what good are the arts?

came across this piece in the guardian today do the arts matter? in which the question posed in the title of a forthcoming John Carey book, “What Good Are the Arts?” was put to a disparate bunch of artistic types. further questions followed like, what is art? who decides? are there absolute standards? can art make us better people? etc. having just returned from an “art related activity program” this morning, and being overly tired and grumpy from poor quality hotel sleep and bus travel i thought i’d offer up a few quick gut reactions to the questions myself.


Tom Wolfe wrote an excellent book that tackles a viewpoint of this subject in his novel “The Painted Word”, in which he draws a line between “art” with a capital ‘A’ and “art” with a lowercase ‘A’.  Damn nonist with all your non-caps, you make me type more!  Anyway, Wolfe says that anything created for any reason is technically “art” with the little ‘A’, but only after being recognized by the undetermined canon of art experts can that work transcend and become art with a big A.  In France, they actually have a group of stuffy frenchmen who induct works on a yearly basis.  In response to the main question “What good are the arts?”, i would say that art is neither good, nor bad, but an essential human by-product.  What isn’t good is the concept that only certain things are art, and that others aren’t.  You may hate wicker furniture, for instance (I know I do), but that doesn’t make it “bad art”.  Just art in bad taste.  I know that art has helped me understand when nothing else could.  That should be worth something.

posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  05/09  at  02:06 AM


Commenting is not available in this channel entry.