"All Art is Quite Useless"

I suppose, perhaps, the quote I have referenced at the top of my blog might deserve some sort of an explanation; partly because it appears to contradict my profession as an artist, but mostly because the statement is so frequently misunderstood, and usually leads to the disdain and dissatisfaction of those who read it (though such thinking really ought to be corrected). "What do you mean art is useless?" some might say, "but art has so much meaning: it elevates our awareness of things, questions everything, contextualizes and re-contextualizes ideas, sharpens our appreciation for beauty, thought, and skill, it can define cultures, and is able to capture the essence and spirit of the time in which it’s made".

Yes, it is absolutely true that art is loaded with meaning, but that doesn’t silence the fact that art is still altogether useless. Just because something holds "meaning", doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s "useful". When constructing his argument that "all art is quite useless", Oscar Wilde suggests that when a piece of art beckons an array of criticism (it doesn’t matter if the criticism is good or bad), the work is established as "new, complex, and vital". He is not, however, denying it has meaning or value. "Vital", which generally means essential, crucial, or fundamental, is a far cry from saying that something (in this particular case, art) is totally worthless. While a great many people would insist the words "worthless" and "useless" are synonymous, it becomes fairly evident upon further investigation that the two terms are not the same at all. For example, a single piece of paper at a paper factory may have an infinite number of uses even though its actual worth would be deemed rather insignificant. Conversely, most people would consider a broken clock to be quite useless. However, if the clock is an antique or a collectible, it will definitely be viewed with some measure of worth. In a similar sense, art, while certainly useless, should never be deemed worthless.

Art cannot be "used", it just "is". It's not like a furnace which is used to heat a house, nor is it like a refrigerator that functions primarily to chill food. Art is much more subjective and open to criticism than such things, and while it serves a multitude of purposes, it can never truly be worthy of being called "useful". It provides nothing absolute, or concrete, and so can never be accepted as an entirely credible source of knowledge. Art is a visual philosophy that cultivates thinking and builds on ideas, but never establishes anything completely unto itself.

Oscar Wilde was widely recognized as a strong patron of the arts and he placed great value on the fruits of creativity –The Picture of Dorian Gray, from which the quotation being discussed is drawn, was a book full of his philosophical contemplations about art, many of them focusing on art’s insatiable need to be admired. He states: "We can forgive a man for making a useful thing as long as he does not admire it. The only excuse for making a useless thing is that one admires it intensely". Hence, art is not "used", according to Wilde, it's "admired". It's placed on display simply to be observed by an audience, and, subsequently, to be exposed to scrutiny and criticism. Since Wilde felt that art is made solely to be displayed and admired, he concludes his line of reasoning with the infamous (though appropriate ) statement, "All art is quite useless".

Now, I'm not saying Oscar Wilde was necessarily right in what he said, but I do think it's important for people to know that he wasn't simply discarding the notion that art is a valuable function in society. He makes a strong argument and establishes it quite logically. He likely omits "craft" as art though, which I'm not entirely convinced is fair, but am willing to accept for the sake of following his thought process on the subject. The reason why I include the quote at the top of my blog is to merely draw attention to the controversy that undeniably exists in art.