|
We do value art. But do we have good reasons for doing so? One reason would be that we enjoy it. Presumably, we generally know whether we enjoy things, so we know pretty well whether art has that kind of value, though of course the value that art has, in this sense, for me may not be a value it has for you.
People have claimed that art has a different, higher value. This higher value is, people says, one that justifies us in saying that people ought to experience art. What sort of higher value could that be?
What is it about art that must make us morally better (under the right circumstances?).
Perhaps the answer differs depending on what sort of art we are talking about: music, literature, painting, or some other kind. Take literature. Perhaps very vivid and lifelike representations of people and their thinking and feeling, their situations and problems, helps us make better, wiser decisions ourselves. This has been claimed on behalf of the “great literature” of Shakespeare and others.
Is it true? Again, I don’t think any serious studies have been done. Also, here is some reason to think that a lot of great literature just is wrong in its representation of human beings. Many enduring plays and novels depend for their appeal on the idea of character—people have different characters, and their character’s shape their decisions and actions. Social psychologists have generally failed to find strong evidence for this; they find stronger evidence that people’s decisions are determined by their situations. We like stories about people with distinctive characters, but such stories may not be very realistic.
But my main point is that we need good evidence before we ought to believe that art has any kind of value other than the value of creating enjoyment.
Gregory Currie is a Professor of Philosophy at the University of Nottingham |