Subjectivity, worth, and need.

[Frank Hipper]

Inspired by a thread in politics.

What value is there to be had in the study of art, history, or even stellar formation?
Can you justify the resources spent in these pursuits?

Of what use is preserving the detritus of some ancient trash midden?

What bearing on the betterment of the quality of life could knowledge of the origin of the universe possibly have?

Is art worth the cost of maintaining it?

If these things lack a purpose for the greater good, and waste money that could be spent in a myriad of ways to lessen human suffering, why not move to eradicate this wrong?

[Darth Wong]

Inspired by a thread in politics.

What value is there to be had in the study of art, history, or even stellar formation?

Mostly subjective, ie- we study it because we like it. History has potential value in terms of "lessons learned", but the more ancient the history is, the less relevant its lessons are to modern society because of large changes in technology, societal structure, etc. The study of stellar formation is part of our ongoing research into cosmology, which in turn has potential scientific applications that can easily "trickle down" into useful applications. The space race, for example, gave us most of our global navigation and communications infrastructure. If we ever intend to leave this planet, a thorough understanding of cosmology will be very useful.

Can you justify the resources spent in these pursuits?

Justification requires the envisioning of some useful application. That is easier with scientific research than it is with art of history.

Of what use is preserving the detritus of some ancient trash midden?

Very little that I can see. Do you see some use for it?

What bearing on the betterment of the quality of life could knowledge of the origin of the universe possibly have?

Improved cosmological theories may hopefully help give us the means to escape this solar system someday, before our sun goes dark and all that humanity has ever created crumbles to dust and is washed away into nothingness in the infinite vastness of space, as if it never existed.

In the near-term, improved space research and exploration gives us improved abilities to track, identify, and if necessary, divert or destroy potential mass-extinction impactors.

Is art worth the cost of maintaining it?

No. If people want to pay for it, that's fine, but taxpayer-funded art is silly.

If these things lack a purpose for the greater good, and waste money that could be spent in a myriad of ways to lessen human suffering, why not move to eradicate this wrong?

Good question. My only objection is to the way you lump art together with space research as endeavours without practical usefulness.

[Companion Cube]

One minor point: The study of History could (and, sometimes is) be used to avert problems in the future, because humans often do learn from their mistakes. (Note: Often, not Always, unforunately)

[SyntaxVorlon]

Art is very valueable, it is the living history of our culture as a whole. If you destroyed the Prado or the Louvre, then hundreds of years of creativity will have been lost. The maintainence and funding of art is as necessary as the funding of economies and services.

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

A thing is only worth as much as someone is willing to pay for it.

[Darth Wong]

Art is very valueable, it is the living history of our culture as a whole. If you destroyed the Prado or the Louvre, then hundreds of years of creativity will have been lost.

I've never been to the Louvre. While it might be interesting, my immediate concerns are food on the table, school for the kids, etc.

The maintainence and funding of art is as necessary as the funding of economies and services.

That is ridiculous. With a shattered economy, no one will give a flying fuck about the Louvre.

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

That is ridiculous. With a shattered economy, no one will give a flying fuck about the Louvre.

Thats unlikely, Ill be shocked if we ever run out of "Blue Bloods" who care more for "Culture" then they do for the suffering of their "social inferiors".

[Kuroneko]

Besides, with a little touching up, space research produces superior art to almost any seen in museums, triply so with the current post-modernist trends in art.


Tell me that's not beautiful.

[Zoink]

Observation of stellar phenomina is also important in validating various theories (various forms of string theory, etc). These theories make predictions on the structure of the universe which need to be verified, and various observation suggest problems with existing theories (eg. need for a dark matter particle).

[Companion Cube]

Besides, with a little touching up, space research produces superior art to almost any seen in museums, triply so with the current post-modernist trends in art.
<snip>
Tell me that's not beautiful.

Very nice...

[Queeb Salaron]

I agree that the primary concerns of a person's life should be putting food on the table, maintaining a steady job, etc. But when all of that is done, and life begins monotonously revolving around work and subsistence, art becomes invaluable. Art is, after all, an expression of the very things that make us human; indeed, it reminds us of our own humanity, and that there is a higher plateau of existence than survival. Show me a formula that can calculate happiness or sorrow, and I'll show you where there is no need for art.

Art is contingent upon social dilemmas. In fact, to put it in mathematical terms, it is at the same time directly and inversely proportional to the amount of dilemma that society experiences. For example, in times of war and poor economy, subsistence becomes vital. People struggle for their survival and therefore shift their focus away from art and refocus their energy on providing food for their families. But it is this very struggle that inspires art as all struggles and complacencies, conflicts and accords, deaths and rebirths inspire art. And the souls of the people are eased when they can look at a painting or listen to a poem or hear a song on the radio and say with the purest and most perfectly clear conscience:

"Yeah... it's like that."

And therein lies your social benefit.

[Darth Wong]

I agree that the primary concerns of a person's life should be putting food on the table, maintaining a steady job, etc. But when all of that is done, and life begins monotonously revolving around work and subsistence, art becomes invaluable. Art is, after all, an expression of the very things that make us human; indeed, it reminds us of our own humanity, and that there is a higher plateau of existence than survival. Show me a formula that can calculate happiness or sorrow, and I'll show you where there is no need for art.

Show me that you need art for happiness or sorrow first. Are you saying that if you take away art, the "very things that make us human" go with it? That's ridiculous.

Art is contingent upon social dilemmas. In fact, to put it in mathematical terms, it is at the same time directly and inversely proportional to the amount of dilemma that society experiences. For example, in times of war and poor economy, subsistence becomes vital. People struggle for their survival and therefore shift their focus away from art and refocus their energy on providing food for their families. But it is this very struggle that inspires art as all struggles and complacencies, conflicts and accords, deaths and rebirths inspire art. And the souls of the people are eased when they can look at a painting or listen to a poem or hear a song on the radio and say with the purest and most perfectly clear conscience:

"Yeah... it's like that."

And therein lies your social benefit.

Compared to everything else, that's insignificant. More importantly, at no point have you shown that you can't just replace one piece of art with another. Erase the Beatles from existence, and we still have music. Erase Newtonian physics, and we're fucked.

[BlackWarMewtwo]

Art gives us nothing more, from my perspective, than a view into the mind of the artist and the art consumer. It could be interesting, from a historical perspective, and could further our understanding of psychology as a whole, I guess, but once we've learned from it why bother to keep it around. Does one keep the orange rind after they squeeze the juice from it?

Of course, there's always a new perspective. Maybe it should be kept around so that others may gain this new perspective. But we could just take a photo, scan it, and keep that around instead of an expensive original.

[SirNitram]

The value of art is entirely subjective, individual, and, from an objective standpoint, totally worthless.

This doesn't mean it is worthless. Humans, as I've often noticed, are incredibly irrational beings most of the time. We like to look at pretty things, whether they be a glowing nebula, a woman in a miniskirt, or a painting. These are not require things, but they often improve lives in odd ways.

As for studying the cosmos, I will give another reason to do it:

A cubic kilometer of iron, nickel, and some cobalt should be worth about 6 trillion dollars market value. There's quite a few kilometer-sized rocks in the solar system.

You can't get much more direct than a few trillion in cash value, can you?

[Kuroneko]

I agree that the primary concerns of a person's life should be putting food on the table, maintaining a steady job, etc. But when all of that is done, and life begins monotonously revolving around work and subsistence, art becomes invaluable. Art is, after all, an expression of the very things that make us human; indeed, it reminds us of our own humanity, and that there is a higher plateau of existence than survival...

I agree. I enjoy art myself. But for me it's not a question of whether art is worthwhile, but of how much funding should we give it. I can tell you there is not a single painting I would give more than $500 for, even some of my absolute favorites (other than reselling, perhaps). When I see that the Mona Lisa values at almost a million times that, I can't help but think that it's not right.

Granted, many artists are poor, but this disproportionality just underscores the wrongness of it: frankly, many paintings are superior to the Mona Lisa, with a tiny fraction of the price attached.

"Yeah... it's like that." And therein lies your social benefit.

True, it has a social benefit. But the vast amounts money that it devours could have been used for other social benefits.

[Kuroneko]

Compared to everything else, that's insignificant. More importantly, at no point have you shown that you can't just replace one piece of art with another. Erase the Beatles from existence, and we still have music. Erase Newtonian physics, and we're fucked.

Exactly! I may enjoy their music, but there's no way I would pay the same price tags that some of the "high art" has, even for "original recordings" or whatnot. It just isn't that crucial to my existence.

[kojikun]

Art and history can be FUN and thats all that fucking matters: Our enjoyment. If we dont like it, we don't do it and when we do like it, we do do it, cause we want to.

So many people ask why why why? For everything, not just art. Why? Because we WANT TO.

[Queeb Salaron]

Show me that you need art for happiness or sorrow first. Are you saying that if you take away art, the "very things that make us human" go with it? That's ridiculous.

I never said that. I said that art is a reflection of the very things that make us human, and that they remind us that there is more to life than numbers and dollar signs. And THAT is necessary to be human. Otherwise we're organic machines. That was my only point. Art keeps us human.

Compared to everything else, that's insignificant. More importantly, at no point have you shown that you can't just replace one piece of art with another. Erase the Beatles from existence, and we still have music. Erase Newtonian physics, and we're fucked.

Strawman. No one ever asked me to prove that in order for art to be valid, it had to be irreplaceable. Of course, it could be argued that if Newton hadn't discovered those laws of Physics, someone else would have. Sure, art doesn't make the world go round. But it is one of the things that makes turning the earth worthwhile. The way I see it, there are reasons for living, and there are ways of living. Art is a reason for living, occupations are a way of living. Neither is necessarily worse than the other, but they must both exist similtaneously in order for either of them (and therefore society) to exist.

[Kuroneko]

I said that art is a reflection of the very things that make us human, and that they remind us that there is more to life than numbers and dollar signs. And THAT is necessary to be human. Otherwise we're organic machines. That was my only point. Art keeps us human... No one ever asked me to prove that in order for art to be valid, it had to be irreplaceable...

I don't understand at all. You seem to be arguing one way, that we would be just organic machines without art, in one breath and the opposite, that art is not necessary to human, in another.

[Queeb Salaron]

I said that art is a reflection of the very things that make us human, and that they remind us that there is more to life than numbers and dollar signs. And THAT is necessary to be human. Otherwise we're organic machines. That was my only point. Art keeps us human... No one ever asked me to prove that in order for art to be valid, it had to be irreplaceable...

I don't understand at all. You seem to be arguing one way, that we would be just organic machines without art, in one breath and the opposite, that art is not necessary to human, in another.

When did I ever argue that art is not necessary to being human? I was simply stating that while individual works of art could be removed from society without anyone feeling it, there has to be SOME art there for people to go back to in order to keep their humanity about them. Art has to be made readily available to the public so we can be reminded just how beautiful life is. Of course it's necessary. I never argued otherwise.

[Shinova]

Art is only worth to those with the taste to appreciate it. Hence, desire for it is more a thing we have to acquire, rather than have naturally. For example, we all naturally want food and water. But a piece of art is an abstract work with an abstract value.

[SyntaxVorlon]

[quote="Darth Wong]Compared to everything else, that's insignificant. More importantly, at no point have you shown that you can't just replace one piece of art with another. Erase the Beatles from existence, and we still have music. Erase Newtonian physics, and we're fucked.[/quote]
Erase the Beatles and you'll still have music yes. But where would music be without the beatles, the beatles influenced culture in america by bringing in an influx of british culture. It reinvigorated youth music and made helped make rock and roll king. The entire dynamic of western culture would be changed.

Art is tantamount to an understanding of history. If you don't know what people found beautiful in ancient Greece, what they did in life, what their ideals were, then you are very limited in knowledge of what they knew and what they thought, their culture will have been lost.
What I'm saying is art is necessary, post modern art isn't all good, a great deal is bad, but then a great deal of ALL art is bad. But masterpieces, the impressionists, the classicalists, the realists, the surrealists, and the modern and postmodernists, help define our culture. Take away mozart or haydn or barber or bernstein or hammerstein or Lucas or Li Tai Po or Frost or Joyce, and the world changes, the way people view the world changes. The masterpieces, of the master writers, painters, composers, sculptors, they are the collective output of human creativity. Without the masterworks, the creative output of the human universe nil.

It is fine to observe the universe, but that doesn't mean you are part of it.

[Kuroneko]

When did I ever argue that art is not necessary to being human? I was simply stating that while individual works of art could be removed from society without anyone feeling it,...

Ah. My apologies for misunderstanding you. That makes much more sense now.

... there has to be SOME art there for people to go back to in order to keep their humanity about them.

That's a pretty hefty claim! Are you suggesting that a person who cares not for art at all is not human?

[Queeb Salaron]

... there has to be SOME art there for people to go back to in order to keep their humanity about them.

That's a pretty hefty claim! Are you suggesting that a person who cares not for art at all is not human?

No no no. Think bigger! If SOCIETY doesn't care for art, then THEY are not human. But I cannot think of a society that did not care for art. Even cavemen drew stuff on walls and made funny designs on pottery.

This claim doesn't always work with individuals, only on a large scale. But it is true on an individual scale to a great extent. Just not always.

[Kuroneko]

No no no. Think bigger! If SOCIETY doesn't care for art, then THEY are not human. But I cannot think of a society that did not care for art. Even cavemen drew stuff on walls and made funny designs on pottery.

A society produced by human beings is by definition a human society, but if a substantial portion of its individuals do not care for art it becomes inhuman while those individuals remain human? The division seems to border on schizophrenia to me, unless by 'inhuman' you mean something else. In that case, please clarify.