In school, I adopted the idea that art was this utterly worthless persuit that served no function or purpose. Partly because I held a primitive understanding of what art was, and partly because I worshiped science and engineering as the only valuable persuits. I suppose my thinking was that if everyone made art, we would all starve, artist's pencils would run out of lead, and civilisation would fail. However, if everyone persued engineering, the world would be so full of invention and abundance. What I failed to realise is that without art it would be void of beauty. Something I took for granted, until I moved from Geneva to the Midlands in England (powned).
Truthfully, I am writing this to better understand my reasons for making art, because sometimes I find myself wondering how these (scratchy) lines of ink are adding any value to the world. Selfish reasons to practice art are abundant: improved spatial reasoning, a tool for learning how to observe, the inevitable knowledged gained on whatever you make your subject. For consumers of great art, beauty becomes a more present part of their life. But for good reason I question if this is a sufficient contribution to society. I mean, it seems rather indirect and hand-wavy. How do we know if this makes much of a difference to people's lives? It seems like the cherry on top, and do I really want to concentrate my efforts on the cherry when the cake needs making?
But my idea that artists do not contribute to the manufacture of stuff is wrong. The word 'art' comes from Old French meaning "skill as a result of learning or practice". So art is separate from the work of art. Art is the skill of drawing, the skill of carving, the skill of speaking. Whereas the work of art is the drawing itself, the wooden carving itself, or the speech given. Art is related to the Greek term 'artizein' meaning "to prepare, arrange or make ready". However, artists do not all make things with a practical function, and really here, I am just widening the scope of what an artist is by re-assigning it the traditional meaning. But nowdays, an electrical engineer, whom certainly requires skill and practice to arrange materials into useful circuits, is not considered an artist. So narrowing the term back down to its traditional meaning; I define an artist as someone whose work is to observe and create beauty absent of practical utility. Painters, carvers, sculptors fall under this category. So the value of artists boils down to the value of beauty.
Beauty is something that is valuable because our minds tell us so. It almost feels axiomatic, like we don't have a choice in the matter. As a result beautiful objects tend to be taken better care of due to our desire to preserve beauty.
As an aside, nothing prevents the beauty from art from being intergrated with the practical. For example, a poter throwing a clay flower pot can at once make a functional object which is beautiful. This is where I think art is at its most valued: when the work of art can be integrated into daily life. Or take the example of a botanical garden that you walk through each morning. Or a carved pattern in your wooden dining table. These are all practical scenarios that are enhanced by art. A world where the practical is separated from beauty would feel cold and uninspiring, and it seems like we are more and more prioritising function over beauty. There is likely some threshold, for which if beauty dips below, people would rather trade function for beauty, and similarly a threshold, which if beauty peaks above, people would rather trade beauty for function.
Artists, due to their trained eye, also serve as scouts, alerting us to beauty on the horizon. Sometimes we need their art to extract the beauty where we saw none. So although art does not have a practical function like a hammer does, it serves as the inspiration that keeps humanity aiming towards goodness.