Why is Art Important?

3 minutes and 46 seconds into the "Bad and Boujee" music video, there exist 4 golden seconds that stand as a pillar of humanity. Audiophiles and casual listeners that had been fidgeting in their seats now sit erect with eyes closed and a hand pressed softly on their right headphone. 4 seconds. Someone in the world listens raptly to these words for the first time and whether they are a child in Somalia or a businessman in Switzerland, they can't help but feel that all artistic endeavours in history have been for naught as nothing has had the penetrating impact that these 4 seconds have. 4 seconds. At every church there's always at least one boy who scrambles furiously up the steps, ready to beg the pastor that the masterful artist Lil Uzi Vert be canonized as a saint with his every word added to the new Uziment section of the Bible. 4 seconds.


I say this only somewhat sarcastically. To many, the 4 seconds of "yah's" serve as a ridiculous introduction to Lil Uzi Vert's actual verse. There's nothing intrinsically artistic in this line to command that we look at it beyond its comedic effect. It's most likely going to be the only memorable part of a mediocre verse due to its sudden and bizarre position in the song itself. Yet, it's just as possible that anyone else can appreciate its deliberate inclusion in the song. Perhaps the line's indicative of how tiring the lifestyle of a hood thug really is. Similar to how Kendrick Lamar utilizes his often poetic lyrics, Uzi could be deconstructing the format of the song, wishing to convey his message through his raw ad-libs. Or maybe his intention was setting an atmosphere in which listeners could slip into his world of violence, sex, and money. Though these interpretations definitely aren't what Uzi intended, does this mean that they aren't valid?

I chose this line in particular because I feel that it highlights something about our perspectives. More often that not, we tend to relegate different media to varying degrees of art. Our interaction with popular media in particular will always be colored by impressions and expectations that we adopt. Take for example the series that seems to pervade through pop culture at the moment, Game of Thrones. The title alone is a loaded baggage: by just saying it, there's already an image in your head based around your interactions with the culture of the show and the show itself. With a 9.5 on imdb, it's likely that you've already heard about how it's a must-watch. Maybe you've seen the billboards or other ads that continually remind you of its existence. With all this in mind, it's impossible for you to watch the series on your own terms. There are many who will load up the first episode out of obligation because it happens to be the hot "thing" as of right now; even if they don't necessarily like what they see, they may just force themselves to watch the entire thing (maybe there's a certain part where it'll click with me). If they choose not to watch it, there's the risk of being left out of the conversation. In the worst case scenario, people will indirectly make you feel embarrassed that you managed to not see the show yet ("Wow, I can't believe you haven't watched it yet!"), as if the show and other media like it demand that you carve time out of your schedule. In a way, people indirectly push their experience with media onto you when they recommend it, believing that the person they recommend it to will have a similar, positive experience. This also has an adverse effect of pushing people into the minority of people who watched the show but didn't like it as much. In the end, there's a conflict between the fans, the contrarians, and the newcomers. And in that sense, it becomes impossible to separate the art from the culture.

To put this more generally, a person's taste in art is defined by several factors such as their nature, their environment, and their socioeconomic status among other things. Since art can emerge from any creation, accidental or purposeful, every work of art adopts a unique and personal value from every individual. Whether someone chooses to recognize something as art is also illustrative of how each person can have their own definitions and standards for what constitutes as art. When I mentioned before that society gravitates towards labeling different media with different degrees of art, the discussion tends to favor talking about those media that are at least recognized as an art form. If I talked about the artistry behind a clipboard and how I had undergone a deep and profound experience by interacting with it, at most I would get weird looks. If I go for a more conventional topic such as the beauty of a car, I would at least get recognition that what I am talking about is a worthy craft of art that is recognized or at least respected by most people. Moreover, there seems to be a distinction between high and low art in any medium. Critics and audiences alike will laud the masterfully crafted works of Stanley Kubrick and dismiss the crasser works of Michael Bay. It's definitely something that is the case for a reason, highly crafted pieces of art generally have more polish and emotional resonance than lower art. Yet at the same time, it's possible to form a deeper emotional bond with the "Transformers" than "A Clockwork Orange". However, as society continues to control the roles that certain pieces of art are meant to play, it becomes harder to admit to other people and to yourself that a seemingly "illegitimate" piece of art moved you more than it should have.

This forms what I believe to be art's true purpose: identity. The general nature of a person's character can be identified simply by looking at their posters, stuffed animals, and furniture. And often, someone's notion of art can reveal more depth than just their actions. Whether or not people consciously reflect on it, the art that they subconsciously enjoy the most speaks volumes about how they define themselves. To this end, art subtly reveals a person's values and may also create new ones. When people talk about how their tastes in art change as they grow up, it also necessarily means that their very identity changes; it's an amalgamation of personal growth and societal growth that result in casting a critical eye on one's previous tastes. And it's because we put so much emotional investment in what is essentially reflections of ourselves that we defend these works of art, at least to ourselves. Art is fundamentally and undeniably human, for if it were not, it would cease to have value. When people talk about how their interactions with art made them cry or laugh, they form emotional connections to these works and also with other people who may have had similar experiences. And the process of creating these emotional bonds is what I think is the process of defining one's self by cultivating the art that speaks to them. It's a process of self-discovery that lets one grow with respect to the world.

p.s: if u r new to this blog, pls dont read the old posts