What is the value of art (performance or otherwise)? Does it have inherent value, or is value artificially imbued onto it by its audience?
What is the value of art (performance or otherwise)? Does it have inherent value, or is value artificially imbued onto it by its audience?
Howdy, friends!
As far as I can tell, I’m the first student to respond to this blog. I hope I’m correct, not because I want to be first but because I just hope I’m viewing everything correctly.
Art is kinda weird. I can’t use it to fight off bears, nor can I use art to reproduce. From a utilitarian standpoint, most art is useless. Yet, in literally every human culture on the planet, art exists. Back when fire was the hot new thing, people were very likely singing primitive songs. Humans have, apparently, decided that time that could be spent pillaging nearby villages or educating children about the dangers of Syphilis, is worth spending making art, be it woodcarving, statue-making, playwrighting, singing, or carving pictures of nearby buffalo into cave walls.
It’s likely that art helped these people forget how much their lives sucked because they had the poor luck of being born before penicillin. Art helps us avoid becoming totally bonkers because, in the case of most performance art, it assures us that other people have the same problems, and that it’s not all in our heads. Things that keep the citizens of a society from collectively becoming stir-crazy are pretty darn useful. We should make more.
It appears that art has value, but where does it come from? Is it intrinsic or relative? The problem is, the concept of “value” is, by definition, relative. If every human on the planet was simultaneously smote down with lightning, everything would become equally worthless–there would be no one left to receive goods/services in exchange for money or other goods, like pretzels. While a technically true statement, the “if everyone was dead” argument is pretty useless: everyone isn’t dead, so let’s refine the question.
As far as humans are concerned, does art have value because it’s art, or because the people viewing it assign it value based on their interactions with it? When we word the question like that, the answer is obvious. If art was valuable simply because it was art, then someone would have made a fortune by cutting wood into tiny pieces, calling the pieces “art”, and then selling them. Because most people would agree that that’s stupid, we can conclude that art gains value from its audience. We can see this in the novel by Arthur’s relationship with the comic series, Station Eleven (or was the series titles Doctor Eleven?). Arthur only sees the comics as an exhaustive side-project, but to his son, the comics constitute the divine Word.
It seems incorrect to say that art’s value is inherent, but if that’s true, then it’s also incorrect to say that “value is artificially imbued onto it by its audience.” If the only way value is assigned to art is through its audience (the creator counts as the audience, too), then that is literally the opposite of artificial. If something is only done one way, then that, by definition, is the natural way it is done.
I would argue that art does have in inherent value though. If you look back at the development of humankind, you will find cave paintings that were created long before civilization. I find that a large amount of art has been focused on, created for, or made possible by social orders (i.e. religious artwork, an increase of leisure time). If you think about it, if an increase of leisure time creates an increase in artwork, does that not mean that we want to make art–and does that not give it an inherent value (I ask this, because you say that it seems incorrect to say that it does have inherent value)? Going back to the cave paintings for a moment–they appear to be evidence, at least to me, that art is a means of expression that is required for many members of our species. It is a way to communicate ones emotions, ones feelings, ones experiences. You touch on this earlier in your response, but I feel like you didn’t feel like your own point gave art the inherent value that is possesses.
Is it not also possible for art to have both artificial and inherent value? I would argue that it is. Art serves as a form of expression, and it also can give aesthetic pleasure–though the level of pleasure varies from person to person. Money is also a form of artificial value, as we assign a monetary value to many pieces of art. People have stolen art, forged it, and killed over it. While in a majority of cases, this may be associated with the monetary value, this does add another dimension of value to the art.
Art, I believe at least, can be absolutely anything the audience defines it to be. Art can be the spoken word full of passion, thoughtful swathes of color on canvas, even the intricate circuitry of a computer can be deemed art – depending on the person. Because of this, I agree with Theo that art’s value is determined by its audience and therefore is a natural result, not artificial. This natural value, whether it be being useful or capable of eliciting emotion, is also entirely dependent upon the audience. Art has value because of people.
One thing that I was always thinking throughout the book was “Do we as humans enjoy art for the physicality of it (i.e sound, picture, functionality) or for the stories and emotions that are carried with it?” We know that art’s value is a natural occurrence – even if we assign a monetary value to it as Jordan argues, that money still has physical value outside of its “fiatness” in the form of the work needed to obtain it – and that that value can be physical or emotional depending on the “art” and the person (in my honest opinion, a bicycle is an incredible piece of art which happens to serve a utilitarian purpose whereas the Mona Lisa is a dreary drab that holds no value in my heart other than excellent kindling). Once again, we reach the road block of the audience. I feel that this will be a common theme in this particular forum where opinions will differ merely because art means something else to every person.
We can have two people who both enjoy Gaudi’s Park Guell but for different reasons. The first person has an emotional connection to the structure, not because they lived there, but because the curves, the organic nature of it reminds them of walking through forest when they were younger. The emotional beauty. The second person is simply awestruck by the profundity of the place. Not its stories and such hooey as that, but the fact that an architect could dream up such a structure and have it come to fruition. The physical beauty.
Although this is only one example, I believe it answers my question, and doesn’t because both variables can be true. Like Theo said, “Art helps us avoid becoming totally bonkers,” and I believe that is entirely true regardless of the type of art because it will always depend on the audience. Art can be a utility to ease the burden of life or as an emotional refuge and both can quell being “bonkers.” Art is natural, has value, and that value is reliant on the audience. This is a difficult forum to post to as it is wants a somewhat objective view on a subjective topic, but discussing it is vital to helping all of us understand not only the art, but one another.
My favorite theory on art’s significance is one I learned in the first few sessions of History of Western Art in high school. Hegel, the German philosopher, presents in his works the concept of “Absolute Spirit:” that is, the realm in which religion, philosophy, and art exist- all products of the human mind and of the same strain. What is most important about this theory is that Hegel in this is stating that art requires belief in the exact same way religion does. Take, for example, Andy Warhol’s sculptural work- Brillo boxes and soup cans. Why are they art? Simply because we place them on a pedestal and believe that they are. This simple suspension of belief and suggestion of meaning marks the difference between art and artifact. With this belief oftentimes comes education and change that one often associates with art.
In the context of this theory, the concept of “humanity” that many characters in Station Eleven cherish is present- as belief is a very human concept. Thus it stands that art’s meaning is given by the viewer (as an artist I am always told to consider the view of the audience- which in some instances you can influence but never control) but this meaning is highly valuable as it is uniquely human. And thus I am in wholehearted agreement with Theo’s final statement.
However, much of the novel discusses not the audience of the works of art created by these characters, but why creating work was so important to these people that “survival is inefficient.” Miranda worked a day job, Arthur forsook his family, Frank worked months into the Collapse, Kirsten killed strangers, and the Symphony traveled years on end- all to make the work they loved to make. Passages in the novel suggest that making art gave these characters purpose and a highly spiritual feeling- not unlike their audience in many cases. Kirsten describes the feeling of acting as “having flown very high and landed incompletely, her soul pulling upward out of her chest.” (59) Miranda spends decades untiringly creating the world of Station Eleven. These artists believe in art as others believe in salvation- working toward it nonstop and unrelentlessly.
I thus conclude that this inherently human spirituality found in art is present for both artist and audience albeit in different forms. Art can be valued, or not, yet regardless, it can be seen as valuable simply because it depends upon the human mind.
The value of art is that first, as Theo says, art (at least good art) allows people to enjoy something and forget the world around them. Art and the ability to create are actually huge parts of what makes humans different from other animals–humans have the ability to innovate and create things that are for pleasure rather than simply survival. A beaver can build a dam and a spider can weave a web, but these are specifically for survival purposes. Humans can paint pictures and perform in plays for enjoyment. In a way this kind of connects to the “survival is inefficient” idea Allison talked about. Humans have this concept that survival is inefficient, that other animals do not have.
Art kind of has an inherent value but it kind of doesn’t. It has an inherent value or it wouldn’t exist, nobody would have come up with the idea of creating art. But we also look at art and assign art value. If a play manages to transport you to a new world and helps you forget your daily troubles, you feel that the art has one type of value. But if you see a five-year-old scratching out twinkle on his violin, you assign a different kind of value to that art (value to the child, perhaps, but not to the listener!) Ultimately I think art has the most value, inherent or not, to the people who participate in art. The natural ability to express your thoughts and visions freely and see the results of your work (through an audience or self-accomplishment feeling) is very rewarding.
I completely agree with you that the artist gains feelings of elation and happiness from producing their art. However, I think that art is equally important and valued to the audience who experiences the artist’s creation. For example, Miranda (the artist) found solace and content in her work in Station Eleven. However, Kirsten (her audience) found equal meaning and value in Miranda’s artwork and characters. Both women viewed Station Eleven as a reflection of their own lives. This sci-fi world that they escaped to was simultaneously broken and beautiful just like theirs.
This is why audiences need the art as much as the artist. The audience can interpret the art and apply its meaning to their own lives. In doing so, they gain greater insights and develop new outlooks and appreciation for their world.
Taylor makes a good point about the audience finding value in a piece of art, and people finding meaning within the subtext of the art. This kind of value given to art by its audience is also seen early on in the book when its being discussed why the Traveling Symphony only performs Shakespearean plays rather than more modern theatrical pieces. The reasoning, as I believe its explained in the book, is that they were the plays people seemed to enjoy the most and found the most value and emotion in.
The part I am referencing occurs on page 38
Art is a creation of some kind that is given value by the person who makes or finds it. Since people do not find value in all art, there cannot be an inherent value for all art. Many groups of people have destroyed art because it only holds value for a different group of people. Currently, ISIS is destroying pagan temples and artifacts because they do not give the same value to those artifacts that was given in ancient times.
Art is solely used as an expression of ideas, either simplistic (grounded in the physical or audible presence of the art) or complex (abstract like war or sexual orientation). This can connect groups of people throughout time, but only if the next people can find its value (such as learning the language or understanding its ideas). Art does not exist on its own, nor have its own value, without people.
Art is valuable not in the form of currency, but how it transcends time and can connect generations. In Station Eleven, both performing arts and the artwork in comics connect the pre-collapse and post-collapse worlds.
The symphony frequently discuss Shakespeare’s life in comparison to their own. Dieter explained Shakespeare’s “plague-haunted life” and how it defined his work. That desire to thrive in trying times is a thread that connects the 1600’s to the mid-twenty first century. When technology had come and gone, the words of Mid Summer Nights Dream remained.
Then the comics Miranda wrote connected generations. The two copies Arthur distributed brought Kirsten and the Prophet together in a twist of fate. Kirsten enjoyed their unique story while the prophet took literal meaning of the words, like scripture. But in both cases, those words and illustrations influenced their lives.
So while art has no applicable use, it fills the gap between generations and influences people in unlimited ways.
If you took a painting or a sculpture out into the middle of the forest and just left it there it would have no real value, except for maybe the nutrients it could provide when broken down. However if you took the same piece of art and put it where humans could see it it would have value. It could be as simple as appreciating the piece of art because it is beautiful or looks cool. Or it could have deeper value in the ideas it inspires or demonstrates. Art has value because of people, but I don’t think this value is artificial. Art is a combination of physical things and ideas, and ideas don’t exist the same way when people aren’t around. A painting cannot demonstrate the horrors of war to a forest, the forst doesn’t care or understand. But a human can care and understand, or they could develope their own ideas based on the piece of art. Art has value when it is percieved, when it has purpose or when it can impact or influence people.
But is not perceived value artificial value?
I feel like calling it ‘artificial’ cheapens the value. Like the value is forced or assigned or something. Maybe art doesn’t have inherent value in the strictest sense, but I don’t think it is entirely arteficial or fake.
But is there anything wrong with the value being artificial? I don’t think so. Most things in life are artificial in value. We create their value–like gold (up until the advent of the computer). The value of something being artificial does not mean that it is worth less. Hell, our lives are run by the artificial value of currency.
Hi everyone. I notice my word choice is causing some controversy here. Is everyone enjoying debating the merits of using the word “artificial,” or should it be removed from the prompt?
Enjoying? Certainly. Debate is good, as is controversy.
The use of “artificial” here seems to be used with the negative context usually associated with it. I feel that because everyone seems to enjoy sharing their views about how they view other contexts of the word, that it’s certainly provoking some interesting thoughts and questions in our minds.
Or at least, it is for me.
I’m going to be that lame person who refers to the internet now, because there’s an obvious stigma that has attached itself to the word, artificial, and I think it’s getting some uncalled for beef right now. Artificial is defined as “produced by human beings, rather than created naturally.” And that really puts us in a pickle, because art, by definition, is created by human beings, so how can its value not be artificial? So there’s no point in debating whether or not the value is artificial, because everything about art is artificial–it’s an intrinsically human creation and experience (Trees don’t get the pleasure of staring at the Mona Lisa behind a huge crowd, they only get the pleasure of being used as paper for someone’s project). I don’t think this definition invalidates anyone’s argument; it was just word that we ended up being nit-picky about.
The question at hand (that we’ve been answering) is whether the value of this “artificial” art exists purely because the art exists in the world, or because of our history, critiques, and praise. So is art politics or is it aesthetic? For me, I immediately jump to aesthetic, because art for art’s sake, right? Except not. Like I said before, art is an intrinsically human experience. And the many people who commented before me have detailed why being relatable to this experience is such an essential part of what makes art art. There’s a reason why political cartoons work so well and why movies and TV shows are some of the most powerful ways to deliver a message. There’s a great value in art that stems from our ability to understand something that’s inherently the same for everyone, while still maintaining our unique perspectives. Shakespeare’s work, for this very reason, is valued within our society as some of the greatest work in our history. It makes a lot of sense why some of the actors in “Station Eleven” wanted to dress the same as the audience. In this very sense, art’s value is imbued onto it by its audience.
Unfortunately, it’s never just black and white, and art isn’t something for us to throw a hashtag relatable on. In fact, sometimes if it’s too “relatable” and driven by opinion and politics, it becomes propaganda. Art can be beautiful and breathtaking. So it is unfair to dispel a film’s artistry or a painter’s meticulous strokes just because it doesn’t align with our political beliefs or life story. Cinematic revolutionaries like “Birth of the Nation” and “Triumph of the Will” should be recognized for their contributions to modern film, even though they glorify the actions of the KKK and the Nazis. There’s an undeniable part of art that is there for our senses to just enjoy. And if I’m being honest, I don’t get most of the abstract art in modern art museums, but that doesn’t and shouldn’t stop me from appreciating how cool or awesome it looks. Art can be a wonderful method of escapism–a way for us to forget all the crap that may be happening around us. It’s inherent value is its aesthetic, and along with its political value, it also very much there.
I think that George Sand summed it up pretty well.
“Art for art’s sake is an empty phrase. Art for the sake of truth, art for the sake of the good and the beautiful, that is the faith I am searching for.”
I don’t think it’s an empty phrase and I disagree with “Art for the sake of truth, art for the sake of the good and the beautiful, that is the faith I am searching for.” First, not every piece of art comes with a handy interpretation manual by the artist; it’s impossible to know the artist’s exact intentions (so how do you know it was made for the sake of the truth, etc?), and even then, the art may have affected us differently. Even more times, the artist creates something without a specific intention that might have a much greater effect on its audience. Just because the artist didn’t create the art with that intention, doesn’t diminish the significance it might have for someone. An art’s form, after all, is the art’s expression. So art very much for art’s sake sometimes. Second, who’s to establish the universal “truth, good, and beautiful?” Does that mean as long as anything is made in good faith, that it’s art? Is Nazi propaganda art because it preaches what the artist believes to be the truth and beauty? Massive genocide? Like I said in my original post, art isn’t something for us to relate to and agree with. A huge part of the value art has is just because its cool looking or nice feeling. Why does there have to be a deep meaning?
I don’t think has to be made in any faith necessarily, as long as it’s made with passion (If you want to argue that passion is in itself a form of faith, then fine, be my guest, I don’t want to get into that here).
I don’t even think art can be created for art’s sake. People don’t say “I want to make art because I want to make art.” They have a reason behind why they want to make art, and that’s enough of a reason to create. The interpretation of that art by any party does not affect whether or not a piece of art has to be created for the sake of truth, goodness, or beauty. An artist creates to express something they have inside them, be it of good, bad, traditional, new, comfortable, or scandalous. Nazi propaganda can indeed be categorized as art, and even if the feelings of the artist may have been those of truth and beauty or pride, we don’t have to agree with them. Art just has inspire life, if we the viewers experienced something by viewing that piece of art, then it has helped us live. If the artist creates something that to them embodies the greatest feeling of sadness, but someone looks upon it and draws from it a feeling of hope or joy, then it has still helped them experience life. An artist’s message or statement is to help the artist explain why they created the piece, it isn’t telling us how to think. Art doesn’t have to have an “accepted meaning,” it just has to have meaning to those who view it, be it great or insignificant. Art is form of expression that helps both the creator and the viewer better understand themselves; art inspires emotions and actions, and creates a life for those who are merely surviving.
If it was possible to assign to our lives a numeric value that is the sum of all all experiences ever, art would have a value equal to how much it influences the way we view those experiences or the way we value and address new or similar experiences. Since it is not possible to assign such a number, I’m going to try to explain this in a non-numeric way.
Everybody draws value from their experiences they’ve had during their stay on this tiny chunk of rock in the middle of an endless void, and from that value, we retain memories of things, both good and bad. Those memories are the only things left to us as well lay on or deathbed. All material goods and all events, past, present, or future, have only the value that we decide to give them at the end of our lives; they are worth only worth what we decide they’re worth. To me, that seems like a pretty artificial value, simply because the inherent value people draw from the same experience differ person to person. Our entire lives are artificial, because it’s only worth what we decide it’s worth to us, and to others, it’s only worth what we can convince them it’s worth.
But these values are inherent in everything. We draw values, emotion, and inspiration from the strangest of things: A rock colored differently from those around it; a power outage in the middle of a life-changing phone call; a surprise encounter with a long-time friend. Every single experience we ever have forever shape our perceptions of our future experiences, so more so than others. A 3 week trip to Moscow may change the way someone perceives things more than their favorite book from the 4th-grade, but the memories and inspiration from each event will influence the events of that person’s life until they forget about it. Sure they’ll forget about the book faster, but the experiences changed by that reading will affect future events as well, and the chain will continue right up until death. This value in prevalent in all things, but “art” is created specifically for the purpose that people are supposed to draw value from it. So sure, the potential for value of art is created when the artist makes it, but the inherent value of each piece is the same as it is for all things: it is always worth exactly what we think it’s worth.
We draw value an experience from every moment we actively live our lives, art simply exists for value; while every other value exists because we long for value in our lives, art soothes that longing.
I didn’t want to read the blog until I finished the book and I tend to be a procrastinator. I am pleased to find that the discussion marks a lot of the same points that I discovered and the debate is super interesting!
Art is a physical reflection of the emotions and the passions surrounding a particular time. It therefore has an inherent value that cannot be matched. Art serves almost as a history book for the sentiments felt during a time period. Miranda’s comics parallel the deterioration of society as it transforms from a period of stability to one of unsteadiness. Perhaps the last noted piece of art before the collapse, the production of King Lear, depicts an unplanned fall of the King. The death of Arthur Leander, a man of power and wealth, quite literally encompasses this idea of a deteriorating system. The caste system has fallen; the known has collapsed. If we were to look back at these pieces of art, we would be able to understand the emotions and the mindset of the time during the collapse.
The value art holds is so far beyond what we can describe or even put in words. A piece of art is an artifact of the past.
Art, in several forms, can be considered a controversial topic in many ways, including the value it has, with many arguing if it has an assigned value or an inherent value.
I would like to suggest the possibility that art derives its value from its mere perception, which the very acknowledgment of its existence and the emotions it can inspire in others gives it meaning. That a play only has value if it can be performed and a symphony only has value if it can be heard.
Though some may say that having artificially imbued rather than inherently owned might cheapen the existence of art, others could argue that the enjoyment from an audience gives it a sense of value beyond most material goods.
I think art becomes art because so many people see messages and reason and beauty in it. If only a few people saw something fascinating in a painting or a novel, then that novel or painting would not become eternally known as “good art”. Of course it would be art to the few that do see it as such, but for something to really be seen as art it has to catch the eye of the majority of the population.
Of course, time is a factor as well. When the art comes out to the world, it may only be appreciated by a small group. However, over time that group may grow to become many, many people. In that case, though it is appreciated from the beginning, it does not become art until the group becomes large enough to spread the art to everyone else who is less enlightened.
As the book quotes from Star Trek, “Survival is insufficient.” Going along with an everyday life, going through the motions that you’re expected to perform is only surviving. Art gives you something to live for, whether it’s music, paintings, sculptures, or any other number of things. It’s more than a break from a monotonous day, art evokes feeling. We get reasons to live from music, from literature, we can find out our values from the stories of others. Art captures our history in a way no textbook or class can, it demands our attention and gives us rewards beyond measure. Art touches our souls, impacts our lives as much as, or even more than any human on the planet. Sure it can take awhile to get recognized, but no matter what era you’re in, there will be something to connect to. Something to live for. Art doesn’t give enlightenment, it doesn’t cure ailments, and it certainly can’t stop a war. It can, however, be a force for change, a living, ever changing memory and history of our species, and our world. Art, is our hope.
In order to determine the value of art, I think it is necessary to define art as a form of communication. Like any form of communication, art’s value is twofold: First, it has inherent value in that it is an expression by the artist. This person is trying to convey some sort of message or emotion through that art. Station Eleven tells us that “Hell is the absence of the people you long for,” which is precisely why art has an inherent value: art is communication, therefore life without art is a life of isolation.
In addition, art’s value is also found in its interpretation by its audience, although I wouldn’t necessarily call this interaction “artificial”. A good example from the novel of how someone’s interpretation can decide the value of a piece of art is the Dr. Eleven comics. These comics are much more valuable to Kirsten than they ever were to Arthur. For Kirsten, they serve as an important connection to the world and her life before the flu, whereas Arthur sees them more as a painful reminder of his regrets and past mistakes. However, no matter who is interpreting the comics, they do hold some value as art because they allowed Miranda to express her desire to escape from the situations that she found herself in.
As so many things, the value of art exists as contextual. To discuss the value of an object or concept, such as art, one must define the contents of its application. For example, if I speak of art as a direct tool of application, rather than one of inspiration through novel discovery, then I may safely categorize art as absent of value in this case. Make no mistake, however; the value of art is not subjective, and further there exists no metaphysical jargon necessary when speaking of its benefits, as they appear in reality.
Unlike a shovel, axe, or drill, art will never lend itself toward direct physical use, but it rather serves as a communicatory tool; specifically a representation of abstract ideas. Despite its seeming lack of practicality in everyday human life outside of the Platonic argument for its provision of “purpose” and “fulfillment,” art assuredly possesses tangible benefit to both the individual and society and in fact demonstrates an ability that far exceeds that of a hoe, for example.
Just as the pen is mightier than the sword, in the same fashion, art supersedes the primitive factors present within the human condition; specifically, just as the sword represents war and struggle, the inverse of art manifests as primal, basal, and stagnant. In many ways, art births itself from the mental complexity of the mind, and it further stretches the limits of human creativity and imagination. Just as the brain must be protected by the thick bone structure of the skull, so must art be protected by the security and stability of human society.
Throughout Station Eleven, particularly in the beginning chapters, the book references art so as to portray the fragility of such a concept, rather than its intrinsic value. In Chapter 1, Arthur Leander dies from a heart attack, brought on by exhaustion and dehydration from his unrelenting dedication to the play of King Lear. Ironically, his dedication to the play not only leads to his own death, but to the cessation of the play itself, which may allude to art as a double-edged sword. Similarly, the book contrasts art alongside technology as interwoven yet inevitably incompatible phenomena.
By the third chapter, Dr. Hua notifies Jeevan of the epidemic brought to the country via plane. The plane symbolizes the epitome of human technological advancement, which serves to bring about the near-destruction of civilization, and by extension, most of the arts. Further, Emily Mandel goes on to display the post-apocalyptic scene of the world as devoid of advanced technology but still with art, so she may in fact believe art to be a far more valuable display of human ingenuity.
Although it is the night before orientation, there is still time for me to add my two cents, right? 🙂
As I returned to some of the passages in the novel that were influential to me, I realized that everything seems to connect back to value.
The way I see it, humans grant value to whatever seems fit. Depending on the individual, any given aspect of life could have any range of importance. It is not difficult to see this in daily life. For example, some people place heavy value on formal religion while others see the same institution as totally void of value. Individuals find power in defining what “matters.” Humans as a population, as seen in the novel, feel a sense of invincibility because humans have the ability to make anything something. In other words, the ability to make something meaningful (give value to art, culture, sports, guinea pigs, or tacos) makes the human race powerful.
Looping back to the novel, the characters are faced with a situation in which the human race has lost most control. Life as they knew it crumbled under an uncontrollable circumstance. This is especially devastating because it seems that humans hold so much power, it is difficult to cope with the reality that some things are still out of the realm of human power. Art is given value and kept alive by a group of people that are yearning for a way to regain power over something– anything. One way for the troupe of artists to regain power is to determine that art is valuable enough to hold onto even when everything is in ruins around them. In no way am I trying to suggest that this yearning for power is negative, but perhaps it is simply a piece of human nature. Art is valuable… in fact I believe anything is valuable because the idea that humans create value is rather empowering, and that’s important. (At least it is to me, so here I go granting value to the notion that humans hold the power to create a world that cherishes only what humans see fit to cherish, values what it sees fit to value, etc.) So essentially, the ability to give anything value makes the human race powerful. Art is valuable if people choose to make it valuable, but just because one person sees it as fit to value does not mean that it is inherently valuable.
I totally agree with this! By the way, this is really well-written.
One thing that stood out to me was this line: “I believe anything is valuable because the idea that humans create value is rather empowering, and that’s important.” I do see the importance of humans putting value into their work is important. It makes us feel satisfied feeling like we have a life purpose being supporting ourselves and families financially and physically. I remember reading Frankenstein by Mary Shelley, and the monster evolved from a basic being to an enthusiastic learner, observing its surrounding world and humans. It was the act of knowing and completely immersing oneself open-mindedly into the liberal art subjects which filled the monster with joy. This can relate well to the survivors in this book, who seek to relearn about the world among the sadness and loss. Ultimately to me, human creations (in this case, art and theater) is physical proof of humans yearning to do more, be more, feel more than they were made to be. Hope this was said in a way that could be understood!