Do We Need Art?

[Taylirious]

From a pure scientific view.

2 things I wanted to be when I was a kid was an artist(or even an art teacher) and then a musician. I have been watching and reading stuff on art because I was exploring the idea of one day opening a gallery and it seems like art could be important for children to become better thinkers but for adults it is useless? It also doesn't seem as special as it once was. Something I noticed also was how new artists are infusing technology with their art.

This is just impressions I get from my little exploration so far.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

It's hard to really know, but I think there is every reason to believe that, without art, there would be no written language, and as a result nothing like any kind of civilization resembling the one we have.

So, if your definition of "necessary" is that, without it, we or anything like us wouldn't be here at all, then, yeah, art is very necessary.

If art's essential for that, then the sky's the limit for what it can do for us from here.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

I need it.

 

[FPAlpha]

From a pure scientific view, i.e. survival and procreation of the species, i don't think so.

We basically only need food and shelter to survive, maybe clothing if the climate is not moderate or warm.

Everything else has evolved for sociological reasons and through natural development, especially our inventions which were made possble by our brain.

Once we have developed societies, as primitive as they may be, we transcended the basic needs of life and expanded our demands to the point where we were able to question our society and ourselves at which point art became vital as a tool for this.

So for the survival of the race i don't believe it's necessary but it's vital to make us human.

 

[Dryson]

From a pure scientific view, i.e. survival and procreation of the species, i don't think so.

We basically only need food and shelter to survive, maybe clothing if the climate is not moderate or warm.

Everything else has evolved for sociological reasons and through natural development, especially our inventions which were made possble by our brain.

Once we have developed societies, as primitive as they may be, we transcended the basic needs of life and expanded our demands to the point where we were able to question our society and ourselves at which point art became vital as a tool for this.

So for the survival of the race i don't believe it's necessary but it's vital to make us human.

Art is vitally necessary for the existence of humanity. Without art humans would not be able to create maps showing the location of where we have been so that others are able to follow to see what has been discovered.

Art is also one of the base factors that science used to record it's first findings. Without having art that was seen then measurements would not have been recorded so that lengths of measure could be determined.

What Art isn't is someone speaking in a certain manner to create images in the mind of the listener. What Art isn't is someone mimicking a person they see on T.V.

If the human is not able to see the art image on a piece of paper or computer screen to determine for theirself how they want to interpret what they see then it is not art.

People just speaking is not art it is merely noises being made.

 

[{ Emilia }]

If the human is not able to see the art image on a piece of paper or computer screen to determine for theirself how they want to interpret what they see then it is not art.

People just speaking is not art it is merely noises being made.

That makes no sense at all but at least it's so "out there" and delusional that it's amusing to read.

 

[sojourner]

So, according to Dryson, music is not art.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

From a pure scientific view.

"Need" is meaningless in a vacuum; from a purely scientific view, human beings do not even need to exist.

We go on living and existing because we choose to, because we choose existence over non-existence and because we instinctively fear death. Our existence is based on a series of irrational axioms and a lot of hard-coding in DNA and our "needs" are defined purely in the context of our fundamental goal of perpetuating our own survival.

So in the limited sense of our basic goal of preserving our own existence, no, we don't actually "need" art.

But we have other irrational goals too. We like to be comfortable, we like to be happy, we like to have people and things and objects around us that are pleasing to look at. We like to have our perceptions stimulated and our intelligence challenged. Art can serve that purpose pretty well.

 

[hux]

When i oil myself up and gaze upon my glistening, firm buttocks, i know that people need me to exist. "They need this," i say intensely into the mirror.

So yes.

 

[sojourner]

When i oil myself up and gaze upon my glistening, firm buttocks, i know that people need me to exist. "They need this," i say intensely into the mirror.

So yes.

Yes, clearly there is room for art that causes fear and apprehension.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

When i oil myself up and gaze upon my glistening, firm buttocks, i know that people need me to exist. "They need this," i say intensely into the mirror.

So yes.

Yes, clearly there is room for art that causes fear and apprehension.

Just ask H.R. Geiger.

Or Gary Busey's agent.

 

[Silvercrest]

So, according to Dryson, music is not art.