Katherine Dzengelewski

What is art, and why do we value it so much? Why has it existed

across cultures and all around the world throughout all of human history?
Why do we value something that has no easily identifiable, practical
purpose? Once weve decided what art is, how do we determine what good
art is, and who is qualified to make that judgment about a work of art? For
as long as we have had art, we have been asking these kinds of questions,
and have yet to come to a universal agreement about any of them. And yet,
art continues to live on and grow throughout the world and across cultures,
for some unidentifiable but highly important purpose. In this essay, I will
strive to explain why I value art, based on my own thoughts and experiences
as well as the ideas great philosophers and thinkers have had before me.
One way that some have defined art is by describing it as mimicry,
or imitation. Plato, one of the most influential philosophers of Ancient
Greece, believed that art was a mimetic activity, and used words such as
deception to describe it (ABQ, 194). He also believed that the only way in
which art could be useful is if the only things depicted in art were positive,
good virtues. In fact, he believed that art that did not express good virtues
was incredibly dangerous, and that it is likely to distort the thought of
anyone who witnesses it (ABQ, 191).
Although Platos ideas differ drastically from my own, reading his ideas
from The Republic was a starting point that helped me begin thinking about
how I define art and its value. With something as abstract as art, it seems
to be easier to eliminate what we know art is not than directly define what
art is. So I will begin by stating what I am certain of, which is that art is not
simply mimetic. While this definition may include some painting and
sculpture, it excludes virtually all abstract art, all original thought through
poetry or writing, music, and dance. Furthermore, the art forms that are
mimetic are not to be undervalued. Platos student, Aristotle seemed to
understand this. Although he, like his teacher, believed that art is imitation,
he believed that imitation is a natural and positive experience for both the
artist and the spectator (ABQ, 231).
The other point Plato made that I would challenge is the idea that all
art should represent positive and perfect role models, with no evil tendencies
whatsoever. I can hardly imagine living in Platos ideal reality, in which the
only art that existed reflected a perfect world full of perfect people, but I can
only imagine it would be a world in which everyone would feel a little more
alone and ashamed of their own imperfections. The most recent play Ive
seen is Salome, written by Oscar Wilde. Based on the famous biblical
story, it tells the story of princess Salome, who harnesses her sexual
desirability and dances for King Herod in order to have him bring her the
head of Jokanaan on a silver platter. It was fascinating to see a play that was
banned from being viewed in Wildes lifetime due to its themes of lust,
revenge, selfishness, and power. In Platos opinion, any audience members
who enjoyed the imitation, would come to enjoy those things happening in

reality (ABQ, 190). On the contrary, I believe that Wildes intent was to warn
of the dangers of the temptations and sins that we all have, but must learn
to overcome. This is an extreme example of a work of art that Plato would
shun, and I believe it is important to acknowledge its value. A play that
shows actors working through real imperfections and obstacles is far more
impactful and true than a play in which everyone does good things and there
is no evil.
So if art is more than imitation and more than a model of perfection,
what is it? Some have argued that all art is an outlet for expressing emotion.
Russian novelist Leo Tolstoy, for example, believes that all good and valuable
art is drawn from a specific emotion that the artist wants to communicate,
and that emotion is felt in the exact same way by all who experience the
work of art. His ideas gave me the language I had not yet been able to
articulate to explain one of the many reasons I love art, which is its capacity
to create empathy an feel understood by an artist who expresses something
that so many others have felt, but no one has been able to express so well.
This concept of art, while beautiful and true, is incomplete. Many of
the works of art that I have fallen in love with have had nothing to do with
uniting with the artist on a specific emotional level. Again, abstract art falls
into this category. The most recent piece of artwork that I came to enjoy was
called, Hot Still- Scape for Six Colors- Seventh Avenue Style. It is a bright,
chaotic, jumble of shapes that the artist painted at his apartment window,
overlooking 7th Avenue in Manhattan. Looking at that painting was a much
more cognitive than emotional experience for me, as I tried to make sense of
the puzzle that lay before me and how it resembled New York City. Other
valuable works of art that are relatively un-emotional are still- life paintings,
which seem to created out of curiosity and precision, in order to replicate the
subject as closely as possible. Although I do not feel a clear emotional
response when looking at these, I can appreciate them as a work of art for
the artists masterful ability to see, study, and re-create different colors and
textures from nature.
Deciding that a work of art does not receive recognition because it is
unemotional, because it is not imitative, or because it does not present an
image of perfection makes art overly- exclusive. We already too often
consider real art only what we see in museums or in public, excluding
beautiful artworks that have been made for homes or families (Parker and
Pollock). Similarly, we must not exclude spectators from feeling that they
have the right to enjoy, value, and have opinions about art. Many
philosophers, such as David Hume, have strived to come up with a standard
of taste, or a set of guidelines about who can judge art and how they must
do so. He claims that the only way to be able to get the full value out of a
work of art, we must drop our own beliefs, prejudices, likes, dislikes, and
feelings in order to see something objectively for what it really is.
While I think he makes an important point about our personal baggage
creating a lens that alters the way we view art, I do not think that lens can or
should be put aside entirely. When we bring our own culture, history, and

feelings to a work of art, and acknowledge that we come from that unique
place, we can see a work with much more perspective. Hans- Georg
Gadamer believes that a work enables the viewer to enter into a
conversation with the artist, even if they are living in different times and
places, as well as a conversation with all other spectators, trying to
understand anothers viewpoint. Both artist and viewer are able to
understand the subject more completely through making or experiencing it,
and in turn are able to understand themselves more deeply as well. Selfunderstanding always occurs through understanding something other than
the self, and includes unity and integrity of the other.
The reason I value art is because of its many capacities for enhancing
my experience and understanding of life and of myself. Through it, I can
gain empathy for others, look into a place Ive never been, think abstractly,
appreciate beauty, and discover a new way of seeing, hearing, or thinking
about the world. I believe that art will never be defined for its precise value
only because it has too many capacities to hold in one definition. Despite
the fact that it can never be fully understood, art will continue to grow,
change, and enhance life for all humankind.