"The highest aim of art is to make life more livable...""

[Carol]

This quote(George Russell) has been rambling around in my head after being immersed in the romantics for awhile and half in love with a dead poet. lol
I'm curious what others think. Do you think art has a place in modern life? What forms do you see as popular and do you think they have changed? For the better or worse? Do you think that we live in a society that is lacking in creative expression or do we utilize many avenues of creativity? What is the effect either way?

Or any other questions/answers that the quote makes you think of. I'm not going to say my opinion yet.

[eversoclever]

I think life begets art begets life.

The idea that the highest aim of art is to make life more livable is kind of insulting to the artist. It's too vague and utility-oriented. I mean, the highest aim of my car is to make life more livable. Or my shoes. Or my remote control.

The highest aim of art, to me, is to show the connection between things.

I think we live in a highly digital age and the face of modern art has been forever changed because of it. We dwell in the immediate, we often have less patience with ourselves and our creativity. And art suffers.

But there are some places I see great development, and one of them is the way technology has enhanced music. I might find the new means of visual stimulation saccharine, but using computers in the music industry allows for closer connection between sound and mathematics, a connection I appreciate. Not in all capacities, but specifically with the layering of sound, beats, keyboards and electronic music in general. Not Brittney, to be clear. OK, sometimes Brittney.

I wanna dance now more than ever, yk?

[Carol]

Here's the rest of the quote so as not to have art lumped in with remotes. LOL. I didn't put it in the title because I thought it was a bit leading, but maybe I was wrong so here goes.

The highest aim of art is to make life more livable,more beautiful, more humane, less violent.“

[whirlygirl]

The highest aim of art, to me, is to show the connection between things.

love this.

I think we live in a highly digital age and the face of modern art has been forever changed because of it. We dwell in the immediate, we often have less patience with ourselves and our creativity. And art suffers.

I agree it has changed but don't agree that art suffers. I think the digital age makes it more accessible for both the viewer and the artist... I find having the ability to share ideas, techniques, to discuss art and find inspiration from around the world without leaving home truly amazing.

[Carol]

I suppose what I'm trying to get at is art a necessary part of being human? Can the world continue on without creative expression and what would happen if it didn't exist? Could it not exist?

[eversoclever]

Here's the rest of the quote so as not to have art lumped in with remotes. LOL. I didn't put it in the title because I thought it was a bit leading, but maybe I was wrong so here goes.

The highest aim of art is to make life more livable,more beautiful, more humane, less violent.“

Ahh, lol.

Beautiful, humane, less violent.... hrm. I like all of those things about art, but I certainly wouldn't want art to stop being ugly, cruel and violent. Because those are real reflections, too, yk?

So being altogether comforting is a high aim, yes! But not the highest, IMO. The highest aim of art is to dig below the surface and uncover that which we ignore or take advantage of or never knew existed, regardless of the content or result of the excavation.

[eversoclever]

love this.




I agree it has changed but don't agree that art suffers. I think the digital age makes it more accessible for both the viewer and the artist... I find having the ability to share ideas, techniques, to discuss art and find inspiration from around the world without leaving home truly amazing.

Well it works against us too, I think. The sharing of ideas, techniques and so forth threatens our authenticity and originality.

[eversoclever]

Google image search Banksy for a great example of art in modern life.

[eversoclever]

[Carol]

OK, “this“ just makes me smile. love it.

I'm still trying to frame my own random thoughts on the subject but I'll take a stab.

I sort of agree and disagree with you Ever. I don't believe art's highest aim is uncovering the connection between things but I do think it has a part in uncovering the hidden aspects of an experience regardless of negative/positive judgement, but the viewer, reader, etc is secondary to the creation of the art itself. Art is still art even if it is burnt the moment after it's created, in my eyes it doesn't lose value simply because it is not experience by a outside party, it's value lies in its process--its creation.

Anyway that leads me into my reading of the quote. I have a slightly different take on it as I didn't read liveable as meaning ease as much as a necessary component of life. Without using the inherent creative force that everyone posesses we lose a fundamental human experience and it is that creative force that makes live more humane, more beautiful, less violent. For me, I think it is about capturing the purity of an experience and being open to the experience in the first place.

How this translates to modern life is what has me interested in the quote. You would think that in a society where most people are not struggling for survival, have the benefits of technology that allows for streamlining the mundane daily tasks of life, art would take an increasingly role in daily life. However, the opposite seems to be true. More technology seems to breed an ever hurried lifestyle where we try to more things into a day. Art becomes the realm of the “professional“ or the slightly eccentric , the elite rather than the everyday Joe working 9-5. I guess I'm questioning if that is real progress? I'm also wondering how it factors into what I pass on to my children. I “create“ with my boys all the time, but I'm starting to think I have been leading the way to much rather than giving them the tools to see the purity of the experience and create their own art.

I hope that makes sense as like I said I'm still thinking it through, but I think it might be big for me in that it changes the way I parent but also points directly towards what makes me uneasy about the school system. (they learn “about something“ rather than being “immersed“ in something) I think it is the beginnings of framing the sort of teacher I want to be. I guess I'm having a Moment--capital intended. LOL

I'd really like to hear what others think. Don't let the word “art“ scare anyone off. I'm talking about expression so writing, photography, dance, music, drama. anything that is created when the “artist“ is overtaken with the urge to contain that pure experience within one of the above forms. err that still sounds convoluted. Sorry. I'll get there. eventually.

[amyunicorn]

I don't think we could exist as humans without the ability to convey our thoughts and feelings. Whether it's writing, singing, painting. I think we are wired to share creatively.

[Carol]

I don't think we could exist as humans without the ability to convey our thoughts and feelings. Whether it's writing, singing, painting. I think we are wired to share creatively.

Exactly! and you said it in 2 sentences while I circled around it in 3 paragraphs. LMAO

I think it is the overt emotional expression of what makes us human. So what happens when that expression is repressed?

[amyunicorn]

We become withdrawn and tortured. And angry. Or at least I do.

[Carol]

I think so too--frustrated. It leads me to wonder if some the the petty angers and frustrations of society would be somewhat tempered if from a young age people were encouraged to not only create but to create through being open to the senses that take in the experience in the first place?
Of course I'm not going so far as to say that your angry paint a picture, write a poem. lol but I think there is something innately human about the urge and I wonder if we teach it out of kids to some degree? Maybe it should be about the inspiration and process and the venting almost.

It also makes me think about those technically brilliant poets, authors, visual artists but whose work is emotionally dead. Is their work more valuable? I think the less skilled but more emotive work has a higher claim on the title art.

[amyunicorn]

I'd like to think that you can 'read' the emotional power through the person's work/art. Something that looks great but isn't heartfelt won't have the same impression on me, I don't think. Of course, the work also has to have a strong emotional resonance in ME to have me take notice. For example, I'm totally won over by a band my husband discovered. It's really, like EXTREMELY heavy and growl-ly. Not something I normally seek. But wow, it just grabbed me for some reason. Someone else hears it and thinks it's just noise, because they're affected by their OWN emotion and thought processes, yk?