Why Art?

In my living room the sofa is push up against the wall and above the sofa there is a blank wall. That blank empty wall bothers me, it calls out to me to fill it. I have lots of pictures of kids and grand kids that I could fill it with, but I want something different. I want something stylish and something my neighbors could see outside when they pass by front living room windows. So yeah, I want something that my neighbors will be envious of, something that will make them talk about maybe how much I spent on that “piece”.

Art has had a great number of different functions throughout its history, making its purpose difficult to abstract or quantify to any single concept. This does not imply that the purpose of Art is "vague", but that it has had many unique, different reasons for being created. The concept of Art has been written about ad nauseum in academia and now across the internet. Cave paintings and sculptures created to be idols are the beginnings of religion entering into the creative process. The simplest definition of Art is the representation of reality on another median other than the human mind and religion gave motivation to the its creation. Fast forward to the medieval ages and religion again needs to teach the masses about its concepts. There were very few books and very few people who could read, what better way to teach a concept than through pictures. And so we see bible stories being depicted across church buildings across Europe. Let us not forget the need of the royalty to record their likeness for posterity. Their lives would end but their portraits would and still do live on forever.

The word “Art” is also used to apply judgments of value, as in such expressions as "that meal was a work of art" (the cook is an artist), or "the art of deception", (the highly attained level of skill of the deceiver is praised). It is this use of the word as a measure of high quality and high value that gives the term its flavor of subjectivity. Making judgments of value requires a basis for criticism. At the simplest level, a way to determine whether the impact of the object on the senses meets the criteria to be considered “Art” is whether it is perceived to be attractive or repulsive. Though perception is always colored by experience, and is necessarily subjective, it is commonly understood that what is not somehow aesthetically satisfying cannot be art. Also, art often depicts terrible images made for social, moral, or thought-provoking reasons. For example,Francisco Goya's painting depicting the Spanish shootings of 3^rd of May 1808 is a graphic depiction of a firing squad executing several pleading civilians. Yet at the same time, the horrific imagery demonstrates Goya's keen artistic ability in composition and execution and produces fitting social and political outrage. Thus, the debate continues as to what mode of aesthetic satisfaction, if any, is required to define “Art”.

Aesthetic value and satisfaction is what I am searching for back in my living room. I am not trying to teach the masses the vague concepts of religion, nor am I looking to preserve my image for posterity. I have a blank space on my wall that cries out for my personal expression. Maybe Goya's painting of the firing squad is exactly what I need to get the neighbors talking.

Patti Jo