(From 2014)
I watched “The Monuments Men” recently and I’ve been thinking about art. Is art still important? Is the study of the arts still important? Maybe art and the study of the arts are only important for the few who have a lot of talent, or a lot of money, or who want to use some kind of art to promote a particular product or service. It occurs to me as we move into the 21st century, the arts may one day be valued only in terms of their usefulness to commerce or the rarity of a relatively few selected works, rather than for their importance in human history, or what they might signify to people who aspire to something more than mere existence.
When people of means argue for the preservation of the arts, they are sometimes met with the cynical retort, “well, why shouldn’t the rich have pretty things?” While there is a grain of truth in this question, it seems to me if the entire purpose of the arts is to ease the boredom of the upper class, there would be little justification for the rest of us to pursue them. It also seems to me the millions of visitors at the world’s art museums and galleries might disagree with the notion that art is only for the rich. Clearly, the arts, including not just great paintings and sculptures, but all forms of human expression, aim to connect us with thoughts and feelings that transcend normal everyday life. While not all art can do this to the same extent, the best works can tap into human consciousness and awareness in ways no other activity can. Further, it would be a great failure if the history of the world were to end up being written only in terms of battles won and lost, or the rise and fall of rulers and nations. War represents the triumph of forces that would divide us in order to profit from the many for the sake of the few. Whenever they unite us, the arts resist these forces. The fact that we can trace our history through the arts literally speaks volumes about what humanity values other than money, power, and bloodshed.
Admittedly, we often place a very high monetary value on some works of art, and other works are certainly capable of generating huge “revenue streams,” as some business types might say. But, if money is the only measure of value, it seems to me we have missed the point. The fact that Hitler was willing to destroy his prizes so no one else would be able to possess them is testimony enough that somehow he valued the arts for the wrong reason.
I’m not sure what the right reason is, but I think it might have more to do with truth revealed, breathtaking beauty, or the search for the good, than with how much money a particular work will command at auction.
Maybe the simple assertion of Indiana Jones is enough: “This belongs in a museum!” My notion is that most artists hope their work will be widely shared and enjoyed. While historically artists have put up with the demands of employers, patrons, and investors, generally I get the feeling one reason they create art is so others can experience a little of the feeling and shall I say, artistry, it took to make it. Like all of us, they write, paint, sculpt, and compose to feel connected with others. From the time of cave paintings to the present, art has been a means of connecting humans with each other, obliterating time and distance. Its value lies not in money, but in shared experience. C.S. Lewis once wrote, “We read to know we are not alone.” The same could be said for experiencing almost any form of artistic expression. Without art, we would be alone, and all the political and military might in the world would not be able to unite us.
MurrayWorks 