![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
There's a thread in Pagan Forum that I can't reply to (keep getting a text-based error message, boo), so I'm going to write my reply here. Because...well...I do't know what else to post about today.
Anyway, the base question was 'is art useful?' Most people replied that aside from it being kind of aesthetic and mostly nice to look at, it mostly wasn't practically useful. One artist even replied that he thought the process of art was useful for him, but that he didn't see why it mattered to anyone else.
I wrote this:
I think art is useful, including on a practical level. I'm going to stick to the visual arts, because it's what I know and it's what I've studied.
Art is mentally stimulating. Anyone who has ever owned an animal responsibly, or been interested in animal research, knows that mental stimulation is very important to prevent degeneration of mental AND physical health. For monkeys in a zoo, mental stimulation might come in the form of hiding their food. For elephants, it might come in the form of training them how to paint and select different colours. And of course for humans, it comes in the form of everything from reading to writing to viewing art to having conversations and so on.
Art that is purely aesthetic can stimulate endorphins and even adrenalin in the body. Endorphins are important for those prone to depression, and a person who has enough inspiring art in their lives tends to be healthier than someone who doesn't. This is why some therapists are now starting to implement 'inspiration books,' where the client actually cuts out and pastes down all the pictures that make them feel good or safe; in other words, trigger chemical reactions that start to help ameliorate the worst affects of depression.
Art therapy itself, as a separate form of therapy, has shown immense success where cognitive forms of therapy have failed, particularly in child and adult survivors of sexual assault - one of the most damaging forms of harm out there. In that sense, art is not only aesthetic, but absolutely, definitely, practically useful. Especially when one considers that many survivors of sexual assault (particularly childhood sexual assault) are not really useful members of society themselves, until they have processed the harm they've experienced.
Art therapy is a mechanism that enables many to end up making money / providing shelter / finding healthy relationships for themselves. It is a nonverbal way of expressing an atrocity that frequently resists verbalisation, and all of the art therapies - journalling, dream work, sandplay, dance, music etc. - are considered extremely useful, if not indispensable, in the arsenal of a trauma counsellor for that reason.
Art on a political level is useful in getting people thinking. Recently, there was a controversy in Australia regarding a photographer who had, as one of his subjects in an exhibition, photos of naked children. The continent got involved in a very inflammatory debate about whether this was child pornography. Kevin Rudd himself, our Prime Minister, even got involved. The art itself was instrumental in getting many people to decide whether the line between art/harm was, and where they stood on the position of child pornography in general. People who would never go to an art gallery usually, or weigh in on the subject, became suddenly vociferous about expressing their beliefs and their stance within the community. It strengthened some community bonds and weakened others. Without the art in the first place, this continent-based debate would not have occurred.
The visual arts are also something that present an idea 'instantly' (though repeat viewings enrich the meanings behind something). Unlike a book, which requires the time taken to read it. Or a song, which requires the time taken to listen to it. Art is received in the brain in the first instant that it is witnessed. As a result, the physiological and chemical responses we have to it, tend to be pretty immediate. Most people know almost straight away if they love, hate or 'meh' a picture. In that sense, art can deliver instant messages in a way that even conversations cannot. It makes it very useful as a delivery method in our communication systems - this is why so many graphic designers exist to communicate meaning through art in advertising, logos and so forth.
*
Anyway, now I'm off to have a shower.
Anyway, the base question was 'is art useful?' Most people replied that aside from it being kind of aesthetic and mostly nice to look at, it mostly wasn't practically useful. One artist even replied that he thought the process of art was useful for him, but that he didn't see why it mattered to anyone else.
I wrote this:
I think art is useful, including on a practical level. I'm going to stick to the visual arts, because it's what I know and it's what I've studied.
Art is mentally stimulating. Anyone who has ever owned an animal responsibly, or been interested in animal research, knows that mental stimulation is very important to prevent degeneration of mental AND physical health. For monkeys in a zoo, mental stimulation might come in the form of hiding their food. For elephants, it might come in the form of training them how to paint and select different colours. And of course for humans, it comes in the form of everything from reading to writing to viewing art to having conversations and so on.
Art that is purely aesthetic can stimulate endorphins and even adrenalin in the body. Endorphins are important for those prone to depression, and a person who has enough inspiring art in their lives tends to be healthier than someone who doesn't. This is why some therapists are now starting to implement 'inspiration books,' where the client actually cuts out and pastes down all the pictures that make them feel good or safe; in other words, trigger chemical reactions that start to help ameliorate the worst affects of depression.
Art therapy itself, as a separate form of therapy, has shown immense success where cognitive forms of therapy have failed, particularly in child and adult survivors of sexual assault - one of the most damaging forms of harm out there. In that sense, art is not only aesthetic, but absolutely, definitely, practically useful. Especially when one considers that many survivors of sexual assault (particularly childhood sexual assault) are not really useful members of society themselves, until they have processed the harm they've experienced.
Art therapy is a mechanism that enables many to end up making money / providing shelter / finding healthy relationships for themselves. It is a nonverbal way of expressing an atrocity that frequently resists verbalisation, and all of the art therapies - journalling, dream work, sandplay, dance, music etc. - are considered extremely useful, if not indispensable, in the arsenal of a trauma counsellor for that reason.
Art on a political level is useful in getting people thinking. Recently, there was a controversy in Australia regarding a photographer who had, as one of his subjects in an exhibition, photos of naked children. The continent got involved in a very inflammatory debate about whether this was child pornography. Kevin Rudd himself, our Prime Minister, even got involved. The art itself was instrumental in getting many people to decide whether the line between art/harm was, and where they stood on the position of child pornography in general. People who would never go to an art gallery usually, or weigh in on the subject, became suddenly vociferous about expressing their beliefs and their stance within the community. It strengthened some community bonds and weakened others. Without the art in the first place, this continent-based debate would not have occurred.
The visual arts are also something that present an idea 'instantly' (though repeat viewings enrich the meanings behind something). Unlike a book, which requires the time taken to read it. Or a song, which requires the time taken to listen to it. Art is received in the brain in the first instant that it is witnessed. As a result, the physiological and chemical responses we have to it, tend to be pretty immediate. Most people know almost straight away if they love, hate or 'meh' a picture. In that sense, art can deliver instant messages in a way that even conversations cannot. It makes it very useful as a delivery method in our communication systems - this is why so many graphic designers exist to communicate meaning through art in advertising, logos and so forth.
*
Anyway, now I'm off to have a shower.
