Norma DeFilippo

AMT 254
In-Class Essay
21, October 2014
The Value of Art
The idea of art is something that philosophers have spent hundreds of years trying
to get a strong understanding of. It is one of those topics where those involved cannot
seem to find one fluid answer to the question What is the value of art? Through personal
understanding and growth, I have to come into that question many times. Reading various
philosophers beliefs, it seems clear to me that the value of art stems from the joined
experiences from the creator and the perceiver and the new ones created from the said
connection between the piece and the people. Men such as Tolstoy and Gadamer have
told time and time again the principle values in art rely on the pure human interactions
that take place, and the importance of art in everyones life. Gordan Graham interprets
some of their works along with others to better articulate this sense of urgency to have art
and all of its forms to be experienced and expressed to all peoples. However, there are
those who do not necessarily agree. Plato, one of the first philosophers, believed art was
nothing more than a mere copy of the real world and was not necessary part of mans
growth. The value of art is not only important, but also essential for human development
and is based on the principle belief of pleasure in both the expression and experience of
creating/viewing of a piece.
One of the first to create a belief was Tolstoy, a man who based many of his
principles on the idea that art refined all men. He did not agree with other philosophers
before and during his time that art was not a necessity for all people. Tolstoy believed that
art was what separated man from savage beasts, that in order to define art, it is

necessary, (Tolstoy, What Is Art?, 38). Art is not just a physical thing that one can look
at, but it resonates in the shared experiences that happen between different men. The idea
that not everyone needs to think and feel the same thing when they see the same piece is
what helps make the piece what it is. To Tolstoy, to evoke in oneself a feeling one has
once experienced, and having evoked it in oneself, then, by means of movements, lines,
colours, sounds or forms expressed in words, so to transmit that feeling that other may
experiences same feeling -this is the activity of art (WIA?, 40). If one cannot feel
anything while creating or observing a certain piece, then that person is nothing more
than a beast. There needs to be something felt in the entire process of the piece. Whether
a painting or a play, from the beginning of creating the work to when an audience finally
views it, there needs to be passion, emotion and a connection from the creator and the
perceiver. The value of art, in Tolstoys opinion, relies on the ability to express and feel
emotion. Simply speaking, without emotion, there is no art.
Similarly to Tolstoys ideas of the importance of art, another philosopher names
Gadamer saw the importance of having art and the idea of play as important parts of
human development. To Gadamer, play was just as important as work; he saw it as a
healthy balance to help keep humanity pieced together. Work was a structured and secure
set of rules that helps people get from A to B. Though important, it is not the only the
important part of learning. The freeing ideas stemming from play allow people to use
imagination and no boundaries to create art and free ones self from the rigidness of
work. Being able to visibly express what someone is feeling is an important part of play
to Gadamer. In his eyes, Gadamer believed that The experience of the work of art
always fundamentally surpasses any interpretation, whether that of the artist or of the

recipient, (Gadamer, Essay 9 Truth and Method, 91). You do not need to accurately
interpret the piece, but you need to at least the experiences the artist had to create the
piece and compare those experiences to your own to create a whole new experience for
all involved. Gadamer also discusses how art does not diminish the world, but can
enhance peoples view and connect people from all over into one singular idea. He shows
that the advantage of art over natural beauty is that the language of artspeaks to us in
a significant and definite way. And the wonderful and mysterious thing about art is that
this definiteness is by no means a getter for our mind, but in fact opens up room for play,
for the free play of our cognitive faculties, (Essay 9 Truth and Method, 95). Gadamers
ideals are ones that I hold to strongly because his beliefs show that anyone can play and
therefore have the possibility to experience art in the fullest way possible. Without art,
there may be no way to accurately connect people from all over world.
Connecting all of these ideas together was Graham, a man who tried to show the
value of art through the interpretation of other philosophers. He believed that art was an
experience unto itself and saw that everyone needs to be a part of it. In chapter four of his
book, Philosophy of the Arts, Graham highlights two philosophers in particular: Hegel
and Goodman. He quotes Goodman, saying the arts must be taken no less seriously than
the sciences as modes of discovery, creation, and enlargement of knowledge (Goodman
1968: 102.) He agrees with this idea that art is not second to reasoning or theoretical
thinking in the sciences. They are two equal groups that are necessary for a full
understanding of life. He goes on to interpret Goodman through the ideas of
understanding works of art and the importance of the message tells. He believes if art is
genuinely to enhance understanding it must do more than merely assert in the way

propaganda does. Like the other modes of knowledge and inquiry history, science,
philosophy it must secure belief through reflective understanding, (Graham, PoA, 55).
There needs to be more than just a message or a specific expression in mind when
creating and interpreting the piece. Graham believes that there needs to be this idea of
reflective understanding, or the ability for multiple people to see something and discuss
openly. Grahams ideas help show that art is not something that can be planned or taken
too seriously, otherwise the artist loses something in translation, causing the piece to no
longer be art. The value of art lies within the expression needed to create a working piece.
Unlike the men mentioned above, there have been many that believed art was
either for only the elite or eradicated all together. One of the greats, Plato, believed that
art was nothing more than an imitation of what was already there: nature. People should
have to look firsthand at the world, not just at a picture. Plato disagreed with the growing
arts because he felt as thought it was just one mans interpretation of the world; people
needed to make their own opinions of what they see, not just the experience of someone
elses views. He did not enjoy the fact that the plays being performed were only putting
the gods to blame for mans mistakes. Plato wanted people to hold themselves
accountable for their own fate and decisions. There was too much emotion characterized
through tragic tales and poems and Plato worried that this emotion would cause people to
act based on those feelings alone, without logically thinking and reflecting for
themselves. Plato was a man who had a utopian world in his mind that did not include
any form of art that he was constantly surrounded by. In his world, there were more
discussions than plays, showing the importance of mans influence over one another, not
the gods. He wanted to remove painting and sculpting for it was trying to copy and

perfect what nature had already perfect in its own way. He saw no need for art to remain
in society. Though I do no agree in any sense of his beliefs, it is interesting to see just
how he was able to interpret the value of art as something so unimportant that there was
no need for it at all.
The ideas presented in this paper are ones that may change within any number of
years. Its impossible to pinpoint exactly the value of art because of the simple fact that
everyone will have a different opinion. With new ideas forming every day of what art is
and its value within society is never an east subject to discuss. Opinions of those like
Graham, who view the world as a place for every to experience and create or Platos, who
that imitation was not the most sincerest form of flattery to the world around him. My
beliefs lie within the idea that art was created for everyone. The value of art is based on
pleasure or even a lack of pleasure. You dont have to enjoy the piece you see, but the fact
that you felt something proves the importance of art in my eyes. Whether you agree with
the ideas of those like Gadamer and Graham, or even those of Platos, its important to
see that art and its value is one topic that has not and will probably never reach a full and
final concluding thought.