Is art good for anything?

[lillo9546]

Is art good for anything?

From 2015 to 2018 I was a full-time artist, draftsman and painter. I've made incredible progress that even I didn't expect from myself. I managed to get commissions and do some jobs, as well as being respected by many people. But then comes the point and you ask yourself: is art here for anything?

If I were a farmer, a breeder, a producer, at this point I'd be tired, but at least I could say: "My milk is good for something. It fed so many children today.", or "I've produced so many eggs and so many people will eat them." However, art is a product, just like bread and eggs, which can be consumed by many people, in various forms: a story, a drawing, a comic strip, etc etc...
But, if you ever been on the side of those who produce, sooner or later, you would ask yourself the question: I did something beautiful today, but was it useful?? The same could happen with useless office jobs, anyone who has had experience knows the feeling, but I wouldn't want to push the subject in that direction, rather I would like it to stay on the "art theme".

I greatly admire and respect the works of Japanese mangaka masters, who have also distinguished themselves for creating works that are out of the ordinary, not necessarily with the primary purpose of profit.
quote: Hayao Miyazaki with Studio Ghibli, Takehhiko Inoue with Vagabond.
I also adore and admire all the masters of the past, incredible painters, from my homeland, both Italian and non-Italian.
I quote: L. Da Vinci, W. A. Bouguereau, Rembrandt, etc.
I wonder what on earth they had answered to the question of why they would continue to make art, even if the product of their work was used for mere decorum, to infatuation people with religion, etc.


Then it comes the question time, but usually the question is the same: Who between a farmer and an artist obtains a product that is useful, for himself, for others, and for the earth too? Which one is doing the correct life? What is the use of art for an artist? How is art viewed?


ps: the speech is to be considered from an ERE point of view, in which a person of our age dedicates himself to art as a career, and obtains his daily food through this activity, therefore a real job, as a farmer, a doctor, a bricklayer, etc; and understand how art can be an added value.

[jacob]

Art is used to communicate emotions beyond feeling sad, angry, happy, afraid, ... which are all easily communicated. Art communicates complex feelings like inspiration, values, angst, despair, and so on, just like a writer communicates complex observations like ideas and conclusions.

Most humans are not able to express this for themselves and so need those who can to do it for them so that they may recognize themselves. As such, it's good for something.

[Scott 2]

One of the concepts used by the 80,000 hours folks, to evaluate a career impact, is the concept of the marginal resource. What's the value of adding one more person to the profession?

In the case of art, I think someone needs to be both exceptional and pragmatic in their work, to have a significant marginal impact. Odds of a person maximizing their ability to do good, through art? Very low, imo.

That doesn't mean art is useless, however. Only that it might be better evaluated through other contexts. Does it bring enjoyment to you as the artist, for instance?

[DutchGirl]

I do feel like art can be soothing, art can help heal the soul, art can be elevating, art can express humanity in a way that nothing else can.

So I for one am happy to do my more practical work (and yes, clearly see the fruits of my labor), but then will use some of my money to enjoy expressions of art - to make my life more joyful and more meaningful.

My job helps people stay alive, art helps make people LIVE.

[Jim]

Let's not dismiss the therapeutic value of art and the artistic process. Art has value experientially, not just as an objectively measurable benefit to society; you could easily argue that a therapeutic experience probably translates well to the greater good. We are an incerconnected whole and well adjusted individuals in society are as important as healthy cells in a organism. I don't ascribe to the "if it makes you happy, you should do it," perspective nor "it's not worth doing unless it's a direct and measurable benefit to society."

As an avenue of exploring one's own thoughts and experiences art has tremendous value. We can of course think of masterful art that is so profound as to evoke this therapteutic or transformative process in other people, but I think that art is the exception rather than the rule. People can create art because of the value of the process to themselves personally, and that in itself is a vehicle to provide value to society.

If we're talking specifically about a career in the arts, I think that reframing that role to facilitate and provide this artistic opportunity to a community is one example of the way art can provide that. EG a career in art therapy, art teaching. This role is more beneficial to society than working a 9 to 5 as a graphic designer making ads to sell Nike shoes that are made in sweatshops and sold for more than they're worth to people who don't need them.

Historically the relationship between the arts and sciences hasn't been as stratified and segregated as it is today. Think about the scientific ramifications of artistic innovations like drawing in perspective, sculpting, creating and mixing paints. Not to mention skills like bronze casting and forging. You could name about a billion other examples where this chicken/egg game happens. The desire to create art can lead us to be innovative in ways that can later add value to society or the sciences. You can use this to see the meta value of art to us as a species, maybe in the same way you can see play as a biological urge that young mammals use to develop coordination, bond and learn social skill. It's something we have a inherent desire to do, possibly because it provides added value to our development as individuals and as a species.

[7Wannabe5]

It may be the case that art is not appropriately valued, because we have institutionally numbed ourselves into the acceptance of dull and ugly environments.

@Scott: what is the marginal value of, for example, a network engineer under the 80,000 hours model?

[Scott 2]

Pretty high. Work big tech, donate 6+ figures a year to high impact charity. The metric is QALY's. It's possible to quickly outpace respected professions like doctor or nurse. Particularly compared to non earn to give individuals.

That's one of the hard lessons from their work. Earn to give at a soulless job can be the highest leverage option.

[zbigi]

I thought the answer is even more obvious - without network engineers, this forum (and the rest of the Internet) would not exist. No to mention, internal networks in all organizations we rely upon - government, universities, companies etc. So, a marginal value of one network engineer is that the networks we all use are slightly better (slightly cheaper, slightly faster, slightly more reliable).

[Scott 2]

When looking purely at work - It depends where on the diminishing returns curve the supply of a profession is, as well as the industry they go into. A network engineer willing to connect populations in central Africa, might do substantially more than one slinging cable for their local payday loan stores.

But the outsized impact comes from creating leverage. Apply silicon valley salaries to malaria nets, one person can save 100's in their lifetime. That's where the 80000 hours model is brutal. Comfortable decisions generally don't create leverage. Art therapy at the senior center can only do so much.

Great art can create the 1000x impact type of leverage. A single picture can change the world. But what are the odds it is your picture? For most people, the realistic answer for doing good, is a dull grind.

My take away from that lesson? Doing good isn't that important to me. I'm happier to ride my bike and play with my cat. Despite my progressive signaling, I'm fundamentally selfish. I want the feeling I'm a good person, but not the hard sacrifice.

Imagine what I could do, if I used my FIRE to give away 30 more years of salaried earnings. Is opting out of that doing bad, given the privilege I lucked into?

It's a multi dimensional continuum, of course. But the realization made my stance towards others much more forgiving.

I think making art is a great way to spend one's time. OP ought to relax their expectations. Maybe consider ways to create leverage in other areas.

[lillo9546]

It's a pleasure to hear that this is an interesting topic, and everyone here is giving their idea about it.
This discussion could bring up other debates, such as:
- Now that AI has become part of daily life and that this very powerful tool is also appearing in the field of art, it seems like a dejavu! This has already happened in the past when, for example, the representative painter lost ground in favor of photography, and art/artists lost its meaning, and we saw the birth of illustration, commercial illustrators. Did this historical passage mean something for the artist, a master painter, who felt dispossessed by this new technology, and who therefore no longer felt in an important role, but as if he were an impostor? Who knows how the masters of that era felt about this topic... Who knows if they felt they were still at the center of the art movement? Who knows how the shift changed their well being?

- What is the 80,000 hour thing?

[Scott 2]

80000 Hours

viewtopic.php?t=12410

AI art creates leverage. There's opportunity for outsized impact. Ethical use of AI is one of the high impact areas for 80000 hours, because of the leverage.

[Henry]

I knew a person who worked in art restoration. She always told me to buy original art (not prints of famous paintings) in order to support the artists and have something to appreciate (double entendre) that hangs on your wall.

Over the last few years we have increased our purchase or art work. Each piece add tremendously to our domestic life. One has appreciated. I'm surprised how much I've gotten into it as I have no artistic talent whatsoever.

A few good docs we have recently watched:

- The Lost Leonardo - almost like a crime drama;
- Herb and Dorothy - amateur collectors who gave multi-million dollar collection.

[Jim]

But the outsized impact comes from creating leverage. Apply silicon valley salaries to malaria nets, one person can save 100's in their lifetime. That's where the 80000 hours model is brutal. Comfortable decisions generally don't create leverage. Art therapy at the senior center can only do so much.

Why get a job in silicon valley when you found a company building malaria nets? Or become an aid worker and distribute them, or a medical worker and provide care for people with malaria? While I do believe in the effective altriusm thing, I'm also of the opinion that our lives are more than the dollar amount we contribute towards bettering the world. Cutting a check to a philanthropic agency does not have the effect of investing your time to work for one, even if it can have an oustized impact. The 80,000 hours website actually talks quite a bit about finding meaningful employment. There are roles you can fill in your professional life, and they aren't hard to think of, that are rewarding and can also give you the opportunity to save hundreds of lives throughout the course of your career, potentially more. Some of them are high paying, and you can leverage your salary towards philanthropic endeavors regardless of the work you do. Also, having plenty of experience doing this kind of work, I believe that the experience of providing these services directly has a holistic effect greater than the transactional one of just leveraging my money towards a cause. To directly bear witness and engage in trying to effect change and alleviate suffering at the human level broadens and deepens the perspective of the person giving aid, forges bonds with other people and humanizes the people who are in need. Since this is ERE2, I think it's appropo to mention SD; by being face to face with people and meeting them where they're at, we better positioned to understand their needs, personally or culturally, and elevate our own perspectives towards the more self aware Tier2 mentality (please, someone roast me for my almost certain misinterpreatation of SD) as we are forced to account for their cultural milieu and vmemes.

Let's also consider the cost of not having services like art therapy at the senior center. What happens when we hole up our ageing parents at the raisin ranch and withhold from them craft paper and plastic bead neclaces (from which they derive such meaning) because we are spending that money on paying low wage earners in China to make malaria nets? We ought not visit them because we could be spending that time earning capital at an office job at Meta to buy more malaria nets. Why don't we just euthanize them (let's be real, they have dementia anyhow and they're past their productive years) and use all the money that we would've spent on the elderly care facility to buy even more malaria nets. Now we're really gaining some traction with this leverage thing!

I don't think it's wise to ignore what's directly in front of us for philanthropic spending elsewhere. And I also don't think that life devoid of art is necessarily life worth living, which gives it tremendous leverage in my view. South Lake Union in Seattle is a major tech hub for companies like Google and is also has an enormous homeless population living there, who live in such destitution that they're literally rediscovering diseases the first world hasn't experienced since the middle ages.

[DutchGirl]

Why get a job in silicon valley when you found a company building malaria nets? Or become an aid worker and distribute them, or a medical worker and provide care for people with malaria?

So many people spend $1000 to go to Africa or South America on a mission trip or a do good-trip, help build a house for say 24 hours of their one-week vacation and then leave again; while for the same $1000 you could actually pay a local carpenter maybe for a month or two of doing quality work and allowing them to pay for their family's expenses.

Same is true for aid workers and medical workers: it is better if they're locals, locally trained, who can then also support their families and communities.

Oh, and there is no need to found a company to create malaria nets. Those companies already exist. The charity that distributes them also already exist. So please, don't go create "busywork" by making another charity for the same goal.

While it could feel nice to go on such a trip or to create your own small charity and raise money for it, you're actually accomplishing almost nothing. I'd say go volunteer at a local food bank or help people learn English or tutor children for free, and send your dollars to an organisation that hires local people to do as much good as is possible with your donation.

And yes. You are right: basically if you state that you won't rest until everyone's at at least the same level of health and happiness as you are, you should work 5,000 hours per year, live somewhere preferably for free and otherwise rent a cheap room somewhere, eat only soylent green, drink only water, and that's it. Of course you have to find a balance. But I don't think the balance is good if your charity consists of travelling to some nice warm country, bring cheap plastic toys to an orphanage, cuddle some orphans for 5 days, and then fly home again.

But... how did we go from a topic about whether or not art/artist are useful... to discussing charitable giving?

[Jim]

While it could feel nice to go on such a trip or to create your own small charity and raise money for it, you're actually accomplishing almost nothing. I'd say go volunteer at a local food bank and send your dollars to an organisation that hires local people to do as much good as is possible with your donation.

Absolutely! This is precisely why I brought up the homeless population that lives in front of google's headquarters and the old folks home. There's plenty of work to be done in your front yard, no need to go to Africa for a weekend. In my view, you should be focused on becoming the local carpenter that rebuilds people's homes and if that service provided compensates you wealthily (and you're so frugal because you've read early retirement extreme) you can reinvest your capital in malaria nets should you so desire. Or into your own community by buying construction paper for senior citizens. Whatever philanthropic endeavor you think is maximally leveraged.

[Western Red Cedar]

Then it comes the question time, but usually the question is the same: Who between a farmer and an artist obtains a product that is useful, for himself, for others, and for the earth too? Which one is doing the correct life? What is the use of art for an artist? How is art viewed?


ps: the speech is to be considered from an ERE point of view, in which a person of our age dedicates himself to art as a career, and obtains his daily food through this activity, therefore a real job, as a farmer, a doctor, a bricklayer, etc; and understand how art can be an added value.

I'd encourage you to check out this Elizabeth Gilbert video on the subject. Separating one's art from the need to make money could be quite liberating.

viewtopic.php?p=240387#p240387

[Scott 2]

One has to define "good for anything" to answer the OP's question. The charitable discussion offers frameworks to borrow from.


@Jim - While you're pointing out the limits of an effective altruism strategy, that's exactly the thinking that confirmed I'm fundamentally selfish. It's why I strongly disagree with "good" as a metric for doing art.

I'm volunteering at the local food pantry once per week. It will be around a 100-150 hour commitment over the year. Far as I can tell, the best argument for our volunteer labor, is as a feeder program for donations. It helps me grow and I'm meeting kind people, but the leverage absolutely sucks. A single minimum wage staffer can replace dozens of volunteers.

Account for milage on my car, and maybe my time there is even a net negative. It's more fun than planting myself on yet another Zoom call though. So I go play their game. The exertion still makes me feel useful and good. Which is all I'm really after.

[suomalainen]

This is a simple value question. "Useful" can only be defined in regard to achieving a purpose. A purpose can only be defined by an intentional being. An intentional being finds purpose from the being's values. I value life; life requires food, so I value food; food requires farming, so I value farmers and the products they produce. Everyone values food as sustenance. Only farmers (and distributors blah blah blah) value food as a sales product.

And similarly art has value to artists - perhaps partly intrinsic and partly extrinsic; and art has value to consumers. Art is here because people use it for varying things as discussed above variously.

[Henry]

Ars Gratia Artis. MGM made a boatload of money selling that idea.

[xmj]

One of the more interesting uses of Art is Decision Making Support.

WallStreetPlayboys had a good article on that topic a few years back, that can still be found in the Archive:

Using Art to Make Decisions With a 100% Success Rate
While it is likely one of our competitive advantages, we realized that no one will follow this advice so we’ll give it away for free. If you’re having a hard time making a decision, personal, financial or otherwise you can utilize art to give you an edge. It sounds crazy but we’ve used it several times and it has not failed us once. 100% success rate. All you have to do is enter a large museum or art exhibit for a day. With that backdrop, we have no doubt that this will be an unpopular post, fading into the archives along with some of our other content.