The Theorist's Handbook - The Function of Art

Support me on:

This is the second part of The Theorist's Handbook, a new series about how I approach critical analysis. In my first installment, I talked about a number of issues related to how we might define the activity known as critical analysis. You're probably going to want to watch that video before watching this one:


In this installment, I'll be talking about the function of art in contemporary society. Now, obviously there are a vast number of ideas about how art works, what it should do, what defines a work of art as such, and so on. All of these topics are worthy of discussion, and I’ll be touching on all of them. But I'm going to try and narrow my scope a bit. This is, in part, because I feel like I was trying to do too many things at once in my first video. The thing I want to focus on in this installment is how I think of art from the perspective of someone akin to a critic, someone who makes a habit of trying to interpret abstract works.

If you enjoy my videos, and have a few bucks to spare, please consider supporting me on:

Any donation, large or small, would be highly appreciated. And if you donate nine dollars or more in the next two weeks, I’ll give you a shout out in an upcoming video. If that’s the case, please specify how you’d like to be credited in your message when you donate.

References and Additional Reading/Viewing

Friedrich Nietzsche, Twilight of the Idols

Oscar Wilde on “Art for Art’s Sake”

Walter Benjamin - The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction

Ways of Seeing, Episode 1 (1972)

Ways of Seeing (the book)

The Wonderful, Horrible Life of Leni Riefenstahl

Triumph of the Will and the Cinematic Language of Propaganda

The Idea of the Autonomous Artwork

(About halfway minutes into this lecture, Prof. Paul Fry presents a bit of background info on Wilde, Aestheticism, Art for Art's Sake, etc. One might even say it's a good "steel man" of the view I am trying to refute.)

Image credits:
Cave of Altamira - UNESCO (CC BY-SA 3.0-igo)
Riefenstahl photos - German Federal Archive (CC BY-SA 3.0 de)

[HxHDRA]

I'm glad I managed to finish the introduction book on aesthetics I had but the way you explained it made it so much more easy to understand I'm almost upset this didn't exist b4 XD

[avrilsegoli]

Riefenstahl's "actually, I don't have a voiceover explicitly endorsing Nazism, so if you see it there, that's your own fault, " argument feels roughly on par with the average Twitter troll; also, I was about to post a link here to Dan Olson's video about Triumph of the Will, and then it occurred to me to check to make sure you hadn't already put it in the additional reading/viewing section, and there it was.

[Welsed]

Please do an analysis of the homoerotic nature of sherlock and Watson on the most recent bbc version!!!

[Azidoazideazide.]

I love your presentation and thoughts on art. Keep up the great work!

[Cathonis]

This video was great, it makes a much more concise point than your first Hanbook video, and you addressed a lot of my concerns and the concerns of other commentators from the first video.

I still think there's something of a middle-ground, or perhaps a spectrum, regarding art as it currently is. That some artists who aim more for beauty will produce works that reflect that intent, and vice versa for artists who infuse politically charged ideas in their art. I think art regardless of its intent has its own aesthetic qualities, as well as its own intentional or unintentional message and societal context, and that artists won't be able to entirely remove one or the other from their work. In that sense I think it's a matter of degree, and as I said in my last comment, to judge different art in different ways with different lenses. I think constant discussion and respectful, intelligent discussion surrounding art and politics is vitally important. I personally try to keep an open mind to new ideas.

In future videos I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts regarding the politics of the art theorist/reviewer/analyst themselves. This video focused on the general consensus surrounding 'art for art's sake' as well as the opinions of important artists. Are there any critics, famous or otherwise, that you take particular inspiration from? How would you define your own politics? To what degree is a critic responsible for how they analyse art? Such as if, for example, a critic attempted to claim that 'Triumph of the Wills' wasn't a pro-Nazi film or that being pro-nazi was a good thing. Would their interpretation be valid if they presented a strong argument backed by evidence? Is the art, the artist, the audience, or the critic more dangerous? I think these are questions this series would inevitably have to answer, so perhaps asking them here is a bit moot.

On a separate note, considering how much the function of and interpretation of art has changed over the past few centuries alone, how do you think the function of art may change in the future? How will the technological advances of society evolve alongside art? Will art move away from being 'inherently political' as it is now and become something new? Will art interpretation always be divisive? Perhaps advances in technology will transform art into something akin to an alternate reality.

I have my own ideas regarding these questions of course, but your videos are much more informative and well-researched, and there's clearly much more to say than what can be conveyed in a comments section. Having come from an art background at university, I can say that this series could be a great tool for those who were never interested in or educated in the arts. Whether you choose to answer my questions, someone else's, or your own in future videos, I wish you the best of luck.

[IndeedVancho]

Thank you sir. These videos are very interesting.

[Titaniusart]

As a concept artist I tend to say that what I do is tell my view-point of a story, being it intentional or not. I really have a hard time trying to understand people who think that something can be created without context or ideology. Sometimes I see them complying about people who try to understand a work of art using various view points with the argument that "this is art, don't throw your shitty politics at it", but they really do not understand that our experiences, biases and ideas are unique and they influence what we do everyday, and that includes art. Nothing can be made outside these contexts and even choosing to not talk about this type of thing is an ideology on itself.

[hampusgranberg]

I agree that art for art's sake is a bit of a non-starter because, regardless of what an artist does, there's always a meaning behind it. But of course, from a design perspective, the meaning of art can become one of aestheticism rather than meaning, out of functionality, which according to specific rules and guidelines, the thing you're designing needs to be easy to understand, and somewhat pleasing to the eye, rather than the other way around. In that sense I think it's as close to art for art's sake as it can possibly get, but even then, it still has a meaning/function.
I used to think in political terms a lot a few years back, and I can sympathize with this interpretation of art that no matter how hard you try, there can always be political meaning derived from it, but equally, especially today, I feel that it can be a rather dangerous statement, because, if anything, you are already inserting your own interpretation by saying "art always has to be political". I think it pertains to the same kind of Foucaltian philosophy that a person who interprets everything being divided into power struggles will only see power struggles in the world, turning the onlooker into their own worst enemy.
I think the most important thing to remember is that the world is complex, and black and white thinking is rarely realistic.
I know this might be a very uncharitable interpretation of your own words, but I feel it is necessary to add to the discussion seeing how divisive the world has become due to this specific lense society is being viewed from at the moment.

[martialartsnerd]

I am a strong supporter of art for art's sake. As a musician, I often will make my art late into the night for no other reason than to enjoy the music, or even to enjoy playing the music. It may be the case that some songs I play were made for political reasons, but that doesn't mean my performance of it (which I see as a separate metaphysical artistic entity than the song as written or originally recorded) is necessarily a political piece. Those arts Nietzsche called "Dionysian" often are done for their own sake; there is no end goal in spontaneous dance, for example, though dance certainly can be utilized in pieces with political motivations.

[evannickols]

I feel like the argument that it could be used for nazism goes both ways though, I could easily say that works of art like Hitlers painting are monstrous because of his political alignment and actions. Hitlers painting were from before he joined a war, and had his dreams of being an artist crushed, in this case his art could represent a hopeful person. I suppose I'm saying that if you contextualize all art as political you must also recognize the history behind the piece and what it means in a greater context. If you just take politically then you lose a lot of meaning.

Art does not always have to be political, and art for arts sake can be co opted by many different views, even anti Nazism. Art doesn't always have to be weapon, that's what art for arts sake represent to me, in that case I inherently deny the concept of it being weaponized, and see it as the opposite of what it is supposed to represent. I would argue that art for the sake of art can be used for an agenda, but that's not what it absolutely has to be used for, and not what it is inherently supposed to be used for. Almost anything can be used by fascists, even things that were at one point anti facist.

I believe art for the sake of art exists, it's not evil, it's not always good either. True, art for the sake of art is hard to reach in fact I would say the it is the equivalent to randomizing something on a computer and drawing it for no other purpose than art, and never showing it to anybody. Art for the sake of art is more of a concept than something that exists everywhere. It's something close to idealism that our art doesn't have hurt anyone, and be neutral in all aspects.

That's my opinion on it anyway, I may have misinterpreted some of what you said, but I hope you found my post somewhat interesting.

[pixelniceness]

I was just about to go to sleep. Thanks

[joesiemoneit]

i agree with you wholeheartedly. but doesnt the political background of art become irrelevant over the years? i mean like one or two thousand years? knowlege can get lost. but we can still see artwork of babyloians, for example...

[xerrres]

Great Video! I personally still like Riefenstahls art, despite me knowing the context and me not being sympathetic to the nazis. While the political and moral examination you argued for is with no doubt worthy, I find my knowledge about the specific development of an artwork does often not change my enjoyment or dislike of said work. Which is quite strange because there is some art, like most of Brechts plays, that I enjoy mostly because the moral dimension.

[woohooo]

I would watch but...
I want to sleep for this month

[sasha]

Awesome video! I 100% agree that art is political and to say otherwise is stupid and incorrect (you were more “polite” than me about it tho). Now I have more arguments to prove my opinion, thank you for that and thank you for this series, I’m loving these videos a lot!

[superanimenerd]

Davey, bud I love ya but ko-fi is pronounced like "coffee"! I thought you'd manage to put it together when you said "three coffees in ko-fi terms" but like, friend it's pronounced like "coffee" because people are buying you coffees!
Sorry that's just a nitpick of mine. The video itself is good though! I generally agree that all art has a message and that every message has a political undercurrent with it. Even stuff that's meant to be "beautiful" you gotta keep in mind like, who is deciding what is beautiful and why do they consider that beautiful and not something else?

[JadenTSlime]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean by "Political" but I can't agree with this position. Just because art doesn't exist without purpose doesn't mean that purpose is by definition a political one. To me this seems like the position of some one who WANTS all art to be a tool of ideology so that art which supports the "wrong" ideology can be weeded out and abolished/destroyed/censored etc. As a result, I feel like you've gone a bridge too far in refuting the idea of "Art for Art's sake".

Then again I may be overreacting to that point. If I am I feel it's understandable. This concept seems dangerously close to a cynical view of artists as "Mere mouthpieces of some greater group". If I am misunderstanding your meaning behind the term Political I implore you to enlighten me as to what you do mean because Otherwise I find this video to line up with my own views of art and its analysis rather neatly.

[bluehammock]

Here's my take on things. The difference is you choose to formulate an answer to the question. The artist asks the question but need not search for an answer.

[aaron]

Of course, one would come up with "art is essentially political" if you're reading Nietzsche and Berger, both politically oriented thinkers. This is its own variety of begging the question. You might try listening to artists about the meaning of art rather than philosophers and critics... and not Leni Riefenstahl, the most obvious example of politics-in-art, as though any mention of art being non-political is simply lying. Rather than proving your thesis, this is more begging the question. If you're testing this idea, explain how Dale Chihuly glass sculptures are 'essentially political.' How is the Diana Ross song "Endless Love" essentially political? How are the paintings of Robert Swain political?

Art is 'a form of communication' works better as a broad definition. It includes, but is not limited to, the political.