Why is art important
- Earth has abundance of resources, if people were only seeking to meet their existential requirements, they would have stopped working a long time ago. But not so. What motivates us. It is desire to live better, pursue happiness and satisfy our egos.
The superiority of a civilization is measured directly by the wealth of its people, military superiority and its culture.
- A person can be called wealthy when he consumes more than meets his requirements. Why does one want to be wealthy and consume more? It is our genetic model and it provides happiness.
Art in form of beautiful paintings, sculptures carved out of rare mineral slabs or metals, costumes made out of exquisite fabrics like silk, jewelry made out of brilliant metals and stones, delightful food and utensils in which it is served , great palaces , places of work and public spaces all delights mankind to the extent that man is ready to exhaust himself on lifelong basis to possess them.
All these material or other sensory items like music which elevates our spirit and provides us happiness can be called art.
Is it important for us to pursue it?
An unhappy life would be a burden and to live it would be a sin.
Should Governments support it?
Governments do everything their citizens desire.
How would a success of government be measured if it does not provide for some delightful pieces of art?
life without Stadiums, Military without decorated costumes and equipment, bleak Parliament houses. Would we care if our most important institutions were housed in ugly and functional buildings?
Would we be not bothered if our treasures like religious books, origin prints documents like Constitution and important treaties were not written in excellent calligraphy?
The Government has fulfil this role. So, it provides for art.
It is our genetic make-up that a piece of art will get first attention. So, everybody focusses on it. Art is so important that even daily use items like lamps, utensils, clothes, food and houses have achieved the status of Art.
Is Censorship of Art Necessary?
The limit to which a society should place restrictions on artist’s ability to express often results in a debate. The restrictions polarize opinion. The recent controversy of cuss words and AIB Knockout in India or decision of UK universities to pose ban on pop song Blurred lines has brought the matter into focus. All these decisions point out the disadvantages of open expression. So, let us have a debate about censorship of art. Is Censorship of art necessary?
-Censorship has always remained an integral part of artistic world. Whether in modern U.S. or in ancient Rome, it has existed in every society and in every period.
-If art challenges the strong beliefs of any society, whether its religious, political or ideological, results in offense, and therefore censorship becomes necessary.
-There is a difference between offensiveness and artistic merit. Whenever, artistic merit turns into offensiveness censorship is required.
-The censorship of art is must to stop unrest and violence linked to religious and political concerns from spreading in a country.
-Free expression that is objectionable and appals shocks or disgusts cannot be approved. There is difference between revolutionary art and abhorrent art. Revolutionary form of art brings constructive changes, however offensiveness always humiliates a section of society.
-Offensiveness and artistic merit are nebulous terms that lack objectivity. The tastes and acceptable norms in a society keep changing and with it the two terms get their meaning.
-There is no need to find moral guidance in entertainment shows, songs or books. It is meant for just pleasure.
-There is no such thing as an ‘immoral book’ or ‘moral book’. A book is either badly written or well written. It is the same concept with all forms of art.
-Original form of art can never be created on the safe middle ground. It will always be at the edge, as originality challenges and questions orthodox moral codes and concepts.
-Art is the mirror image of the culture, the period in which it is produced. It reflects all the positive aspects as well the uncomfortable, dark stuff prevailing in society.
Given the changing, unpredictable and divergent tastes of society, censorship of an art can permanently eliminate it from picture. However, analyzing the impact free artistic expression can have, the decision to censor an art work must be made. An artistic expression need to be censored, for art had and can cause offense. Striking the balance is best way to achieve acceptable judgment.
- Who funds the arts and why we should care
Anyone passing through Tate Modern’s Turbine Hall one recent Saturday might have witnessed an unscheduled performance by a group of people writhing beneath a huge square of black cloth. Taking its motif from the Malevich exhibition at Tate, the event – entitled “Hidden Figures” – was designed to flag up the museum’s refusal to reveal details of its financial relationship with BP. It was the latest in a series of protests about the sponsorship of institutions – among them the British Museum and the National Portrait Gallery – by the energy giant responsible for the Deepwater Horizon disaster of 2010.
The protesters have been undeterred by the fact that the institutions have acted perfectly within the law, or that BP has been a generous and longstanding sponsor of the arts. Rather, such events are the tip of an iceberg of anger currently focused on a wide range of sponsorship, which in recent years has become an essential part of the infrastructure of the art world. In the past few weeks alone, the São Paulo Biennial dropped the logo of the Israeli Embassy after artists and curators complained. A week earlier, the Gwangju Bienniale’s president resigned and various artists withdrew after its financial backer, the city’s government, censored a work.
Both Manifesta in Russia and the Sydney Biennale have been hit by boycotts. Frieze Art Fair in New York ran into trouble for using non-unionised labour, and the organisation has now agreed to employ only unionised workers next year. Meanwhile, the labour conditions on Abu Dhabi’s Saadiyat Island, which provoked an artists’ threatened boycott of museums being built there, including the Guggenheim and the Louvre, are still unresolved.
Governments, too, are stepping into the debate. Last month, Art Basel heard that a change in Swiss law might mean that it loses its sponsorship from cigar manufacturer Davidoff. (In the UK, tobacco companies are allowed to sponsor cultural and sporting events only if they use their company name rather than a brand of cigarettes.)
Art and patronage are ancient bedfellows and bursts of outrage are nothing new. But the sheer weight of discontent suggests we are reaching a tipping point. When the curators of the São Paulo Biennial wrote to the organisers in support of the artists’ objections, they declared that the Brazilian situation “should also be a trigger to think about funding sources of major cultural events”. In their opinion, “the sources of cultural funding have an increasingly dramatic impact on the supposedly ‘independent’ curatorial and artistic narrative of an event”.
The thrust of this argument is that art is compromised if the finance is unethical. “In the 31st biennial, much of the work seeks to show that struggles for justice in Brazil, Latin America and elsewhere in the world are connected,” the São Paulo curators continue. In other words, work will lose its integrity if it depends on support from those seen to be perpetuating problems.
The tensions extend beyond geopolitics. “Creativity has become instrumentalised both by capitalism and the nation state,” says São Paulo curator Charles Esche. In some countries, once-generous state subsidies have been swept away. In others, they never existed. Whatever the history, art’s paymasters will always have their own agenda. “During the cold war, institutions were representing that conflict in their programming,” says Esche of a period when state funding was far more beneficent in northern Europe.
Now, the growing dependence on private funding is igniting new concerns. “The corporate ethos has permeated deeply into museum culture,” says Professor Julian Stallabrass of the Courtauld Institute of Art, who has written extensively on the pact between commerce and culture. “The brand permeates everything, from the products in the shop to the designer uniform of the staff.”
Like the São Paulo curators, Stallabrass points out that the tension between content and context creates a paradox. “Much avant-garde and contemporary art is actively hostile towards capitalism. If an artist who is critiquing corporate power is presented as part of this branded apparatus, the work is being betrayed quite fundamentally.” Equally, when an institution or an event is being sustained through, say, exploitative labour practices, certain artists are going to question the ethics of their own participation there.
Curators are questioning whether dependence on private benefactors exacts too high a price. Emily Pethick, of the Showroom, a London-based, not-for-profit space that specialises in emerging and experimental artists, says: “Previously, when I was working in the Netherlands where we had a much higher subsidy, we could speculate and take more risks.”
The Showroom, in partnership with two other non-profit spaces, Studio Voltaire and Chisenhale Gallery, was recently the beneficiary of a £210,000 grant from Arts Council England that is only awarded on the basis that the recipient can match these funds with private donations. She finds, however, that it is a struggle to persuade private givers, corporate investors, trusts and foundations, to buy into ideas that are still at the speculative stage. “That’s what happens with the attrition of public funds,” says Pethick.
Elsewhere, the shift in mood is equally tangible. Julia Friedrich, a curator at the Ludwig Museum in Cologne, says there is now far more pressure to find private sponsorship for shows than there was even 10 years ago. She believes that a loss of independence is inevitable when private money is involved. “Sponsors want exhibits that are popular. I am not saying that popular artists are bad artists but the choice is not as independent as it is when the money is there already. Most sponsors think very carefully about what they want to connect their names and logos to.”
The institutions say they have no choice but to buy into the slick new world. “It’s a very competitive market for all art institutions,” says Jennifer Suggitt, head of corporate relations at the British Museum, which for 2013-14 received a government grant of £43.9m (£1.5m less than the previous year) and raised more than double that sum from a mix of donations, legacies, and commercial and charitable activities.
A protest over Sydney Biennale’s sponsorship by Transfield, which runs immigration detention camps
“We have to be pragmatic about the fact that the only way we can put on temporary exhibitions of the world-class standard we aspire to is if we have external funding. And the levels of funding that we look for are possible only through the corporate world.”
Some of the most active cultural sponsors are investment banks. The British Museum, for example, lists Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs and Bank of America Merrill Lynch among its corporate partners. Asked if there was a contradiction in a public cultural institution taking money from companies that are simultaneously under fire for damaging the fabric of society, Suggitt replied: “It’s not for the British Museum to judge how organisations operate.” She is fearful that “so much criticism [of those] supporting the arts could really affect how much arts organisations are funded in future”.
Yet if an institution’s financial relationships are irreproachable, why is there so little transparency? I could find no one at Art Basel prepared to answer a question about why it felt it acceptable to take tobacco sponsorship. Instead, Art Basel issued a statement that simply applauded Davidoff as a “dedicated supporter of art”. Both Tate Modern and the British Museum declined to give me any financial details about their collaborations with BP, stating that the link was in line with their ethics policies.
The refusal to be more communicative can put public institutions on shaky ground. In April this year, the UK Information Commissioner ruled that Tate should remove redactions from committee minutes that discussed details of the BP sponsorship. Tate has appealed against that ruling and is awaiting a judgment.
If the art world finds itself with more moral watchdogs snapping at its heels than ever before, it is partly because of its unprecedented growth. Every year, we see more biennials, new museums, the expansion of older museums and glossier shows, all of which must be funded. Simultaneously, more artists are making works with a political and social resonance. “Culture is much more politicised,” says Esche. “The changes in funding are going in hand in hand with changes in the kind of role that artists are demanding.”
A new commitment to openness will not neutralise the situation but it may defuse it a little. “Transparency is essential,” observes Esche. “So far it’s happening as a struggle rather than a protocol. It needs to become a protocol.”
- Creativity and Innovation.
Often ‘Creativity’ and ‘Innovation’ are used synonymously. However, there are indispensable differences. Literally creativity is an essential pillar for innovation. This is reflected in the now widely accept definition of innovation equaling creativity plus (successful) implementation.
Creativity by itself, to come with new ideas, is not enough. In order to get benefits one needs to do something with it. History tells many takes of great innovators, who were not able to get the benefits from their labour, For example vacuum cleaner, invented by a Mr. Spengler but commercialised by Hover. X-ray scanner had been invented by EMI but were successfully commercialised by General Electric. VCRs which invented by Ampex/Sony but made a commercial success by Matsushita.
Creativity can manifest itself on many different levels including the personal along with the organisational. Individuals can be creative on their own with the organisation enhancing or encouraging it. (Petrowski,2000). But what exactly is creativity?
Kao (1985 cited in Jones and Goss-Turner 2000) described it as the “Process of human activity leading to result which is novel useful and understandable.”
Gurteen (1998) found creativity to be “about divergent thoughts and to come with new ideas”
From above definitions, its clears that Creativity is the basic procedure of human mind and philosophy which involves the detection of ideas or any concepts or any adjustment of existing concepts, and these ideas or concepts come into mind either consciously or unconsciously.
Unsurprisingly a straightforward incidence, it is in fact moderately complex. It has been deliberated from the perspectives of behavioural psychology, community psychology, psychometrics, cognitive science, insincere intelligence, philosophy, aesthetics, olden times, economics, design research, trade, and management, surrounded by others. The studies have sheltered everyday creativity, incomparable resourcefulness and even artificial resourcefulness. Disparate many phenomena in science, there is no single, dependable point of view or definition of creativity. And unlike many phenomena in psychology, there is no harmonized dimension procedure.
Creativity has been accredited variously to divine interference, cognitive processes, the social environment, individuality personality and serendipity (accident, chance). It has been associated with mastermind, mental poor health, the funny side and REM sleep. Some say it is a mannerism we are born with; others say it can be taught with the application of simple techniques. Originality has also been viewed as a beneficence of a muse or Muses.
Although prevalently connected with art and literature, it is also an necessary part of modernization and development and is important in professions such as business, economics, structural design, industrial propose, graphic design, marketing, mathematics, music, science and engineering, and teaching.
Despite, or perhaps because of, the indistinctness and multi-dimensional nature of resourcefulness, complete industries have been spawned from the detection of creative information and the improvement of creativity techniques.
Creativity is on occasion confused with innovation but literature clearly identifies a difference between the two.
Innovation is defined as “The implementation process by which creative inspirations lead to practical results”. (Anderson and King, 2001).
Gurteen (1998) described it as the “taking of new or existing ideas and turning them into action”. Overall both creativity and innovation are concerned with developing new solutions to problems which an organisation is faced with.
That is a course of turning opportunity into fresh ideas and of putting these ideas into broadly used practices
In other way it can be describe as :The generation and implementation of ideas which add-value.
From above it is obvious that a way of doing something in modern way is innovation or new substance that is made constructive. It may demote to incremental and developing or fundamental and revolutionary changes in assessment, commodities, processes, or organisations. Following Schumpeter (1934), contributors to the intellectual literature on innovation naturally make a distinction between invention, an idea made apparent, and innovation, ideas functional successfully in rehearsal. In lots of fields, like the arts, finances and administration guiding principle, something new must be considerably different to be innovative. In economics, the transform must enlarge assessment, purchaser assessment, or manufacturer value. The ambition of innovation is encouraging change, to make someone or somewhat enhanced. Innovation leading to augmented productivity is the elementary source of increasing material goods in an economy.
Clearly, the phrase “innovation” is over and over again identical with the harvest of the process. However, economists have a propensity to focal point on the process itself, from the beginning of a thought/idea to its conversion into something effective, to its execution and on the system in which the process of innovation unfolds.
The phrase innovation refers to a novel way of doing something. It might refer to incremental, radical, and revolutionary changes in accepted wisdom, products, processes, or organisations. Dissimilarity is characteristically made relating invention, a view made clear, and innovation, ideas apply successfully. (Mckeown 2008) In many fields, something new must be substantially dissimilar to be innovative, not an unimportant alter, e.g., in the arts, economics, business and government policy. In economics, the amend must enhance value, customer value, or producer value. The objective of innovation is optimistic change, to formulate someone or something well again. Innovation most important to increased productivity is the primary foundation of growing wealth in an economy.
4. The Importance of Art in Daily Life
by monteadmin | Apr 15, 2015 | Business/Corporate Decor, Healthcare Decor, Interior Design, Residential Decor
Original Article by David Norris, published December 12, 2011; theartcurator.com
The word ‘Art’ is most commonly associated with pieces of work in a gallery or museum, whether it’s a painting from the Renaissance or a modern sculpture. However, there is so much more to art than what you see displayed in galleries. The truth is, without being aware of it, we are surrounded by art and use it on a continual basis. Most people don’t realize how much of a role art plays in our lives and just how much we rely on art in all of its forms in our everyday lives.
Art in the Home
Chances are you will have some form of art in your home. Obviously the first things that might come to mind will be a painting, print or photograph on the wall. If you don’t have any of these things adorning your walls, don’t panic, you’d be surprised at how much art you actually have in your home if you look around! Art is not purely for looking at and admiring, a lot of it is functional too, especially when it comes to our homes. Everything from a delightfully patterned quilt on the bed, decorative tea towels or that cute pink heart covered teapot to the sleek computer case or angle-poised desk lamp can be considered a form of art.
The Joy of Art
You may be wondering why all of these things are so important to our daily lives and that you could probably survive just fine with essential items that were non-artistic. That is just the reason why art is so valuable! While art may not be vital to fulfill our basic needs, it does make life joyful. When you look at a painting or poster you’ve chosen to hang on your living room wall, you feel happy. The sculpture or figurines on the kitchen windowsill create a sense of joy. These varieties of art forms that we are surrounded by all come together to create the atmosphere that we want to live in, which is personable to us.
Art and Music
The importance of art in our daily lives is very similar to that of music. Just like art, music can make life extremely joyful and can have a huge effect on our mood. In the workplace in particular, music is something that can help people set the mood for what they are about to do. If you have something hard or difficult to work on or are feeling tired, an energetic song will likely wake you up and add some enthusiasm to the situation. Similarly, when stress is high, many people find that relaxing to calming music is something that eases the mind.
Inspirational art, such as posters are often found in work spaces to encourage employees to continue being productive. There is now an increasing amount of companies using art in their offices, as well as playing background music, as it is proven to actually work in making end results far better quality.
There may be a piece of art that you own that you personally find motivational. Perhaps a print with a positive affirmation or quote beautifully scrolled on it or a painting of a picturesque scene of where you aim to travel to one day. I’ve even heard of people who put up posters of their favorite singer or Hollywood actress to motivate them to go to the gym!
Art is everywhere, influencing us on a daily basis, whether we realize it or not. With the art that we are surrounded by, whether it’s a painting, music or even videos can have a huge impact on our mood and emotions. Of course some art is very dark and can cause disturbing emotions, anger or even depression but we can choose what kind of art we want to be surrounded by in our own environment at home to make you feel good. All kinds of art can affect our mood in a positive way, making us feel happier, calmer, or even inspired to do something.
Everywhere you go art is evident. Parks often use sculptures to add interest and to inform people. Posters on walls give information and motivation. Music plays on the radio to keep your energy levels up. Without even realizing it we find ourselves immersed in the power of art most of the time.
5. Should art to taught at School
As school budgets shrink, the question of if schools should require students to take a music or art class for at least a semester is brought up. Being a musician, I almost immediately jumped to schools requiring an art or music class. Art and music are aspects of our society that are so prevalent in everyday life that not teaching student about them is leaving them at a disadvantage in life. Even more personal than that, how would someone ever truly know if they wanted to be a musician or artist without first being able to experience it.
In the 5th grade, I was given a choice. I was asked if I wanted to play a brass instrument or sing. After choosing playing an instrument, I was then given the choice between the cornet, trombone, or a smaller tuba-like instrument. Without ever going down this path in my past, I would never have learned that playing music on the trumpet, ukulele, upright bass, mandolin or any other instrument I might want to learn would become an integral part of who I am. Now I play in a jazz improvisation group at my school, and it’s easily one of my favorite periods that I have. I get to sit down, play classic jazz songs, and solo over them on a daily basis and there’s nothing else I would rather do during that period.
But how does this relate to schools requiring an arts or music class? I find playing jazz to be one of the most relaxing things I do everyday in school. It’s a moment of relaxation and distraction from normal school stress and drama. Everyone has a similar stress relief, but they come in different forms like drawing. Most people would never learn if they want to become and artist or musician without first experiencing it, which would never happen in their spare time. Another aspect of this is that there is so much more than just being an artist or musician. I have plenty of friends whose passion is music theory and transposing pieces of music or transcribing music for the musical or for a music group performing in the concert. Music and art are such inspiring and world changing passions that never trying either of them should be considered a taboo in society.
Music and art are also so prevalent in our society; it’s impossible to ignore them. Everyone walks around listening to music, or visits a museum at some point whether it’s for enjoyment or school. To not even learn about music or art, let alone participate, leaves the average person at a major disadvantage, because music and art are easily two of the most powerful forces in human society. Music and art have existed for millennia, and they are both world-wide “languages.” If you can read sheet music, you can read sheet music from any country, language or ethnic background. If you can interpret an image, than you can understand art just the same as someone who reads sheet music can understand sheet music from anyone anywhere. These are not only international powers, but they are very historical powers as well. Art and music are used as expression of recent or historical events, as well as how the artist felt at that moment in the their life.
Many argue that high school students should be able to narrow their interests and use whatever time they have to do what they are passionate about instead of studying music or art, which they may never pursue. But with that logic nearly no one would take a math class. I may never even consider becoming a mathematician, so why should I “waste” my time studying something I will never pursue? I don’t enjoy learning math because I enjoy the material, I find math interesting because of the life skills it teaches you. On every math test or quiz I have ever had, what I need to solve is noticeably harder from what I learned in class. This is because the point of math isn’t to use a sine or cosine graph at some point in my life, the real point to math is to creative problem solving skills where you know the simpler version of what you were given, and from there can infer about what needs to be done to solve a harder problem. A similar process can be transferred to why studying music or art should be required.
Music and art teach students about precision, the science behind something, but also the feeling that goes into creating it. Sure, a painting using colors that complement each other will look better than one that uses brown and grey, but at the same time a painting that uses complementary colors badly will receive less merit than a beautifully crafted brown and grey painting. Using music theory to create a song that is “technically” perfect in terms of timing and pitch will sound like garbage if there is no feeling or finesse from the artist injected into the piece. Students will never truly know what they missed if they aren’t shown the world of music or art, and with that a phenomenal world-changing musician dies with that lack of exposure.
6. Should Governments spend on Art
Throughout the ages, man has tried to create beauty through painting, music, sculpture and other artistic expression. It seems to be a basic need of humans to surround themselves with art. However some people feel that government money spent on art is wasted, particularly when there are so many other demands on it. This essay will examine the conflict between those who say art is important and those who feel it is a waste of money.
It can be wrong for governments to spend large sums of money on art. Too often, governments spend unwisely. They spend money on art not because a picture is good or a museum is needed, but for political reasons. Cities end up with huge statues or empty expensive buildings that are used only by a few people or the elite. Another point is that the artworks are often chosen to represent social or political rather than artistic ideas. The city gets yet another statue of the leader or an ugly monument to national aspirations. A third point is that governments often respond to fashions, and tastes in art can change very rapidly. Without careful advice an expensive collection of worthless paintings or tasteless productions can be the result.
However, it would be wrong to say that governments should not spend any money at all on art. Painters, musicians, and composers cannot survive without financial support. Rich people or large companies do finance art, but then it is often inaccessible to ordinary people. Governments have a duty to make this art available to everyone. However, the most important reason why governments should support the arts is because an appreciation of art is one of the things that makes life worthwhile. Humans do not need just shelter and food. Creative people have always tried to look at things in a new way and to make the world a better place through painting, music, poetry, calligraphy, sculpture, dance, and numerous other forms of expression. While art may not make us immortal, it does make the world a richer place for future generations.
In conclusion, although people do need to be provided with the necessities of life, such as housing and medical care, governments also have a duty to provide their citizens with something more. They should make sure that they pass on beauty, ideas and expression to the next generation and make art available to all instead of being the possession of only the few. I firmly believe that spending money on art is a vital part of a government’s responsibility, and I am confident that my country will be able to contribute its share to the richness of the world’s art and creativity.