Nonsense and Uselessness In Art
Updated: Jul 13
(Note: For those who have comprehension problems -- I never said that all art is nonesense. Go and find in the article where I wrote it. I didn't wrote it. I have no reason to imply things when I can, you know, write them down like any writer can. Don't attribute your delusions to reality.)
Art is probably the most effective way in which one can express themselves. Whether that be through drawing, painting, writing fiction, or poetry, crafting something can help one learn more about themselves, or at least release whatever is on their mind and heart. However, I find that there is no necessity for logic in art. You can craft the most nonsensical art and still be considered an artist; if that supposedly nonsensical art is liked or "good" visually, then you will be considered a good artist. Art, therefore, can be splendid even if you throw logic or common sense out the window.
The art of writing fiction is perhaps the only exception to this rule. Of course, you don't have to be realistic at all when writing stories, but the world you're building must have some logic to it, or else it will be met with plot holes, paradoxes, and the like. In a sci-fi universe, for example, spaceships have to fly on something that is that universe's alternative of energy, if not a certain fuel that we already have in our universe. Of course it doesn't have to be very specific nor detailed, but even vehicles in space are not carried by horses (unless you have... space horses?).
Beyond fiction, which must make some sense in order for the plot to be good, art lacks the requirement for logic that many other fields do. Some may call it "the wonders of imagination," but on the other hand it makes one think, what need is there in art if it's largely nonsensical? Perhaps it is good for anyone who wishes to use it as therapy, but what other essence is there for us, other than, possibly, some amusement and none further?
Nowadays you don't even have to go to an art museum in order to be impressed by art pieces; as long as you have internet connection you can literally find many of them, far greater than what is presented in your average museum or gallery. The same claim I apply, by the way, to traveling abroad, as you can also find images of places online, but I digress.
Logic is necessary in both functionality and contribution. If I go to an art museum and find a large canvas, divided by white and orange, what am I supposed to do with this information? If I find an "art piece" which is basically a toilet, what statement am I supposed to understand from it? I can understand that art can be a form of communication, but communication can be a lot clearer and concise when you just write it down or record yourself delivering a message.
I can't understand anything when I see a halved-two-coloured painting, so why wouldn't the artist just say it directly to their audience? Opening things up to interpretation is usually the way things get misleading and thus misunderstood, so there is, technically, no point in this method, when being straightforward is a far simpler way of getting the job done.
I of course use pictures in my articles, and some can be considered art (which is an entirely different subject), but that is only to attract an audience. Visuality is far more appealing, unfortunately, than words. The human brain, although very complex, appears to be constantly looking for shortcuts to save energy. I could try publishing this article without a picture, but the "sad" reality is that it will get far less views. Therefore, there are pictures in social shares, in thumbnails of videos and so on. It is not manipulating, but it sure is close to it.
The only other contributing form of "art" that I can think of are brands. Flags, logos, and symbols are all used to help a person or organization be recognized. If an entity does not have these, they will be less distinct and thus, less remembered, while many other competitors and entities will. It is also a representative of whatever the entity stands for or provides. While my current logo (August 2021) does not provide Jewish-based content, it sure is quite a nice thing to look at, so I added the Star of David anyways; tried to make it look like a TV station's symbol. Again, I digress.
In conclusion, there are benefits to art, theoretically, only when it is functional or serves a clear purpose. Beyond that, it is mere aesthetics; something you might look at for one or two seconds, have a thought about it, and move on. I guess it is splendid for those who seek to expand their imagination, but of course not every art can do that (how does putting a toilet in an art museum do that?).
I think that, based on my contemplations, things can be understood a lot better if we just learned how to communicate better, whether through speech or writing, than using the indirect methods of art. That is true about fiction too, because even a message of fiction could be greatly misunderstood. Why make up a story, a set of characters, and a plot when you can just say what you think and feel?
An afterthought: art is obviously an industry as well. Beyond serving "eye-candy" products -- and yes, even sexual content -- it is difficult to tell why we even need art. I think that we just need to come up to the realization that there are certain professions that are no longer necessary, whether they pay or not. Of course, the aim of art-making employees is monetary, not necessarily to advance humanity. As I explained in a video I made long ago, COVID-19 could teach us how non-vital some professions are, because it is a fact that many businesses have collapsed due to lack of customers. Obviously, no offense is intended to any business owner (or former owners).
A second afterthought: entertainment products such as movies and video games surely need graphics in order to look good, but if you look at movies such as "The Rise of Skywalker", which had excellent graphics and special effects, that movie was still received poorly due to other factors which were overlooked (such as the plot). Just goes to show you, how overrated art has become. If you are to show this movie to people from the beginning of the 20th century, for example, they will surely be incredibly amused, because art is no longer the fine, profound thing it once was seen as. Arguably any good artist can nowadays make another Mona Lisa, but you can see art as good as that in any other, contemporary form of media.