Art is difficult to both quantify and qualify. Some see it as the essence of life, others as an unproductive pastime. Is it true that art can be either meaningless or meaningful?
The critics would argue that art offers no tangible value. Paintings cannot house the homeless, poetry will not cure the sick, and good luck trying to feed the starving with music. Time and resources spent on creating art may have been better invested in pursuits leading to real-life benefits. Additionally, if art is to “comfort the disturbed and disturb the comfortable,” does it not discourage the former from improving their lives? If artistic pursuit allows people to romanticize the dire situations they find themselves in, then it risks preventing them from seeking solutions, ultimately causing harm in the long term.
On the other hand, it may be the case that the subjectivity and non-utilitarianism of art are the sources of its value. After all, we are born not to die but to live, just as we listen to symphonies not because they end but because they are beautiful. In this sense, art appears to be the ultimate expression of the human condition itself. Moreover, while creating, artists attempt to express thoughts and feelings that cannot be conveyed in everyday language. Their pursuits occupy the world of man’s inner experiences, much removed from the physical dimension. Perhaps this capacity to reach beyond the tangible is what separates man from beast, ultimately making mankind what it is and giving life meaning.
I believe that life without art would be empty, as would be one focused only on artistic creations. If art is to enlighten us about the meaning of life, there has to be someone to put its teachings into practice. I hope that the critics of artistic pursuits someday try being mindful of their experience, not just the end goals, just as I wish all artistic types not to put their inner imaginary worlds above flesh and blood.