The usefulness of art | The printing press

Whenever we are faced with an artistic object, we often ask ourselves why it is important enough to preserve it. We ask ourselves, implicitly, why art is useful and what is its function in current societies. Above all, when we see artistic objects that are incomprehensible and difficult to approach.

Since its inception, art in any of its styles has always had the symbol characteristic. This means that it has a universal meaning, that is, it is a signifier. Therefore, the importance of art has always been linked to meaning. For example, we can go back to prehistory and see that their artistic objects had a function of representing immaterial (God) or abstract (victory over animals) elements.

But, this has been mutating. If we take any significant object of Ancient Egypt, be it a bas-relief, a painting or a sculpture, we will notice that beyond certain aesthetic evidence (attempts to achieve verisimilitude), the importance of the object resided in its meaning. In Egypt, art represented the essentiality of things, regardless of the method of representation.

Changes in the utility of art have mutated according to temporal and contextual needs, depending on societies. If in Egypt it served as a representation of the essential, in Greece of the ideal, in Rome of the glorious and in the Middle Ages it became a method of communication for those who could not read. Art no longer only serves to represent something immaterial, but also serves to show an essence, something beautiful, but also communicative. The artistic object ceases to be a ritual object, to be an object of veneration or contemplation. For some, beauty; for others, religious ideals.

For a couple of decades, we have been dealing with art objects that are increasingly complex both technically and intellectually. The irruption of conceptual art forever changed the artistic system, as many pieces have become cryptic and difficult to decode. This lack of understanding between the artist and the observer has caused us to question the usefulness of art at this point in the game.

Art in any of its expressions remains relevant. But, for this statement to be true, the objects must have the ability to communicate. Art cannot exist for the sake of existing, but is due to a greater reason. An object that pretends to be a work of art cannot remain halfway, it has to offer something, belong to a context and provoke reflection in the observer; since art is due to the observer, not the artist. If an object is not capable of provoking in the same way that objects of the past did, it is normal for the public to debate the usefulness of art.

In short, it must be clarified that, despite the changes in artistic semiotics, communicative and successful artistic objects continue to be relevant and therefore art continues to be useful. Well, a good work of art is still a representation of something immaterial, something essential and something worth looking at. I believe that for an object to be useful, it must be more than just a representation of the world; It must offer and make you reflect.

Art must show the identity of the context, the importance of time and current values ​​and that means that, if the link between the work and the observer is achieved, the object becomes relevant and, therefore, becomes useful.