I think that the "soft" sciences serve their own important purposes. The fact that too many people study them does not negate the relevance of the field. In my own case I can say that way too many smarmy jerks study law (in Denmark, that is) but that has nothing to do with the usefulness of the study of law.
Oh, and your point about the internet is well made and very relevant. I have access to a large amount of academic journals on history and classics via my university and it's an invaluable tool to be able to fetch a pdf of an article from 1911 from JHS if I need it.
Gertrude Stein, specifically:Kangol said:
Art has no function. It is not necessary. It has nothing to do with what anyone wants you to do or wants it to be, nothing but you and itself. The work generates itself and ideas and progress and learning come out of doing the work in a particular way. Creative art is a learning process for the artist and not a description of what is already known. An audience is always warming but it must never be necessary to your work. The work needs concentration and one is often exhausted by it. It takes so much effort just to begin and although going on is mostly a pleasure it is also a great effort. The only thing for a creative artist to do is to do his chosen work. But really there is no choice. Nobody chooses. The only thing left for a creative artist to do is to do his chosen work in spite of everything and regardless of anything because when living draws to its end there are no excuses he can make to himself or to anyone else for not having done it. Either he did do it or he did not do it and very often he did not. Alas very often he did not.
I can't really concentrate for long enough to give my opinions on art right now, so suffice to say that I've been a fairly regular visitor to the Tate Modern for the past few years. It's an interesting day out.
For people who say arts degrees are easy, it depends on what kind and where you get it. Music degrees are hell, with minimum 4 hours practice a day on top of regular homework, if you go to a conservatory it'd probably be equivalent to a double major.
I think the arts are a noble and perfectly fine career choice. That said, I never do anything without a backup plan. I'll get another degree\skill to make sure I always have work until I find a job where I'd want to stay.
I think the arts are a noble and perfectly fine career choice. That said, I never do anything without a backup plan. I'll get another degree\skill to make sure I always have work until I find a job where I'd want to stay.
I'll let someone else answer that for me...
"In the face of the million human tragedies that are a constant feature of our information society, we need to constantly remind ourselves and the world that we humans, who can kill and maim and destroy in the name of self righteousness, are also the ones who make music. It is the arts that humanize us. Never let anyone tell you that the arts are a frill; that they should pay their own way; that there are more important things in life than the expression and appreciation of human creativity." - Fil Fraser
Fraser is the program director of Canada's first educational television station and founder of the Banff World Television Festival, director of the John Humphrey Centre for Peace and Human Rights, and chief commissioner of the Alberta Human Rights Commission.
Full address on MP3: http://www.expressnews.ualberta.ca/media/9422_1.mp3
Also: "Nobody remembers the Italian Renaissance for its GDP. We can certainly calculate the 16th-century Italian GDP. But what is it we remember? I remember the brilliant cultural growth that was led by the Medicis and other leaders of the Italian Renaissance who were, in essence, simply engaged citizens with a vision for the future." - Indira Samarasekera, Steacie Memorial fellowship winning metallurgical engineer and President of the University of Alberta.
"In the face of the million human tragedies that are a constant feature of our information society, we need to constantly remind ourselves and the world that we humans, who can kill and maim and destroy in the name of self righteousness, are also the ones who make music. It is the arts that humanize us. Never let anyone tell you that the arts are a frill; that they should pay their own way; that there are more important things in life than the expression and appreciation of human creativity." - Fil Fraser
Fraser is the program director of Canada's first educational television station and founder of the Banff World Television Festival, director of the John Humphrey Centre for Peace and Human Rights, and chief commissioner of the Alberta Human Rights Commission.
Full address on MP3: http://www.expressnews.ualberta.ca/media/9422_1.mp3
Also: "Nobody remembers the Italian Renaissance for its GDP. We can certainly calculate the 16th-century Italian GDP. But what is it we remember? I remember the brilliant cultural growth that was led by the Medicis and other leaders of the Italian Renaissance who were, in essence, simply engaged citizens with a vision for the future." - Indira Samarasekera, Steacie Memorial fellowship winning metallurgical engineer and President of the University of Alberta.
Oscar Wilde said this at the beginning of The Picture of Dorian Gray (the last line of the preface, in fact). I agree with this, and I was a film major so I can say that with full confidence.Kangol said:
It should be noted, however, that the entertainment industry by its very nature marches to the beat of its own financial drum; it's had its own share of ups and downs (the WGA strike, the death of drive-in theaters, the 9-year production gap in the Godzilla franchise, the dot-com bubble burst, and so on and so forth), but as far as world economics go, it is practically recession-proof.
I'm sure the credit will be lessened, what with my also being an art student, however, I was also tempted into heading to a liberal arts college for writing. I don't necessarily view art as purely a means to "make something pretty" and my goal in life certainly isn't to slave in a cubicle to make money. However, using just a little bit of reference to the book "Understanding Comics" by Scott McCloud, I'd like to build my point on a little excerpt from a chapter discussing the purpose of art:
(In reference to art, beside the two basic human functions for survival and reproduction) "First, they (being art) provide exercise for the minds and bodies not receiving outside stimulus. Second, they provide an outlet for emotional imbalances, aiding the race's mental survival. Third, and perhaps most importantly to our survival as a race, such random activies often lead to useful discoveries."
McCloud also then references this exercise, like in dance, would be later used in sports and games, the emotional outlet then used for self-expression, and then art finally as discovery and the "pursuit of truth as exploration." He states then, "Yet, in almost everything we do, there is at least an element of art...In some occupations, the latitude is greater. Survival - making a living - goes hand in hand with creative desire. I think it's fair to say that some activities have more in in them than others. Life is a series of minute decisions, some motivated by survival, some not, and proportions do vary. But, to proclaim, as so many often do, that - 'That's not art!' - presumes that art is an EITHER/OR PROPOSITION. I don't think it is. Rare is the person in any occupation who expresses nothing...and rare is the artist who cares nothing for success, i.e. survival! But the ideal of the latter is alive in the hearts of many artists who may hope for success, but won't alter their work to obtain it. The 'fine artist' - the PURE artist - says to the world: 'I didn't do this for money! I didn't do this to match the color of your couches! I didn't do this to get laid! I didn't do this for the fame or power or greed or anything else! I did this for art!' In other words, 'MY ART HAS NO PRACTICAL VALUE WHATSOEVER! But it is important!' And sometimes, it IS, though it might take a century or two for the rest of the world to find out!"
While I don't think I have much to say after what he's said, I just have to point out...Why are you on a videogame site? Don't videogames require artists to make scenery and landscapes, professionals to design characters, writers to create a script, musicians to make the soundtrack? Is the only notable and worthwhile job in creating a game now being the money-handling publisher, or the licensing attorney? Art is more than these sum parts or course, regarding that your perception of art is choosing a pleasing color of paint on your walls (for color is also psychology, as made apparent by Van Gogh).
I don't know. Art is expression. If you're a robot, then I guess you're okay. Just don't tell that to the guy who drew up the robot in the first place.
(In reference to art, beside the two basic human functions for survival and reproduction) "First, they (being art) provide exercise for the minds and bodies not receiving outside stimulus. Second, they provide an outlet for emotional imbalances, aiding the race's mental survival. Third, and perhaps most importantly to our survival as a race, such random activies often lead to useful discoveries."
McCloud also then references this exercise, like in dance, would be later used in sports and games, the emotional outlet then used for self-expression, and then art finally as discovery and the "pursuit of truth as exploration." He states then, "Yet, in almost everything we do, there is at least an element of art...In some occupations, the latitude is greater. Survival - making a living - goes hand in hand with creative desire. I think it's fair to say that some activities have more in in them than others. Life is a series of minute decisions, some motivated by survival, some not, and proportions do vary. But, to proclaim, as so many often do, that - 'That's not art!' - presumes that art is an EITHER/OR PROPOSITION. I don't think it is. Rare is the person in any occupation who expresses nothing...and rare is the artist who cares nothing for success, i.e. survival! But the ideal of the latter is alive in the hearts of many artists who may hope for success, but won't alter their work to obtain it. The 'fine artist' - the PURE artist - says to the world: 'I didn't do this for money! I didn't do this to match the color of your couches! I didn't do this to get laid! I didn't do this for the fame or power or greed or anything else! I did this for art!' In other words, 'MY ART HAS NO PRACTICAL VALUE WHATSOEVER! But it is important!' And sometimes, it IS, though it might take a century or two for the rest of the world to find out!"
While I don't think I have much to say after what he's said, I just have to point out...Why are you on a videogame site? Don't videogames require artists to make scenery and landscapes, professionals to design characters, writers to create a script, musicians to make the soundtrack? Is the only notable and worthwhile job in creating a game now being the money-handling publisher, or the licensing attorney? Art is more than these sum parts or course, regarding that your perception of art is choosing a pleasing color of paint on your walls (for color is also psychology, as made apparent by Van Gogh).
I don't know. Art is expression. If you're a robot, then I guess you're okay. Just don't tell that to the guy who drew up the robot in the first place.
Not alot else to add - although I think media students (in the OP) is also a useless subject.berethond said:
I did Engineering in University, and about 1/4 of the class where actually British (in an English Uni). Why? Because the bulk of the youth of today are either too lazy, too aimless, or too stupid to go to a subject that requires thought. Even English and English Lit are more likely to promote usefulness than media studies. However we do need some artists and actors, but nothing like as many as take the subjects. Hell, the Glasgow streets have alot more arts who never took Art courses in there lives - and they work mostly off their own backs.