Freethought & Rationalism Archive

szcax · 10-06-2002, 07:02 PM

Hi. During a recent debate in my english class, we discussed the importance of art in society. Bravely, I defended my claim that as a society, we could still function without art of any kind. Now, I'm not totally sure what I think about the matter (I enjoy supporting underdog opinions during debates just for debate practice), but I've given it some thought and I was wondering what all the intellectual people at my favorite online forum think.

Fist, I'd like to say that art is extremely important in defining the culture of a group of people, and I do not intend to underestimate the importance of art in defining who we, as a civilization, are. That's obvious. The bigger question is whether we could survive without art.

First of all, I defined art as an unmeasurable profession. I had to do this because some people claimed that running and computer programming were examples of art. I took the stance that for something to be art, there could be no 'perfect' example. To clarify, there is a perfect computer program - the one that performs what you need it to perform in the least amount of time. There is a perfect way to run - the way that gets you from point A to point B in the minimum amount of time. However, there is no perfect way to paint, no perfect way to sing, no perfect way to write a book. My favorite band is the Counting Crows. Yours might be Bob Dylan. Neither of us is 'right'. Artists only become successful becouse they appeal aesthetically to a large portion of the population. So that's my definition of art (in a nutshell), and with that I challenged my classmates to think of something that couldn't be measured that was necessary for the continuation of our society.

So how would you approach the question: Is art a necessary part of society?

Criticism of my view is accepted. However, I'd rather hear your own view on the topic rather than why you think my view is wrong.

K · 10-06-2002, 07:20 PM

szcax:

My veiw is probably a little unorthodox as well. I believe that society could function perfectly well without professional artists. However, art is such a fundamental part of human expression, it would still be pervasive throughout society.

So I guess my answer to you question depends on your definition of art. If you are talking about professional artists, I think society would keep clicking along without them. However, if you're talking about art in the more general sense, I think it would be impossible to remove it from society.

Starboy · 10-06-2002, 07:26 PM

Art has such a broad connotation that it is difficult to imagine society without it. Art can be another way to communicate when words fail or in the case of poetry using words to communicate meaning that isn't in the words themselves. It also is an expression of playfulness, which IMO is vital for our development as human beings. It is part of how society digests history and makes it culture. And of course it has more utilitarian uses such as procreation, entertainment, education and inspiration. I think in the end it helps make reality fit for human consumption. We could use more artists in the sciences.

Starboy

10-06-2002, 07:38 PM

Quote:

there is a perfect computer program - the one that performs what you need it to perform in the least amount of time.

What about a program that is fast
and does the job but is written in a sloppy
manner with lots of messy hacks?
For the enduser it may be a perfect program,
but that does not mean that the code is perfect.

szcax · 10-06-2002, 08:21 PM

I think K brings up a really good point. I agree that it's strictly impossible to remove art from society. You also have to decide where to draw the lines when it comes to things like books. Sure, we can live without harlequin romances, but what about non-fiction books? That would be a much more difficult problem to tackle. But then again, are those books really art, or are they simply a method of storing information? There are a lot of fuzzy lines when you talk about art (especially when you get into the impressionist period).

(sorry. It's late. Im sure I'll edit it out when I'm awake enough to realize how funny it wasn't)

Starboy: I agree that life would suck without any art. Everybody would be the same, without culture. But - could we live without culture? Or is culture inevitable? Argh. too much thinking going on at 12:21 monday morning

I guess my original point I was trying to make would be: What would happen if we didn't teach, produce, or consume creative writing, any type of visual art, music, theatrical performance, etc. - add whatever else falls into your definition of art. I mean, you can't stop your kid from playing with their etch-a-sketch, but art as a medium of expression would be totally gone. Their etch-a-sketch drawing would be totally meaningless. Would life go on? If so, how would it change? If not, why not?

Starboy · 10-06-2002, 08:27 PM

That's the thing. It would happen just as play happens. You could not stop art any more than you could stop breathing. People would still tell stories, they would still amuse each other, they would still want to make and have pretty things.

Starboy

Starboy · 10-06-2002, 08:37 PM

Something that basic must have a purpose. I am just not clear what it is.

Starboy

Keith Russell · 10-07-2002, 06:41 AM

Greetings:

Define 'society', then we'll talk about 'art's role within 'society''.

(But, honestly, who cares about 'society'? Football probably has a place in 'society', but it has no place in my life. Art may not be necessary for 'society', but it occupies most of my time, and my thoughts.)

Keith.

10-06-2002, 07:02 PM	#1
szcax Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: PA Posts: 51	Art: a necessary part of society? Hi. During a recent debate in my english class, we discussed the importance of art in society. Bravely, I defended my claim that as a society, we could still function without art of any kind. Now, I'm not totally sure what I think about the matter (I enjoy supporting underdog opinions during debates just for debate practice), but I've given it some thought and I was wondering what all the intellectual people at my favorite online forum think. Fist, I'd like to say that art is extremely important in defining the culture of a group of people, and I do not intend to underestimate the importance of art in defining who we, as a civilization, are. That's obvious. The bigger question is whether we could survive without art. First of all, I defined art as an unmeasurable profession. I had to do this because some people claimed that running and computer programming were examples of art. I took the stance that for something to be art, there could be no 'perfect' example. To clarify, there is a perfect computer program - the one that performs what you need it to perform in the least amount of time. There is a perfect way to run - the way that gets you from point A to point B in the minimum amount of time. However, there is no perfect way to paint, no perfect way to sing, no perfect way to write a book. My favorite band is the Counting Crows. Yours might be Bob Dylan. Neither of us is 'right'. Artists only become successful becouse they appeal aesthetically to a large portion of the population. So that's my definition of art (in a nutshell), and with that I challenged my classmates to think of something that couldn't be measured that was necessary for the continuation of our society. So how would you approach the question: Is art a necessary part of society? Criticism of my view is accepted. However, I'd rather hear your own view on the topic rather than why you think my view is wrong.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-06-2002, 07:20 PM	#2
K Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,485	szcax: My veiw is probably a little unorthodox as well. I believe that society could function perfectly well without professional artists. However, art is such a fundamental part of human expression, it would still be pervasive throughout society. So I guess my answer to you question depends on your definition of art. If you are talking about professional artists, I think society would keep clicking along without them. However, if you're talking about art in the more general sense, I think it would be impossible to remove it from society.

10-06-2002, 07:26 PM	#3
Starboy Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Tallahassee, FL Reality Adventurer Posts: 5,276	Art has such a broad connotation that it is difficult to imagine society without it. Art can be another way to communicate when words fail or in the case of poetry using words to communicate meaning that isn't in the words themselves. It also is an expression of playfulness, which IMO is vital for our development as human beings. It is part of how society digests history and makes it culture. And of course it has more utilitarian uses such as procreation, entertainment, education and inspiration. I think in the end it helps make reality fit for human consumption. We could use more artists in the sciences. Starboy

10-06-2002, 08:21 PM	#5
szcax Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: PA Posts: 51	I think K brings up a really good point. I agree that it's strictly impossible to remove art from society. You also have to decide where to draw the lines when it comes to things like books. Sure, we can live without harlequin romances, but what about non-fiction books? That would be a much more difficult problem to tackle. But then again, are those books really art, or are they simply a method of storing information? There are a lot of fuzzy lines when you talk about art (especially when you get into the impressionist period). (sorry. It's late. Im sure I'll edit it out when I'm awake enough to realize how funny it wasn't) Starboy: I agree that life would suck without any art. Everybody would be the same, without culture. But - could we live without culture? Or is culture inevitable? Argh. too much thinking going on at 12:21 monday morning I guess my original point I was trying to make would be: What would happen if we didn't teach, produce, or consume creative writing, any type of visual art, music, theatrical performance, etc. - add whatever else falls into your definition of art. I mean, you can't stop your kid from playing with their etch-a-sketch, but art as a medium of expression would be totally gone. Their etch-a-sketch drawing would be totally meaningless. Would life go on? If so, how would it change? If not, why not?

10-06-2002, 08:27 PM	#6
Starboy Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Tallahassee, FL Reality Adventurer Posts: 5,276	That's the thing. It would happen just as play happens. You could not stop art any more than you could stop breathing. People would still tell stories, they would still amuse each other, they would still want to make and have pretty things. Starboy

10-06-2002, 08:37 PM	#7
Starboy Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Tallahassee, FL Reality Adventurer Posts: 5,276	Something that basic must have a purpose. I am just not clear what it is. Starboy

10-07-2002, 06:41 AM	#8
Keith Russell Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Overland Park, Kansas Posts: 1,336	Greetings: Define 'society', then we'll talk about 'art's role within 'society''. (But, honestly, who cares about 'society'? Football probably has a place in 'society', but it has no place in my life. Art may not be necessary for 'society', but it occupies most of my time, and my thoughts.) Keith.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.