Why do art?

There are several distinct answers to this question, but one type of answer in particular that I am interested in.

First, to go over some reasons to do art that are more straightforward:

One reason to do art is for profit. We might be in a position to make money to support ourselves through selling the art that we produce. In this case, then, art would have instrumental value for us -- it would have value in so much as it gets us other things which we value.

Additionally, we might do art as recreation, enjoying the process of creating a work of art. In this case, then, art would have subjective value -- we would value it because of the particulars of who we are. It could be argued, however, that this type of justification for doing art falls under the instrumental category, because it is valuable because it leads to happiness -- it is instrumental in bringing us happiness.

A third reason why we might do art is as therapy. Although this may be closely associated with doing art for pleasure, there is a difference in character do to the fact that many times art therapy is being prescribed to individuals by outsiders when these people are suffering from psychological problems. Doing art in this case is again instrumental, because it leads to something else, namely psychological health.

So here are at least three reasons to do art: for profit, for fun/happiness, and as therapy.

What other straightforward reasons to do art are there? (art as distraction?)

**

Now we are to the point that interests me: why else do art?

We might do art because art is itself valuable. Just as many have proposed that happiness or preference satisfaction is valuable, we might consider art valuable. In this case, then, we really ought to do art, and art is thereby objectively important, independent of whether we believe it to be important or not. If we believe this, we can then say that if we are not doing art, we are often making a mistake.

We might, however, believe that art is not itself valuable. However, in addition to not believing art to be valuable, we may also think that nothing is valuable. This position, then would be that of an ethical nihilist -- one who believes that nothing has first order value. Yet such a person may admit, and I believe it would be rational to admit, that they cannot be certain of such a position. Therefore, by default, the most rational course of action would be to act according to their secondary beliefs concerning value. Such secondary beliefs may include a view that art does indeed have value in itself, and therefore, though the individual may not strictly believe that art is itself valuable, it would be rational in such cases for them to act as if it did.

Lastly, I want to consider the more poetic view that we might do art for no reason. Although in such a case, the individual may hold that there is value yet art does not have it in itself, it is more likely that someone considering such a position would believe again that nothing is valuable. This is because if we believe there to be value, yet we do not grant it to art, we would usually not concern ourselves with art, but rather those things that do indeed have value. What are we left with then? For those who believe there to be no first order value, art would be like a libation poured to the gods, without the gods.

What is art?/Why do art?

Before continuing with the final post(s) on ethics, I wanted to start a new question. That question is: why do art?

Unfortunately, before that question can be answered, it is important to know what art is. So, what is art? Obviously, there are various definitions, but what I consider art to be is this:

Art = Anything that has been looked at in an aesthetic way.

This definition, then, would include created works, found objects, and even natural phenomena. Why this definition? Well, it is as broad as I can imagine it, but I've always been critical of arguements which state, "that's NOT art!," because it seems that the person stating such a thing might simply mean, "that's not GOOD art." Besides created works, it seems to me that we can "frame" found objects or natural phenomena merely by looking at such things in an aesthetic way.

One criticism may be that this is too broad--"what ISN'T art then?!" Secondarily, it might be argued that it seems odd for some thing, for example the pair of scissors on my desk, not to be art one minute and to be art the next once I've looked at it aesthetically. A third criticism might be that it seems odd that something could be art, such as a door handle that someone has looked at aesthetically, and another person could see it but not know that it is art.

My answer to the first criticism would be that there still are, of course, many things that would not be art. The oil in my Mazda Protege right now is not art, the date "Sunday December 4, 2005" is not art, etc.

To the second criticism, that it seems odd for something to not be art one moment and to be art the next, I'd say that such a position follows as the most intuitive if found objects are to be included in a definition of art. After all, if found objects are art, then either those things must become art (presumably when looked at aesthetically) or always be art. Certainly, it seems more counterintuitive to consider such objects as art long before they are looked at aesthetically, doesn't it?

The third criticism, again, is that it seems odd for something to be art but for some to not know it. The alternative might be to consider some things "art for me" and some things "art for you." Then a seperate question of whether anything qualified as viewer-independant art could be answered either way. My answer is that it actually seems quite natural for art to go unnoticed as such by some. After all, many sculptures throughout a city, which are clearly art, go unnoticed by travelers who drive by them, even looking in their direction. Yet simply because some travelers do not notice these sculptures as art, it doesn't seem as if such an objects status as art should be in question because of this.

Well, the next post will be on the question, "why do art?" Also, through doing this posting, I'm finding myself interested in another question, which is, "why care about a definition?"