What is the Purpose of Art?

Once again Rochelle Gurstein's series in The New Republic inspires me to write about art. Gurstein is quickly becoming a must-read author for me - her monthly columns have so far been great launching points for ideas. This month in On Beauty and Aesthetic Autonomy (registration required?), she writes about those in the "art world" finding craftmanship and beauty where none was intended (e.g. "Fountain", an upside down urinal created as part of the Dada/situationist movement.)

While not the thrust of the article, the themes I read in it made me wonder "what is the purpose of art?" As I wandered down this road, I came to a fork and I realized that two roads led to many different places. The first road was that of the creative experience. Sometimes art is made to simply experience that act of creation. The other road is that of communication. Art is an amazing medium for communicating all manner of things and certainly art plays an important role in conveying both the zeitgeist and essence of a culture at any given moment.

Art as an Act of Creation
The first road is easier for me to take, as I personally understand art from the creator's perspective. Sometimes just painting, drawing or writing something is a pleasurable act. I think this is part of "the image of God" in which we are all created. God's first act was to create and he clearly took please both in creating and in his creation calling it both "good" and "very good". Certainly part of the pleasure derived from creating a work of art is looking upon it and declaring it "good". Additionally, the creative process ignites in us an excitement as we see an empty page or a formless blob become something - our own expression of genesis ex nihlo.

We see the emptiness of a page, the bare canvass, the unformed shape and something is awakened in us. We here in our ear "Fill, Arrange, Multiply", our first blessing and the first command. In that act we find fulfillment because it is what we were created to do. The object created serves no purpose other than to satiate our creative urges. Once complete, it may sit on a shelf or in the garage and we may or may not observe it again. It is for private consumption - if it is to be consumed at all.

Art as an Act of Communication
Art to communicate is wholly different. Unlike the visceral fulfillment of creation simply to create, communicative art is bounded by the ends. As the "sender" of the message, one must craft it in such a way that it can be received. This means shaping it to a form that can be received, understood, consumed. This in no way denigrates the art, but it does change the experience from the aspect of the creator.

This road, the road of communication, is certainly at the heart of the question "What is the purpose of art." More properly, the question should be "What is the purpose of public art." Artists have held many roles over the millennia from historians and decorators to public agitators. Art has inspired political revolution and quite contemplation (Sister Agnes, anyone?). It has been used for propaganda and for entertainment - sometimes simultaneously. Is there an overarching purpose or is it simply one more way to communicate any number of things?

Beauty?
Beauty finds its way along this road both as a help and a hindrance to communication. Is the depiction of war beautiful? Should it be? Is there beauty to be found in renaissance and Byzantine images of the crucifixion and if so, wherein is the beauty of torturous capital punishment? Yet, beauty is found in the most surprising of places and beauty itself is a tenuous thing.

Why this discussion of beauty? Because not all art is beautiful. I question the beauty of some of Christo's work - large installments taking over massive swathes of land. I find Pollock's paintings less than beautiful and some music is painful to the ears. Does Christo change the way I experience the landscape? Does Pollock change the way I see expression? Does a punk rock diatribe move me to action? They can and in that sense the sender and receiver have made a connection.

Likewise, some works of art can be amazingly beautiful, but stir inside very little. Nothing has changed, nothing has been inspired. It simply is. This can be an end in itself, but often technical mastery is simply that. A technically flawless, but uninspiring painting is a show of crafmanship, but is it a show of artistry?

Art Must Affect Change
I expected to find myself coming to the defense of beauty, but in the end I find myself coming to the defense of impact. It seems that beauty must have a context for it to be meaningful to me and that the purpose of art is to cause meaningful change and inspiration. If a work of art is created and nobody is affected has it served its purpose? If its purpose is to communicate, I would say no. If it was to fulfill a need for artistic expression, then yes.

Once again I've walked down a road longer than I have time for. I have some more wandering to do and the sign at the crossroads says "What is beauty? Left. What is art? Right." A small warning sign in the distance reminds me "Don't forget commerce." So many paths, so little time.