Extract
[...] In fact, it draws, according to him, the great stages of the self-awareness of the Universal Spirit. Art and works of art therefore have a sense, a scope, a purpose, a deeper utility. To conclude, while some artists make art for the sake of art and others are unable to convey things through works of art, one can say that the work of art is useless. However, it is necessary to go beyond this observation by redefining the utilitarian criterion to say that art opens the mind, it allows sharing. [...]
[...] In itself, in fact, the work of art does not bring us anything material. On the contrary, it is necessary to spend money, to impoverish oneself to find a book, a sculpture etc. However, the work of art is useful in its own way. It is necessary to no longer take into account the materialism when we delve into utilitarianism. Every work of art, whatever it is, tends to make sense. It is in this way that, according to the philosopher Merleau Ponty, the work of art does not have as its essential object the figurative and pleasant representation of a scene. [...]
[...] The work of art opposes the technical object which is natural and refers to the concept homo faber. From this last concept also derive the notions of knowledge, brain, memory and perception. We deviate from the vital necessity of using words. The work of art is useless for various reasons: first, we make art for the sake of art second, works of art do not always provide us with ultimate emotions For these reasons, it would then be advisable to re-define the criterion of usefulness L'art pour l'art At first glance, the work of art is useless because artists make art for the sake of art. [...]
[...] Art refers to technical craftsmanship. The fine arts that approach it, designate the techniques that allow for the production of beautiful works. We then think of sculptures, music, or paintings. For what reasons can we then assert that a work of art is useless ? To be interested in the usefulness of a work of art is to lean towards the purposes of art but it is also to make us see what we do not naturally perceive. It is a matter of showing as well in nature as in the mind what is outside of us and in us. [...]
[...] Além disso, nem todas as obras de arte são necessariamente belas, de modo que existe uma estética do feio. A arte não tem utilidade direta, não existe nenhuma relação utilitária com a arte. Na verdade, a arte não permite se nutrir, não permite consumir, comprar necessidades ou satisfazer necessidades primárias. Embora, em alguns casos, os artistas vivam da venda de suas obras de arte. Towards a re-definition of the utilitarian criterion The connection, the correlation between the criterion of utility on the one hand and that of art on the other hand is ambiguous. [...]
