[punktopia]

By art I do of course mean everything normally considered artistic: paintings, music, novels, films etc.

Does art have a duty to challenge? Should artists express themselves primarily? Is art that aims merely to entertain or distract inexcusable? To what extent is art manipulated by non-creative forces (given that to publish the products of your creativity you must enter into a complex system-within-the-system in which decisions will be made by non-artistic people)?

Could humans exist without art and still be human?

[Shelly from London]

I'll give a proper answer at some point, but what comes to mind right now is..

humans cannot exsist without art in the same way a civilisation cannot exsist without a culture.. and while of course humanity's culture has become more complexed (and subdivided) over thousands of years, creative self-expression is the result of a human mind, whether that expression be through design, music, story-telling...etc
I suppose that argues the 'non-creative forces' point, given than no person is 'non-artistic', just perhaps to a lesser degree.

[punktopia]

Probably should've posted this when "normal" people were awake.

[Shelly from London]

yes...

[punktopia]

Originally Posted by Shelly from London

I'll give a proper answer at some point, but what comes to mind right now is..

humans cannot exsist without art in the same way a civilisation cannot exsist without a culture.. and while of course humanity's culture has become more complexed (and subdivided) over thousands of years, creative self-expression is the result of a human mind, whether that expression be through design, music, story-telling...etc
I suppose that argues the 'non-creative forces' point, given than no person is 'non-artistic', just perhaps to a lesser degree.

Can art then be thought of as expressing an individual's mind or society's mind? I mean, can you even distinguish a single person's creativity from thousands of years of culture layered upon itself?