What's the utility of arts? 10 functions of artistic creation

One of the star questions about artistic creation is "What is art?". The question has been formulated over and over again, especially now that postmodernity has established that any object can be considered a work of art. But there is another no less important question, and that derives from the first: "What's the utility of arts?".

In this article we will try to answer this last question. We present you 10 of the functions of artistic creation.

What's the utility of arts?

Defining what art is is complicated, since each culture, each community and even each individual has a different concept about it. However, we do find an essential issue: art is an exclusively human expression and transmits the values, ideas and beliefs of a community or a person.

With this settled, let's move on to the next question. What's the utility of arts? Below, you will find 10 basic functions of artistic expression, explained in detail.

1. It is a vehicle of expression

This function is possibly the best known: art serves

to express ideas, beliefs, emotions, thoughts. In fact, there is no culture in the world or in history that does not have its own artistic expression. Art is, therefore, the basic foundation for the cultural construction of the group.

Since the human being exists, we find testimonies of his artistic expression. Lately, the possibility has even been considered that our closest relatives, the Neanderthals, were also capable of creating art. Controversies aside, what is very clear is that art is inseparable from humanity.

Art as expression can occur at a collective or individual level. A group artistic creation is not the same, such as the Romanesque theotokos virgins (that is, the representations of Mary as mother of God), which express the religious feeling of a community, which the personal expression of a only artist. Although we find individual feelings throughout the history of art, it is not until the arrival of contemporaneity that we can speak of an artistic expression strictly individual.

For example; both Rafael Sanzio (1483-1520) and Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519) lived together in time and artistically shared aspects of the Italian Cinquecento; however, it cannot be denied that the work of one and the other differ considerably. Each one of them has impregnated their creations with his own personal stamp.

At present, however, singularity prevails above all, faithful expression of the individualistic society in which we live. Therefore, and despite the fact that there are some (and diffuse) currents, we do not find in art contemporary defined stylistic characteristics, as if they could be those of the aforementioned Cinquecento Italian. Contemporary artists, then, express their personal way of feeling, without linking it (in principle) to any collective expression. Of course, this is a generalization and, as always, each case must be studied in detail. What is clear is that one of the main functions of art is to be a vehicle of expression, both for the artist personally and for the community in which he is registered.

• Related article: "What are the 7 Fine Arts?"

2. Strengthens identity and bond to the group

Closely related to the previous This second function of art implies the integration, through artistic creation, to a collective. If we have previously affirmed that art is a vehicle through which a group or culture expresses its beliefs, then art will also represent a reinforcer of that cultural identity.

For example; if I am a western person, I will feel little or nothing identified with a Japanese print. I may like it, of course, and I may even feel a true passion for this type of art, but at no time will I feel “at home”. However, if I look at a baroque Madonna, it is very likely that I feel close to her, even when she is not a Catholic person. Because? Because since I was little I have seen images like that, whether in books, documentaries, museums or churches. The image thus becomes a reinforcer of my Western identity.

If I am a Westerner, but of German origin, it will be more difficult for me to identify with the aforementioned Madonna, since my Lutheran culture differs considerably from Counter-Reformation imagery, of which the Baroque Madonna is representation. Thus, we see how art and identity are linked, and how through artistic creation we can feel (or not) we belong to the group.

3. Arouse emotions and invite change

Artistic creation is an extraordinary way of shaking the viewer and mobilizing their emotions.. And, be careful, because these can be pleasant or not so much. In other words, art also serves to awaken in us what "is not quite right" and which, more than likely, we should examine. In other words: art helps to know oneself.

• You may be interested in: "Is there an art objectively better than another?"

4. It is a complaint vehicle

Throughout the history of art we have verified that artistic creation can be a very suitable way to denounce a reality. We have plenty of examples in this regard, especially the closest ones in time.

Thus, the avant-garde of the early 20th century had as (almost) the only objective social denunciation. Movements such as German Expressionism, Surrealism and, especially, Dadaism, were vehicles through which the disenchanted artists protested against a world wounded by the Big war. And in the more recent past, we find many other examples, either in urban art (graffiti, for example, is started as social denunciation), or the modern “artivists”, who use art to protest against the politics and society of consumption.

5. It is a propaganda vehicle

But be careful, because art can also serve to exercise the ideological propaganda of a certain group. A very clear example can be found in Soviet poster art, whose ultimate objective was to convey to the masses a distorted and duly reconstructed image of the regime. The same thing happened with Franco's propaganda in Spain and, of course, with Hitler's in Nazi Germany.

But it is not necessary to go to the totalitarian imagery of the 20th century to find art as propaganda. If we travel back to the 16th century, we will see that the portraits of kings and emperors were carefully designed to convey to the viewer a specific idea of ​​monarchy. The same happened with the Roman emperors, and also with the figure of Napoleon. In Les Invalides in Paris, a colossal and enormous building erected as a pantheon of the Grand Corso, we find a profusion of reliefs that represent Napoleon as a new Zeus and as Caesar of the French. Can it be said, then, that Les Invalides in Paris is a propaganda vehicle? Yeah.

And even if we focus on our current era, wherever we look, we will find vestiges of propaganda in any artistic manifestation. Up to a point it is natural; at the moment in which art serves as expression, it is inevitable that this entails a minimum of “publicity” on the part of the issuer. But we must be very careful, because from the natural expression of an idea to ideological propaganda there is only a small step. Not everything was going to be pretty in art, of course.

• Related article: "The 5 differences between advertising and propaganda"

6. He is a creator of beauty

Yeah; most of the time, art is, quite simply, a creator of beauty. Nothing else. In any artistic manifestation we find an aesthetic ideal that you want to convey.

There are few exceptions (for example, the Dada movement, which was, in fact, a denial of art and beauty as such). Thus, a Venus by Praxiteles is manifesting the ideal of feminine beauty of a culture, which was based, above all, on devotion to the human body. A Romanesque fresco, on the contrary, will refer us to the beauty of ideas beyond the beauty of the form. A 15th century Flemish painting will convey to us the love for detail and meticulousness, just as a Gothic altarpiece will tell us about the beauty of colors and the belief that God is light. A sculpture by Michelangelo refers us to the cult of anatomical perfection... and so on with a long etcetera.

Although, as we have already made clear, every artistic manifestation has its ideal of beauty, there are movements that reinforce this idea and include the concept of "art for art's sake". Thus, for example, the 19th century aesthetic movement, which divided into various currents such as symbolism and decadence, advocated that the only purpose of art was the expression of the beauty. Just like that.

• You may be interested in: "Canons of beauty: what are they and how do they influence society?"

7. It is a representation of reality

Art is often a frozen piece of reality. If in today's world we are grateful to contemplate the painting of a landscape or a face, let us imagine for a moment what this sensation was like when photography did not exist. So, the only way to capture reality was art. And it was not only a matter of capturing a beautiful landscape, but of collecting the features of a loved one, for example. A loved one who would disappear with death, but who would continue to be with us through his portrait.

This representation of reality, however, deals with both aspects: the "beautiful" and the "ugly". Because reality is not always beautiful. This is so, and artists know it. Thus, if an artist represents the exact moment of a murder, when the knife plunges into the flesh, he will be representing reality, of course; but a harsh and gloomy reality that nobody wants to remember.

8. It has a didactic function

Of course, art also serves to teach. We find it profusely in religious representations, where biblical scenes and the lives of saints appear, but also in school manuals, where the drawings often help the boy or girl understand the lesson. Without going any further, until recently history books were illustrated with pictures by historicist painters, who painted scenes from history and were very useful for students to understand a particular passage from the past (although often these paintings had a huge subjective component, if not propaganda).

With the didactic function, the same care must be taken as with the propaganda function. Because, as often happens, there is a step from teaching to indoctrination, and it is not always easy to realize it.

9. art as therapy

In recent years, the so-called “art therapy” has become popular, which consists of using artistic creation to treat psychological disorders or simply achieve greater emotional well-being. The art therapy It is also an important tool to develop a greater degree of expressiveness in the individual, which helps him to unlock fears and inhibitions.

As such, this activity is not intended to create works of art, but rather is about simply to provide the person with a vehicle of expression that allows them to improve their quality of life. The benefits of this therapy are becoming increasingly clear, especially in children and people with cognitive difficulties.

10. Art as a human need

This last point is, in a certain way, a summary of all the previous ones. Because art is, quite simply, a human need. There is no human being who does not need to create. It is something that we carry intrinsically and that is part of our humanity; we see it in the small child who picks up a felt-tip pen and scribbles on a piece of paper and in the old person who weaves borders on a quilt. Because art is one of the few things that is exclusively human, and we cannot do without it.