" The personal satisfaction of making art has contributed nothing to the happiness of the masses"?

This is a comment by Moholy - Nagy in the time of the Bauhaus. Do you agree ?

" The personal satisfaction of making art has contributed nothing to the happiness of the masses"?
In order to answer this properly we need to define 'happiness' in regards to the masses.





Consider this:





In virtually every home (at least in America and throughout Europe) there is some kind of artwork hanging on the walls. It may be K-Mart crapola, or Elvis on velvet or one of those 'original' paintings you can buy at the Red Top Inn, framed, for $39.00 or a Norman Rockwell print, but still it is art. So art must mean something to the masses, right? Why bother to hang, en mass, art on your walls if art does not somehow soothe you, make you think a little or provide some form of comfort? Aren't these reasons all forms of 'happiness'?





And a large part of the masses visit museums at one time or another. Many often. Why would they do so if doing so doesn't bring them some form of happiness?





And most people know the more famous paintings: like Mona Lisa, Starry Night, Night Hawks At The Dinner, etc.





Most of the masses have seen animated films and animation is art. Do they watch animated film because they hate it or because it brings them some form of happiness? The same applies to cartoons shows like The Simpsons and South Park.





Now consider this: It's highly unlikely that most artists would create art if it didn't bring them satisfaction and even more likely that the masses wouldn't have art hanging on their walls if artists weren't creating any.





Who knows why Nagy made such a comment? But I can only assume he was talking about architecture and not fine arts in general.





In any case, at least by today's standards, the comment is bogus.
Reply:I agree that most people do not find any happiness in the expressions of others. Why is that? If you look Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs most people still struggle with providing food and shelter. There is no time for fulfillment of the higher needs like esteem and self actualization.





We also must understand that the drive to create is in itself fulfilling to the artist. Many artist that I know create art even if there is no intention of trying to sell it. It is the creation process that is important not the end result.
Reply:Historically, only after the artist's death, do the masses recognize the artist had something valuable to share, these things take a long time, the masses are stubbornly sluggish


and unaware. But surely the purpose of 'making art.' is wholly a personal process? If it pleases the masses, it is an aside.





Those who have something to say and must be heard now, are called politicians.
Reply:One could assume it has - more people attend major art galleries around the world (even Australia!) than attend major sporting events. Sadly, for most people the built environment, and what's left of the natural where people live, is so ugly that their aesthetic sense is dulled. Yet still they flock to admire what they perceive as beautiful, or emotionally moving. And given half a chance people will always decorate their living space, and their gardens, by positioning focal points where they look best in relation to others. Humanity is an art-making and decorating species. Art keeps those instincts alive, perpetuates some standards (like the golden mean), satisfies them even in rejection, and reassures ordinary people that beauty and human emotions are still possible in a world driven by computers, penny-pinching "accountants", and instrumentalism.
Reply:1-The artist personal satisfaction when it exists, is one of the results of his work; it is not the reason that makes human creative.


Human need to create -----%26gt;creation------%26gt;satisfaction.





2-The contribution to the happiness of the masses:


A) Immediate. May be evident in the immediate reaction of people to the artistic creation


B) Not immediate. Is very difficult to quantify when the long term effects of art are considered.


For example art often precedes and influences intellectual thought which in turn precedes all progress. It even precedes philosophy which precedes science which precedes progress.


To the extend that progress causes happiness one can say that art has contributed to happiness.
Reply:Happiness of the masses is an acronyms .... The personal art of the artist ,is made to illicit different emotions , it can be .. peacefulness , hatred , joy .. etc. So art can not be held responsible for the masses feelings , it is " feel at your own risk ".
Reply:No. This an apples %26amp; oranges question.


What the creative person feels as their work evolves is indeed personal, but not always satisfaction. (Read "The Horse's mouth.") It is like a relationship, with ups %26amp; downs. Sometimes, the artist/painter signs the painting with reluctance %26amp; it's snatched up the next day. Love a painting %26amp; it hangs on the gallery wall for to weeks.


I believe that we all know that some art is intentionally created to "make a satement." The message is blatant.


Most of the artists I've known have painted whatever inspired them, not projected anything on anyone. Two dozen people can look at it %26amp; it will evoke two dozen subjective reponses.


Does this contribute to the "happiness" of the masses?


Nonsense.


Quote anyone one likes; the bottom line is simple. (From the artist's experience, %26amp; responses from the "masses.") Art critics have always loved to "intellectualize" art. Pro or con, knowing absolutely nothing of the artist. I don't believe my basic premise has changed over time, except in the perception of those who know nothing.
Reply:Art isn't just "therapeutic self expression", as this quote seems to imply. It's the attempt to uncover deeper truths about ourselves and our society that lie below the surface appearance of things and communicate those insights in the form of images.





My favourite art critic, David Walsh of wsws.org outlines excellent criteria for reconising an important work of art. He says it is one that reveals the following:





Seriousness about human affairs


Compassion and a kind of intellectual or moral rigor


It must move and delight


It must reveal something about social reality in an original and perhaps disturbing manner


More than mere beauty, it must have an incandescence to it. It must provide inspired moments at which the pettiness and routine of everyday life fall away and the reader is able to grasp in mind and body some grains of absolute truth about the human condition.





I agree with Walsh's contention that "this sort of art besides being beautiful and moving, contributes to the cause of social progress."





Think of Picasso's "Guernica", F Scott Fitzgerald's "Tender is the Night", Nabokov's "Lolita" or Philip Roth's "American Pastoral".





Could anyone come into contact with these works and not come away with a deep compassion for our poor battered species, some admiration for the scope of human resilience, and a certain outrage as to the circumstances so many of them are forced to endure?





And if it doesn't not always mollify or please, but rather disturbs and rouses (like Harriet Beecher Stowe's "Uncle Tom's Cabin", Gorky's "My Childhood" or films like Warren Beatty's "Bullworth", Janir Pahani's "The Circle" or Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 911", then that's good too.





Thinking about that last film: for all it's flaws, one of the great services it did for the "masses" was provide an opportunity for millions of people, in the US and throughout the world, to realise that they were not alone in opposing the invasion of Iraq.
Reply:The uncreative, and dogmatic condemn art out of jealousy.
Reply:Art does please the masses, otherwise no one would pay the artist. If this were the case, art would not be such a huge business today.





If an artist didn't enjoy creating art, there wouldn't be any art in the world today for anyone to enjoy.





In any case, this could lead on to the discussion - What exactly is considered art? How long is this discussion paper of yours???
Reply:looking at this statement in context of the modernist movement in architecture, you also have sayings like the famous "less is more" Mies Van Der Rohe


the "study of essentials" Gropius and "form follows function" i can't be sure but i think that's also Mies Van Der Rohe.





these guys were into bare basics of design, and attempted to remove the class barriers of architecture. i think what Moholy-Nagy is trying to say is that the joy and sense of accomplishment felt within the artist, sculptor, designer, during the production of a work, in the end means nothing to the rest of the world and does little to enhance the effect of the work.





i don't think i'd agree with this statement solely based on the fact that if you did not feel joy or accomplishment or pride, you would not design, sculpt or paint ever again meaning that the world would never benefit from any potential happiness, as it cannot benefit from something that has never been created.
Reply:It's probably more true than the average artist would care to admit.





Doug
Reply:I think the masses don't spend a deal of time making art (or any other form of self-expression) and that is why the masses are just so thoroughly and completely pissed off.





I write a little fiction and haiku's and so I'm slightly less suicidal.
Reply:I think art influences everyone, not just the artist.