The unfulfilled promise of art

This was surprisingly hard to write:

http://arfer.net/w/unfulfilled-art

Originally, the title was "Ponies and the unfulfilled promise of art", and I was going to discuss how watching My Little Pony and reading fanfiction had gotten me to think about these things, but I eventually decided that what distresses me about ponies is peripheral to the bigger issues discussed here.

---
I'm not dead yet.

Lotta guesswork here. I kind of think a many-many-thousands-of-years-old concept like art must have something to it.

Certainly, the longevity and ubiquity of art attests to our feeling that it is valuable, but what we feel is valuable is not the same thing as what we ought to value. That gap is essentially the problem.

---
I'm not dead yet.

This reminds me of a (minor) problem in Anglo-Saxon studies. They wrote a lot of riddles, usually where the answer is a pun or some diversion--a perfect example goes something like "I sit near a man's belt belt and then you jam me into an orifice" and the answer is a key.

One of the great "unanswered" riddles goes something like "after a battle I put myself down onto myself and then I myself sit on myself." Nobody could figure it out for centuries because (well, largely because it was kind of unrewarding to devote brain power to it) they were looking for a concept to satisfy all three premises in modern English (or German I guess). What they needed to look for was an Anglo-Saxon word, in this case sedg which means a sword, and by extension a man of fighting age, and also unmown grass (cf. "blades of grass"). See, the Old English riddle needed an answer in Old English.

Likewise, looking at art in terms of what utilitarian value it can offer to collective society (as, say, Plato does) will make art look frivolous and even damaging (as, say, Plato concludes). But art is not a utilitarian thing and neither its creation nor its consumption arises from a utilitarian impulse in people. Attempting to assign utilitarian value to it (to locate "enlightenment" as a discreet reward) is frustrating and hopeless because it's not there. Since empirically we can see that art has no small significance, it stands to reason that art has a value that is not utilitarian.

(As an aside, nobody wants utilitarian art. For a look at the great experiment in utilitarian art, check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_of_the_Third_Reich vs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degenerate_Art_Exhibition and the numerous, numerous works of art history on their respective significance.)

I get it though. It's definitely a question I used to struggle with, until I read some piece by Stanley Fish that might well have been this one: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/will-the-humanities-save-us/

Whence I quote:

via Stanley Fish

It is not the business of the humanities to save us, no more than it is their business to bring revenue to a state or a university. What then do they do? They don’t do anything, if by “do” is meant bring about effects in the world. And if they don’t bring about effects in the world they cannot be justified except in relation to the pleasure they give to those who enjoy them.

I admit that that's a little unsatisfying because it gives people a license to say and do stupid, wasteful things with their time. (I'm looking at you, Hearst.) It grieves me every time I go near Wikipedia and the article of the day is on Final Fantasy XIII--or when the article on "Volsung" includes a stray "in pop culture" entry about the Dragon Priest in Skyrim who has no backstory or character but shares a name with the mythico-literary figure, and some guy ran to Wikipedia to make note of it.

But the issue is with individuals, not the concept of art.
---
Willis, it seems like every other time you post, I need to look up a word that's in the OED or Urban Dictionary but not both.
-Mimir

Fun fact:
GameFAQs parses "Fish[open angle bracket]cite" as a censor bypass.
---
Willis, it seems like every other time you post, I need to look up a word that's in the OED or Urban Dictionary but not both.
-Mimir

The word "utilitarian" seems a little dangerous in this context because when used in the context of ethics, it means (I think) maximization of happiness as the ultimate goal, which is not something I would advocate.

Since empirically we can see that art has no small significance, it stands to reason that art has a value that is not utilitarian.

But, similarly as I said to Alex, the fact that art is consequential doesn't mean it's something we ought to value. Art is (presumably) important as a social force, but it does not immediately follow that we should value or cultivate art, particularly in the way that we do.

I admit that that's a little unsatisfying because it gives people a license to say and do stupid, wasteful things with their time.

Well, I mean, if you buy Fish's idea that the humanities are only justified as entertainment, then how can you coherently believe that maintaining pop-culture sections on Wikipedia is any more stupid or wasteful than reading about Old English riddles? If your reply is to the effect of "Old English riddles are historically important,", I'd judge that a fair reply. Although, I expect that doing good history is a wholly different business from doing good literary criticism even if the objects of study overlap. And, just as you could try to use Gawain and the Green Knight to learn something about the culture in which it was written, you could try to use Final Fantasy XIII to learn something about contemporary culture.

---
I'm not dead yet.

And another point medievalists can score against modern-day cultural critics is that art is among the relatively small amount of materials a historian has to work with, whereas if you want to study the contemporary US, you can experiment on real live Americans rather than trying to infer something about Americans from their cultural works.

---
I'm not dead yet.

It's natural to create art so the burden is on you to say why we shouldn't. Or at least, in my standard of fairness. You're the prosecution. So a better question: why shouldn't we value art? Also why would there have to be one reason society values art? You're mistaking the average for the popular opinion. Some value it very little, some very much, some for catharsis, some for persuasion, etc.

Also who's "we"? PMSians? Americans in the present day? All present-day people? All people across time?

It's natural to create art so the burden is on you to say why we shouldn't.

I'm not claiming that making or consuming art is bad and shouldn't be done. Not yet, anyway.

So a better question: why shouldn't we value art?

Because of the lack of good reason to value it. (No, this isn't circular logic: I would never say you should value something because I saw no reason to not value it. That would be pointing the burden of proof backwards.)

Also why would there have to be one reason society values art?

There doesn't. If there are multiple reasons to value art, so much the better for art.

You're mistaking the average for the popular opinion. Some value it very little, some very much, some for catharsis, some for persuasion, etc.

And I say that you're confusing the issue of whether we should value art with whether we do value art. We do: I argue exactly that at the beginning of the essay. The question is whether we should.

Also who's "we"? PMSians? Americans in the present day? All present-day people? All people across time?

It depends on context. Mostly I'm talking about all present-day people. Admittedly, I'm being imprecise with that word. Feel free to ask me to clarify a particular usage.

---
I'm not dead yet.

I'm not confusing anything.

I don't personally value art very much, but to say that there's no good reason to (because Kodi decides what reasons are good and which aren't) just seems preposterous.

EDIT: I mean, I know that's harsh, but this is a value comparison: I value $100 more than that art piece, you value that art piece more than the $100, so you buy the art piece from me. If one of us were right and the other wrong, you're not only talking about art here, you're saying that there are objective values that every person ought to recognize and sort of knocking down the whole idea of an economy and of diversity of values.

I mean, "utility" can be defined pretty broadly. Again, talking from Plato (as a useful "art is frivolous and everyone should do more important things" example) I don't think it would ruffle any Benthamite feathers to describe happiness as a state of intellectual productivity and political stability. Hence boring Nazi didactic art

Kodiologist posted...

But, similarly as I said to Alex, the fact that art is consequential doesn't mean it's something we ought to value. Art is (presumably) important as a social force, but it does not immediately follow that we should value or cultivate art, particularly in the way that we do.

You're kind of jumping to "ought," though, and skipping a more rigorous consideration of why art is appealing. We do art because we like it, and that self-evident good shouldn't be doubted without a case being made for the doubt.

I'm not saying the "ought" question can't or shouldn't be asked, but it needs to be asked with a fuller appreciation of the reasons for art's appeal. Just because we can dismiss some such avenues (and I agree that art doesn't create enlightenment) doesn't mean that there are no valid avenues--including that art is entertainment, though I quoted Fish in the spirit of talking about something more profound than that.

Well, I mean, if you buy Fish's idea that the humanities are only justified as entertainment, then how can you coherently believe that maintaining pop-culture sections on Wikipedia is any more stupid or wasteful than reading about Old English riddles?

I mean the riddles are literally dick jokes. That was purely for allegorical reasons. We could lay out a systematic explanation for how Beowulf or Lolita are artistically superior to FFXIII, but, y'know, why?
---
Willis, it seems like every other time you post, I need to look up a word that's in the OED or Urban Dictionary but not both.
-Mimir

…I don't think it would ruffle any Benthamite feathers to describe happiness as a state of intellectual productivity and political stability.

Oh, okay.

You're kind of jumping to "ought," though, and skipping a more rigorous consideration of why art is appealing. We do art because we like it, and that self-evident good shouldn't be doubted without a case being made for the doubt.

I'm not really doubting that. I'm not trying to, anyway. I'm not saying art is a bad choice of hobby or entertainment or time-waster, nor am I saying that we don't need time-wasters. I'm saying it seems crazy that we treat art as much more than a time-waster.

I'm not saying the "ought" question can't or shouldn't be asked, but it needs to be asked with a fuller appreciation of the reasons for art's appeal. Just because we can dismiss some such avenues (and I agree that art doesn't create enlightenment) doesn't mean that there are no valid avenues…

Ugh. This is basically right, although I didn't realize it when Alex said "So a better question: why shouldn't we value art?" before. The empirical literature on why people seek art, along with the literature on what it does to them, clearly still has a long way to go, and both literatures will be pertinent to the "ought" question. So, who knows? Maybe regularly writing poetry is something every reasonable person would do, if only they knew the whole story.

In the meantime, before we have that literature, we need to make decisions about art regardless. We need to decide, for example, how much art instruction should be included in public education. Now, should we work on the assumption that, purely because we feel compelled to make and consume art, there must be something to it we don't know? I don't think a "yes" answer is defensible. That's putting enormous faith in human nature despite all the empirical evidence we have that human nature is crazy in a lot of other ways. I think the findings of psychology imply we should apply a minimum of skepticism to our own motives rather than give them the benefit of the doubt. Prima facie, art is frivolous, so our fascination with it is misplaced.

I mean, I know that's harsh, but this is a value comparison: I value $100 more than that art piece, you value that art piece more than the $100, so you buy the art piece from me. If one of us were right and the other wrong, you're not only talking about art here, you're saying that there are objective values that every person ought to recognize and sort of knocking down the whole idea of an economy and of diversity of values.

Okay, maybe "value" is a poor choice of word. I'm not complaining about people spending $100 on a painting if they have $100 to burn. I'm complaining about the general notion that art is something we should value. So, if you were to really take an economist's view of this, you'd go much further than my doubt, that art is something we should value, and doubt that anything should be valued: you'd say that everybody values what they value and no justification is to be expected. But I'm not an economist. And I hope you're not advocating this extreme view, either, since it would imply (for example) that we aren't justified in asking would-be murderers to value human life.

---
I'm not dead yet.

No, the point was more "people have differing values and that's okay" and of course with the qualifier "within reason".

Who says we have to use a one-size fits all approach? I guess the federal government does, but ought they to? Wouldn't it be sensible if different schools were allowed to set your own values, and a parent had a choice to send their child to the school that most closely matched their children? I think charter and private schools might have some freedom to do that, but the public school system could stand to differentiate on some concepts too.

Decentralizing authority has its merits, but short of anarchy, you can't entirely escape from the issue that a government needs to choose how to spend the taxes it receives from a bunch of people who have distinct values. That's a particularly concrete example of how we do, in fact, have to come to a consensus about what to value, albeit only up to a point. It is valid to argue about this common value system—to say, for example, that we should value one thing less and another thing more—because it concerns our common welfare. So, to make things as concrete as possible: as a taxpayer, I'm justified in asking for the National Endowment for the Arts to be justified. I'd much rather have those $150 million given to, say, the National Science Foundation to fund more research grants.

That said, a concrete issue like this is less interesting to me (and was less the focus of the original essay) than the more general phenomenon of people feeling art is important—not merely in the sense of enjoying art, or feeling it's worth spending money on, but in the sense of thinking (however unarticulated the thought typically is) that art is beneficial and necessary for society. It's pretty hard to mount a coherent argument against something so vague, of course.

---
I'm not dead yet.

Well, simply imagining living in an artless society seems to be enough to scare most people.

What does that have to do with what I'm talking about?

---
I'm not dead yet.

A suggestion of a function or two for art containing a narrative:

Have you ever seen the episode of Star Trek: TNG: "Darmok?" In it, Capt. Picard becomes stranded on a planet with an alien which uses a strange language. These aliens refer to stories to express the current situation. For example, using a human story, "Romeo and Juliet, on the balcony" would express a very specific sort of new romance.

Now, their whole language consisted of such phrases (which makes one wonder how or if such a language could form), but I think that we do a similar thing from time to time in English. Certainly, one could learn that herculean strength meant immense strength without knowing anything about the character Hercules, but knowledge of the narrative gives further insight into the word.

More modern characters and situations from narratives can apply. Like, if I described my youngest sister as "as clever as MacGuyver" to someone who had seen MacGuyver and I would be using a common cultural reference to shorthand the idea "someone who is clever in such a manner that they can solve problems by creating situation-relevant tools out of objects in their immediate surroundings."

Of course, such language is more limited in that those who've never heard of the particular reference will not understand it, but among those who have heard the story, it provides a convenient shorthand.

In this respect, I could actually see value to creating a character description for a Simpsons character. I've never actually watched the Simpsons. So lets say that someone told me I had the intellect of Bart. Now, from cultural osmosis, I know that a major male character in the Simpsons is stupid. However, I know of at least two major characters, Bart, and Homer. Though my gut feeling is that both are supposed to be stupid characters, it is possible that only one is, or that I'm totally mistaken and neither are. So, if I really cared about finding out if "having the intellect of Bart" is a bad thing as I suspect, I could check the Wikipedia character description for Bart Simpson and find out of he is characteristically stupid. In this respect, I would find such an article personally more useful that an article about spider stomachs.

Also, aside from using references as language, knowing narratives can be useful when interacting with someone who is in a fandom of that narrative because it allows improved social interaction with the individual. Just as knowing about baseball allows friendly conversation with baseball fans, knowing about Breaking Bad, Downton Abbey, or MLP:FiM, gives you something to discuss with members of the respective fandoms. Such discussions can lead to social connections, which are useful for a variety of reasons.
---
Fame is but a slow decay.
-Theodore Tilton

I didn't see the episode, but I happen to know about it from reading the xkcd forum thread about strip #902. (Weird thought: it may one day be cooler to say something like "Nah, I've never seen it; I just read the Wikipedia article" than to admit to actually consuming a typical cultural product. Descriptions of art, or even meta-art, could become more popular than ordinary art.)

Your first point is interesting. I guess that argues for stories as mnemonic devices. We could construct stories a priori to be useful for communication. That's a spin on the idea of edutainment I've yet to see.

Your second point is true but not really special to art. I've bonded with people over computer geekery, for example.

---
I'm not dead yet.

This is interesting and relevant, although the manipulation is messier than I'd like, the results are counterintuitive, and the main dependent variable of interest is self-reported.

Bal, P. M., & Veltkamp, M. (2013). How does fiction reading influence empathy? An experimental investigation on the role of emotional transportation. PLoS ONE. http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0055341

---
I'm not dead yet.