Help! I've turned out uptight!
January 10, 2012 2:50 PM   Subscribe

How do I get over the idea that non-essential things in life are immoral?

I seem to have grown up with the idea that all things must be useful. Like, physically useful. Without frills or impractical ornament. At the repeated suggestions of friends, I'm working on getting a little less frumpy about my dress (dressing nicely = vanity!) but otherwise, I'm definitely a function over form kind of girl. Except for my guilty pleasure of reading novels, all my hobbies are either for personal betterment or the betterment of my community- soup kitchen kinds of things.

And now I'm engaged to an artist. Intellectually, I love what he does. He's brilliant. He thinks completely differently than me, in a way I really admire. He dedicates a lot of time to both his and other people's art. But I can't shake the voice in my head that's saying, "Why aren't you putting all this time and money into [helping the homeless]/[fighting injustice]/[insert social cause here]." Like somehow his whole circle of artist friends are entitled and .. I don't know... morally deficient in some way.

Help! I hate that part of me! I would hate to live in a world with no art. I KNOW that art serves a purpose. I love pretty things. I love things that explore how our society works. I love that he thinks the way that he does and I love that he'd have no idea how NOT to do art.

But every time he brags about some (awesome) project- his or a friend's- I cringe inside. Like art should be done in private and talked about only in dismissive, self-deprecating tones, like you would about something you're slightly ashamed of.

I hate this mind set. I doubt I'm expressing myself well, but please give a whack at suggesting ways I can silence my inner Puritan.

I attempted to bring it up with my therapist back when I had one a couple years ago and she seemed to think my fiance and I "just weren't a good match" if I felt this way. (Break up? Yi!! No!!)

Bonus question: Help me love things that aren't practical, efficient, and to the point. It's a dull way to live but anything extraneous feels like too much bandwidth to have to process.
posted by anonymous to Human Relations (34 answers total) 30 users marked this as a favorite
 
Maybe start with something in-between.

Think about the worthiness of making a practical object that is really beautifully made, to last for generations. Pick whatever example grabs you -- a well made classic clock, a lovely solid piece of furniture, a brownstone building with ornamental relief sculptures, a beautifully landscaped public park. Those things are both practical and aesthetic. Their aesthetics are beyond what's strictly necessary. But that kind of aesthetic bonus is a real enhancement of life -- it's more of a pleasure to use a thing, or be in a place, that was made with special care. Can you enjoy those kinds of things? Do they pass your conscience filter?

The next step is to think about things that are more to the aesthetics end of the spectrum, less functional. A really beautiful piece of art, or a really thought-provoking piece, can also make life better. Think about whether there are any things in this arena that are "more okay" according to your inner judge.
posted by LobsterMitten at 3:00 PM on January 10, 2012 [1 favorite]


Hmm.

Does your fiance have friends that perhaps are designers of some kind? Maybe have a conversation with them about this -- there is a whole art to design you may want to think about a bit. What I mean is - yeah, it's important to have things be physically useful. But some with some of the best designers, the whole practicality and efficient-ness of the object they design is an art in and of itself; and there are some schools of design that hold that having some ornamentation even on the most utilitarian thing (and I don't mean all sorts of whizz-bang doodles on it or anything) increases its value and/or usefulness (if it's pretty, you'll use it more, right?).

Try talking to some designers about the art of their design, or check out the design section at an art museum and study up on that. That may be a sort of "gateway" into appreciating art itself -- designing a chair isn't as easy as it seems, and sometimes the pretty parts of clothes and houses and what-not aren't just meant to look pretty, they also have a purpose. Try developing an appreciation for that and it may be a gateway.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 3:03 PM on January 10, 2012 [1 favorite]


It seems live this is something you've been raised to think. I don't understand your question fully though since, to me, artistic expression is exactly "moral" (to use your choice of words).

It seems like you have a problem with anything spiritual? The practical world is just exactly that; eventual, circumstancial and practical.

But I can follow you in the whole "why talk about art". It seems like you have a healthy dose of scepticism of the whole artist-lifestyle, which can sometimes be shallow and pretentious. But good art isn't pretty art, neccesarily. Or almost never IMO. And "our society" is - again - just an eventual time-and-space thing, while the whole spiritual, existential world is more than practial settings.

Your "puritan" and moral side is very practical and 1 to 1, but there are many aspects of thought and sharing between persons that art can offer, even from that practical point of view. But you are right: If your boyfriend wants to save the world with his art, then he should definately try to to some aid work as well.
posted by Lotsofcoffee at 3:03 PM on January 10, 2012


You may want to read the works of Oscar Wilde, for an engaging look at the "other side." I'd start with Dorian Gray.

For me personally, the role of art is to make you look at something through another person's eyes. In terms of social value, many works of art can and do create empathy.

From a socially neutral position, it can also change your perspective on things, as powerfully as any drug.

There is a reason why oppressive governments try to control art, and commission works supporting their ideology.
posted by The ____ of Justice at 3:04 PM on January 10, 2012 [11 favorites]


Have nothing in your house that you do not know to be useful, or believe to be beautiful - William Morris

Might it help to look for the art in ordinary things that are well-made, as others have suggested? There is a kind of quiet beauty in good wooden furniture, for example, that might appeal to your inner Puritan (or indeed your inner Shaker, of course)?

Depending on the sort of art your partner makes, could you get him to make you something practical and ornamental, perhaps something for your future home (if he's a more abstract artist, maybe it might be more form and less function but you could try picturing it in a particular location in your home-to-be or current place) - maybe you could watch it being made, as that might help you understand and appreciate the end product as the combination of skill and artistry it is.
posted by Martha My Dear Prudence at 3:14 PM on January 10, 2012 [1 favorite]


Do you think it's morally deficient to work in order to make a living?

That's what non-hobbyist artists do when they make art, at least part of the time.

Here is a good article on this line of thinking from the Chicago Tribune a couple of years ago. Or read up on the arts activities of the Works Progress Administration.

I wish we knew what kind of artist your fiance is, because that would make talking about this easier. It's certainly true that some artistic work primarily benefits the elite at the expense of the non-elite, but that's not an inherent part of art at all.
posted by bubukaba at 3:15 PM on January 10, 2012


You talk about being pragmatic, but pragmatic to what end? Man cannot live on bread alone.
posted by phrontist at 3:29 PM on January 10, 2012


Bonus answer to your bonus question:

I used to and still do get this way about objects or wants of mine that aren't purely NEEDS. It used to make me all kinds of sad.

How could I enjoy getting a haircut, when there are people getting their heads cut off right now? How can I buy a shirt, when some people don't even have shirts?

I love to dance. I mean, LOVE it, but it's frivolous. And it costs money to go where I go to dance...not much, but it's not zero dollars. I like to have a drink or two when I go out dancing. That's not free, either, and I become bothered with the $6.50 I spend on two bottles of beer.

These are persistent thoughts in my head that induce mega guilt, not helpful in the slightest. Me not getting a haircut (out of guilt) doesn't stop the child sex trade. Me not having my two beers while out dancing with my honey doesn't stop the war crimes going on. It just doesn't.

I have come to the point where I am enjoying these things on behalf of those who can't.

The kidnapped little girls can't dance. So I dance harder, just for them. The homeless people can't afford a haircut, so I can appreciate mine extra special. The refugees don't have shirt to spare, so I buy secondhand and appreciate the hell out of it.

You can learn to love the things that are frivolous, if you realize how precious these things can be to someone else. My mother has been depressed her entire life and has never had the pleasure of dancing with someone. When I dance, I dance for her, too. Happiness and freedom by proxy.

Maybe just try to realize, life is short, and life is filled with misery for most, and those that can have a beer should have one, for those that can't.

(Never to excess, but that goes for guilt, too.)
Best to you.
posted by Grlnxtdr at 3:33 PM on January 10, 2012 [28 favorites]


The Gift is a book about how people with artistic talents are being useful by using them, and that if one is "gifted" with a talent one is obligated to "gift" the products back to the world. It's more complex than that though, I'm not characterizing it very well. Here's a more insightful tidbit I just found in one of the amazon review -
Then Mr. Hyde lets the other shoe drop: "the gift" describes not only the cultural practices that made economies flourish under conditions beyond the abilities or cares of capitalism, but also the human practices that enable the "genius" of creativity to flourish.
posted by fireflies at 3:33 PM on January 10, 2012


It sounds like you've fixated on this, which will only make it worse. Don't be so hard on yourself. Some artists can be really irritating when they talk about their projects (just like some people of every profession can be really irritating when they talk about their work). Or maybe you just don't like the kinds of projects that his friends do? It doesn't have to be a huge moral crisis. You don't have to like everything that everyone does, and it's okay to think to yourself, "Huh, I guess XYZ isn't really my kind of thing. It's great that it makes this person happy though."
posted by unknowncommand at 3:36 PM on January 10, 2012 [2 favorites]


I make art and I also teach (art). Each activity informs the other, I couldn't teach art if I didn't make it and vice versa. Both of these activities have complex utilities that are not always immediately apparent. To me they're useful in many ways (including as a source of income) but just not always immediately or obviously so.

An artwork might stimulate a thought which leads to a realisation which leads to any number of possible outcomes, with all kinds of different levels of apparent utility. Some of which might be of great practical or social utilty.

Causality is complex, which is one of the things which makes life (and art) so rich and interesting (IMHO).
posted by Chairboy at 3:43 PM on January 10, 2012 [2 favorites]


Back when the People's Republic of China was still operating under the edicts of the Cultural Revolution, I was lucky enough to get to know a few citizens who attended a graduate program on remote sensing. After several months, we trusted each other enough that, individually, they would tell me how it was to live in China. I heard great things and horror stories, but my friends were all determined to contribute to having their country make a go of it, economically and socially. Some even went so far as to discuss instating possible civil rights.

One small thing has always stuck in my mind. In those days, everyone wore the Mao uniform. You know, dull grey/green utilitarian dress intended to eradicate class and income differentiation. One of my friends told me that you knew when you had reached true friendship levels because folks would shyly unbutton their jackets and show you the little bits of colored fabrics they'd sewn inside.
posted by likeso at 3:47 PM on January 10, 2012 [38 favorites]


Well, this is very narrow advice, as I'm a recently graduated art major/artist myself, and I know your problem is broader than the way you feel about art. However I have many friends, family that kind of feel this way about what I do and I understand. Art appreciation and art history isn't something that's explained very well to most people and I didn't even really understand the significance beyond personal satisfaction until having long, long discussions with several artists/art history teacher and there are two things.

1. Art is about leading a more examined life (and if you're good, whatever you find and present can make a huge impact on your audience and their lives and how they think about the world, which is essentially what you are doing when you're volunteering, etc.)
This can be on the micro level, serving an individual's perspective or the macro level, serving a nation. Check out the Chinese artist Ai Wei Wei.


2. Art is really important for documenting history. Of course we know the paintings of the Renaissance are really important, we wouldn't know how people dressed or how things were decorated otherwise (I mean there are probably written documents, but you know what I mean) and that's not necessarily the case now but significant artist are significant because they were OF THEIR TIME. They were able to capture the feel of a period of time in many ways more effectively than writers/reporters/etc.

For example Dada artists, if you see their work and know nothing about it you could easily write it off as CRAP. But Dada was a movement opposing World War I. At that time machines were new and were supposed to help humanity and make things easier. Instead, they were used to create the most horrific destructive war humanity had ever seen before. Dada artists thought this was fucking TERRIBLE and the only way to counter it was to go back to a more child-ish innocent state and to abhor machinery. They made irrational machines that did nothing and wrote poems that didn't make sense, since this "intellectualism" and "technology" and "modernity" had seemingly brought nothing but destruction. When you understand that, THEN look at the art it not only makes sense but, at least for me, it allowed me to understand the time of World War I and what the world was like better than I ever could from a history book.

Because these are people of their time, examining their time, documenting it and presenting it to you through a visual medium which you interact with much differently than say a written documents or even a photograph.

I could go on forever about this but what I'm getting at is there are pragmatic reasons why art is important other than for aesthetic reasons.
posted by ad4pt at 3:55 PM on January 10, 2012 [25 favorites]


Assuming that you really believe that Art is a Good Thing:

Generally speaking, if you have automatic thought patterns that you don't like, the first step to changing them is to notice them without judgment.

When you find yourself cringing, just notice, "Oh, hey, I'm having that same ol' reaction again." Not, "I'm having that reaction and I'm a terrible person!" or "I'm having that reaction and I need to stop now!" Just notice the thought without judging yourself for having the thought.

This takes away some of the power of the thought. You'll get to the point where you can laugh at yourself a little bit whenever you notice the thought, "Oh, there I go, silly me, again! I know I really don't feel that way, for all of these rational reasons!" And after a while you'll find that you think of it less.
posted by BrashTech at 4:02 PM on January 10, 2012 [2 favorites]


Both my parents are poets, so take this with a grain of salt. But art is necessary. It's one of the things that makes life worth living. I was recently listening to The Moth Story Hour and it was about how all forms of art were banned under the Taliban. Think about that for minute. Think about a world that had no music, no art, no poetry, no literature, no dancing. Think about how terrible that would be. Then get back to me about whether art is necessary.
posted by bananafish at 4:29 PM on January 10, 2012 [1 favorite]


I'll be the contrarian and say you're not uptight at all. OK, maybe a little, but Robert Heinlein said of writing that, "(it's) not necessarily something to be ashamed of, but do it in private and wash your hands afterwards."

It's OK to value functional art over "useless" art. What is functional art? Lots of things, and some of them just absolutely mundane, everyday things.

Houses
Food
Automobiles

See what I did there? ;-)

You're not uptight. You just look at things differently than some people. How wonderful.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 4:29 PM on January 10, 2012 [1 favorite]


"Why aren't you putting all this time and money into [helping the homeless]/[fighting injustice]/[insert social cause here]."

First of all, consider that this is another way of saying "Why can't you be more like me?" and ponder if you really want to be that person. Second of all, the world moves forward in all kinds of ways, not just the ways you rate as valuable use of one's time; Leonard invented the bobbin winder dicking around in that stupid sketchbook of his. Third of all, about a billion people really like and value art; you should embrace an opportunity learn more about it an expand your world view. Fourth, why is a novel less frivolous than a painting? (Hint: see item #1)
posted by DarlingBri at 5:23 PM on January 10, 2012


Personally, I used to be extremely frugal, partly for ethical reasons and partly because of "bag lady syndrome". I got down to plain old frugal by dating people who were inclined to more comfortable lifestyles, and we met in the middle. So, you're on the right track.

Maybe you could also put the shoe on the other foot and consider that non-profits that aren't led by the communities they serve are pretty arrogant? They can be pretty disempowering, too. Looking for resources on grassroots community organizing should bring you more info.
posted by momus_window at 5:26 PM on January 10, 2012


Both my parents are poets, so take this with a grain of salt. But art is necessary.

I was homeless for three years. Poetry is the reason I am here to tell you about it.

When I look back at that time and ask how I was able to survive it while so many of my peers from that time ended up as addicts of one stripe or another, or who died young, when I ask what did I have that was different, the only answer I have is poetry. The place I could return to, when I read it, became home for me. It carried me through homelessness and metal illness and into college and onto university even while I was still homeless. I went on to be someone who has spent many hours working as an activist on homeless and social justice issue, and continues to do so (I currently work full time for a non-profit) in part driven by that experience.
posted by tallus at 6:10 PM on January 10, 2012 [7 favorites]


As you've already said, Art serves a purpose. It explores the world and society in which we live, it brings joy, it gives those who do it and outlet for all that swirls inside them. But you know this already and yet you're still having this reaction to talk of specific projects:

But every time he brags about some (awesome) project- his or a friend's- I cringe inside. Like art should be done in private and talked about only in dismissive, self-deprecating tones, like you would about something you're slightly ashamed of.

Perhaps if you can draw parallels between the Art world and Artists to a different field with which you have a better relationship. Science, perhaps? You wouldn't argue that scientific research is unnecessary and immoral, or that someone who was a Scientist (who couldn't NOT be one, even if their day job was working on an assembly line; some people just need to experiment with and discover the natural world) ought to be doing something more "useful" with their life...and yet much of what Scientists do every day goes nowhere, does nothing for humanity. One scientist can spend decades researching one tiny group of amino acids. What does he have to show for it at the end of the research? Very detailed reports of the behavior and characteristics of those amino acids in mice, or something like that. You could argue that scientist ought to have spent his life working directly with impoverished children born with TerribleDisease. Thing is, you don't know when that data on amino acids will one day be invaluable. It might even help eradicate TerribleDisease one day. Or maybe that data might end up being useful in developing a new eco-friendly burial technique. It also might never be useful to anyone. But you can't know.

I think Art can be like that. You don't know at first, when it's being created, who it might help, what effect it might have, but you DO know that it has the potential to do good, the potential to open someone's eyes to injustice, or to give someone hope, or inspire a personal epiphany.
posted by JuliaIglesias at 7:17 PM on January 10, 2012 [3 favorites]


Your inner Puritan serves many admirable functions. Society needs people such as yourself. I bet your sweetheart would agree. So not berating yourself so much for this quality would be a good first step here.

It sounds like the way you react to perceived decadence is hardwired into your viscera, basically. It's a general issue, from what you've written, so you probably need to take a less art-specific approach to open-mindedness and learn to love beauty for beauty's sake.

I'd say practicing non-judgement, general meditations on beauty/filling your senses with natural beauty could bring you more inner peace regarding this issue.

So yeah, just breathing deeply and observing things/people/situations without attaching specific meaning to them may help.
posted by devymetal at 7:43 PM on January 10, 2012 [2 favorites]


I take my own answer from this from a couple of scientists - Richard Feynman's assertion that:

“Nature uses only the longest threads to weave her patterns, so that each small piece of her fabric reveals the organisation of the entire tapestry.”

And (against my better judgement) Brian Cox:

“We are the cosmos made conscious. Life is the means by which the universe understands itself.”

I honestly feel that, without necessarily being spiritual, we are very lucky to exist at all and the universe through incredible number crunching has allowed us to think, make and do. The creative impulse is as much a part of that as the scientific impulse and that we really have a right (or perhaps a duty) to explore ourselves and the universe using whatever tools we have at our disposal. I believe that we need to explore the universe in as many ways as we can, through a rigorous scientific method but also with a subjective, humane method. Not only that but to distribute, disseminate and add to the chaotic pool of knowledge about how we as individuals, a species or, as Cox might put it, as the universe understand ourselves. Because one tiny, heart-felt, brush stroke (or other less traditional gesture) might have a very profound influence on the life of someone else.

On preview JuliaIglesias managed to say pretty much the same thing without so much pomp, I blame Brian Cox.

Also, it is entirely possible that you haven't found art that you like. I regularly go to exhibitions and leave disappointed. I don't think efficiency, practicality and conciseness are things you necessarily won't find in art. The fantastic thing about most artists though is that they have thought about these things - debating and discussing the merits of their line of work is something they are doing (with themselves?) all the time, so long as you attempt to engage that discussion could be rewarding to both you and your partner.
posted by pmcp at 7:48 PM on January 10, 2012 [1 favorite]


I must feel contrary this week, I'm going to say to hell with finding a way to justify art. I happen to know this is bullshit and lots of people would literally be dead without having art to express themselves through, but you're not talking about them, you're talking idle, indulgent, entitled layabout artists. So let's look at them, those dogs. Let's accept that what they're up to is not the highest moral calling, and see about how this plays out in how you're going to relate to them. (Like, one in particular)

Here's exercise #1: draw a little diagram in your head in which the moral wrongness of someone's passtime sorts them, from left -- the sinister side! -- to right.

Put Stalin or some serial rapist on the left. Put Buddha or some saint you like on the right. Start filling in the middle parts. Try to see where you put these accursed frivolous artists. To the left or right of the health insurance executive? Loan shark? Tank regiment commander? Puppy mill operator? Sport fisher?

Don't have to show anyone the diagram in your head, just sort it out for yourself. You're judgmental. We are all a bit judgmental. It can be interesting to reflect on your own judgments in detail. Personally, I find all the passtimes I mentioned above regrettable and I wish people wouldn't do them. So me, I put artists to the right of all them folks. But that's my stripes.

I bet you'll put a whole lot of humanity to the left of the artists too, though. It's a rare person who thinks of artists as the absolute lowest filth.

Exercise #2: put yourself on that line. See which saints outdo yourself in saintliness. Think hard. There are a lot of pretty swell people. Paramedic? Legal aid? Sanitation worker? Palliative nurse? Farmer? Again, in my judgmental nature, these people outrank me. I'm just some dope who mucks around on computers. In puritan rankings, I would lose to them.

Now exercise #3: you got you on this line, and you got an artist (presumably to the left of you, you judgmental monster), and sinners-and-saints at the extremes on either side. But is there anyone clearly between you and the artist? Can you pick professions and passtimes where you say: this would be worse than me, but better than an artist?

That's it. I got no conclusion. Just exercises. See what they make you think about, see what curious dimensions of your judgments pop off the page at you. See if that person between your superior nature and the inferior artist is something you can qualify or quantify clearly. Maybe there's some minor part of your partner's arty ways that you can tease out of it. Maybe this isn't about the art at all.
posted by ead at 7:57 PM on January 10, 2012 [5 favorites]


I think the first thing you have to convince yourself is that you have the right to exist and be happy even if you choose not to save the world. I don't think you believe that yet. Novels are not a guilty pleasure. They are a pleasure, period. You don't need to earn the right to enjoy them by volunteering at a homeless shelter (although it's commendable that you do).

A little two-bit psychology: I wonder if some of your hostility is really jealousy--not that you want to be an artist, but that you are envious of how free artists seem to be of this obligation you feel to mend the world's ills. Or maybe you've avoided creative pursuits because you're afraid of failure. (It's hard to fail at feeding the hungry--which isn't to say that it's an easy thing to do, but the biggest part of it is showing up and doing the work. The work itself requires no particular talent. Does that make sense? I think that's why not enough people value doing it, and I'm glad you do.) Or maybe you are just so humble that the idea of making a physical representation of an idea of yours seems as ludicrous as commissioning a statue of yourself.

Regardless of what the root is--I think the first step for you would be to take up something creative that has no practical value. Not cooking or sewing or knitting--although these are worthy pursuits. I think you should dive into something that you can't disguise as practicality, like dance or photography or origami or nail art. Or take an art history class, even. Stick with it long enough to appreciate the craft, even if you don't get very good at it. I think it's easy to dismiss art as pure expression. Some of it is, but most of it requires a lot of skill. Being able to appreciate the skill that goes into creating a project will, I hope, help soften your judgment.

And if that doesn't work, go volunteer to do art therapy with disabled people. If you want to see proof of how art changes lives, watch a guy who's lost his understanding of language to a stroke paint a picture to tell his wife he loves her. It's all art on the same spectrum--I think you just need a window in.
posted by elizeh at 8:07 PM on January 10, 2012 [2 favorites]


Injustice, poverty, and pain will always exist to some degree. Art is a kind of "play" that gives expression to the human spirit as freedom, relatively untethered to financial concerns compared to the rest of our horrid societies, and gives hope to people who are suffering and depressed. Even people who are suffering and dejected are heartened by art.

It would be a rather glum, cheerless, uninspiring, mediocre world if we all spent our time doing only things that are "useful," even if those useful things are morally praiseworthy.
posted by jayder at 8:14 PM on January 10, 2012 [1 favorite]


There are two different frameworks for my answer. The first assumes that you're absolutely completely 100% aware that this is a maladaptive thought pattern that conflicts with objective reality, and that you would like to disrupt these troubling and derailing thoughts so that you can get on with your life. And to that, my answer is cognitive behavioral therapy. This is what it does, and it does it really well. It's not "tell me about your mother" therapy, it's like personal training for your mind.

The second framework assumes that you're conflicted on that point, and that you need convincing that art for art's sake is truly OK. And to that end, I have a personal anecdote. I sing with the Seattle Symphony Chorale, which is the adjunct volunteer chorus for the Seattle Symphony (as you'd expect). We work hard, and we're pretty good. But it is time consuming and it strongly impacts my life and my family's life, particularly around Christmas, and the performing arts are definitely non-essential. And I don't even get paid! So when I'm kissing my husband and my children goodbye yet again as I head off to perform, it can definitely feel a little pointless.

But every time we perform, there's someone in the audience for whom it's a major experience. I did four shows of the Messiah right before Christmas, and four shows of Beethoven's Ninth right before New Year's, and in every single performance there were people in the audience whom I could see from the stage who had tears in their eyes. We had an entire row of Carmelite nuns in full habit for the Messiah, and they caught me on the way to my car and thanked me. The last time I did Mozart's Requiem, I had someone give me a hug backstage, weeping and thanking me, saying it was the most amazing thing they'd ever heard.

So. . . is that essential? It doesn't put food on anyone's table, it doesn't put clothes on anyone's back. No child is saved from poverty or illness, no war is ended, no justice is served. But I think it is essential; to me, and to the audience, and to the human condition.
posted by KathrynT at 9:31 PM on January 10, 2012 [3 favorites]


It might be useful to re-orient the axes you're using to measure value and purpose. Yes, art has a purpose, but if you look at it only in terms of purpose, just a small change in the observer can make what looks like something useful into something completely frivolous. It makes art into a matter of opinion.

In my mind, the more important dimension of art is that its one of the best ways in which important and essential processes become solid, and awareness of these processes have to become part of the way that you assess and evaluate art and artists. If you focus only on art as an end product, then its easier to think that it should be hushed up and hidden, discovered individually instead of presented, and subject to individual opinion more than anything else. If you focus on a piece of art (and what your fiancé says about his projects) as part of the process of creation and interpretation, then you can start to focus on mastery of technique, creativity in thought, the play that goes on between creative minds doing creative things through discussion and collaboration. It becomes a way of engaging an audience in a game of interpretation, helping people imagine other ways of thinking, rather than the ones that they are used to, by trying to figure out why they like or dislike something, and what that means. (You asking this question is part of this process.)

Another way to approach the issue might be this: You are taking art as "C" in A+B=C, when it might be useful to think of it as the "=" or the "+". Don't try to force yourself into believing that what your fiancé and his friends are doing is moral. You've got a lot of self-identity and personal and social values sitting on top of the foundation that makes you think this, and which it would be near impossible to change. Try adding another framework to interfere with your original one. Ask questions like the ones you are asking. Approach it like learning a language. Nobody can say that French is absolutely more moral or useful than German (well maybe not nobody...) but you can imagine beautiful and elegant texts in one feeling quite different from those in the other, and beauty being completely lost on you when you are a beginner in either language.
posted by mariokrat at 4:24 AM on January 11, 2012 [2 favorites]


Hmm, hang on, I missed this.

But every time he brags about some (awesome) project- his or a friend's- I cringe inside. Like art should be done in private and talked about only in dismissive, self-deprecating tones, like you would about something you're slightly ashamed of.

Okay, this threw me a bit. Because -- okay, maybe you don't understand art itself right now; but, you do understand that it's something your fiance and his friends DO care about, yes? That established -- would you agree that everyone, regardless of what they do for a living, needs to feel proud of themselves? That when they had a good day at work, they want to feel proud of it? That they want to celebrate themselves a little now and then? I think so. It doesn't matter what they do -- my current day job is as a secretary, which I kind of hate, but even there I still get an inward rush and say to myself "damn, I rock" when I do something pretty good. We all need to feel proud of ourselves, no matter what we do and no matter how utterly insignificant or useless it may seem. Because we all need to feel like we're doing good things and we are good. There's a line from a song in the musical Working: "Everybody needs something to point to, something to be proud of".

And moreover, sometimes that insignificant seeming stuff ISN'T all that insignificant to someone else. I may think that the things I do are bullshit, but -- they sure make life a hell of a lot easier for the people I work for. You and I may both think that something like carnival barker is a silly job, but it makes a big impact for someone else.

So maybe you can't relate to what it is that your fiance does -- but HE cares about it and wants to feel proud. I imagine you want to support his desire to feel good about himself, yes?

So instead of focusing on what it is he's talking about, try focusing on HIM. Watch how his eyes light up when he's talking about his art. Watch how animated he is, listen to the note in his voice that he only gets when he's really really excited about something. It's good to see him that way, isn't it? If you really get into enjoying seeing him in that state, maybe it will stop mattering so much what it was that GOT him into that state.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 4:52 AM on January 11, 2012


You need to spend some time with an older person who's gone down the misanthropic everything-is-frivolous path. I volunteer my grandfather (no, please, take him!). Seeing how someone can get when everything is considered non-essential* will knock this right out of you.

*Examples: Food that's not prison loaf or similar. Friends--you would need to drive to see them--gas isn't free! Clothing that is even the right size--as long as you can actually get it around you and it was really cheap at the yearly thrift sale, it "fits".
posted by anaelith at 5:49 AM on January 11, 2012 [5 favorites]


Join pinterest and collect images of things that you like?
posted by mgogol at 7:17 AM on January 11, 2012


Two thoughts:

1) I think the fact that you two are together will be great for both of you. My wife and I are vastly different in similar ways and I think it makes us both more complete.

2) Too many comments are trying to justify art in a utilitarian sense, which in my opinion is missing the point. Art does not have to be justified. The idea that one must use their time helping others is arbitrary and invented. I can justify that by pointing out that the world is a vastly better place because people enjoy themselves and follow their passions rather than always acting to maximize the greater good in the most direct way possible, but again, it does not need to be justified. Your moral beliefs are made up.

They're also a little self-serving. You're a functional person, so your morality elevates being functional. I think if you look around honestly you'll find that lots of people similarly elevate the one thing they do best or most. Fitness nuts look down on people who don't take fitness seriously, religious people look down on non-religious people, intellectuals look down on non-intellectuals, people with amazing social skills look down on people without them, etc. etc.

I like the old expression "It takes all kinds." "Artist" is a very good kind.
posted by callmejay at 10:20 AM on January 11, 2012 [5 favorites]


Help me love things that aren't practical, efficient, and to the point.

Play an instrument. Write poems. Join a community theater group.

But for god's sake, don't play an instrument for the Salvation Army, don't write poems with instructive themes, and don't join a theater group that puts on plays to educate the public about their cause. Play for joy, write for beauty, act for the thrill.
posted by pracowity at 1:20 PM on January 11, 2012 [1 favorite]


I have a bit of this. For me, it seems to be a need to justify the cost of creating art, or to justify my position further up Maslow's pyramid from someone else.

Part of me feels guilt when I am moved by great art. A sad example is that of great buildings or monuments -- does the existence of this marvelous great work justify the use of slaves to construct it? Would my favourite 19th century writer have written so many books if he didn't belong to a social class with leisure time and the money to educate their children?

When I notice this kind of thought in myself (and I can't call it disordered thought, as these are rational questions) I can usually address it by thinking of a two-year-old -- he or she is attracted to pretty things and is amused by funny things, and dances to dancy things, without guilt. Only a monster could justify "correcting" that behaviour in a little kid, so why do I want to do that to myself?
posted by Sallyfur at 5:14 PM on January 11, 2012 [3 favorites]


Do you know, or can you find out, where you got this "all things must be useful" attitude from? Rather than silencing your inner Puritan, I'd encourage you to talk to her. Find out what she thinks about different types of art. Does she appreciate "practical art"--bowls, vases, baskets, and so forth? What about clothing of a particularly beautiful color or interesting pattern? What about flower gardens? Perhaps you can ease her into appreciating all kinds of art by starting with kinds of art that already are okay with her.
posted by epj at 7:48 PM on January 11, 2012


« Older Help me track down this early Mitch Hedberg tv...   |   I want to update spreadsheets through my apple... Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.