A Minor Inquiry

What is the purpose of art?

Title: A Minor Inquiry: A Struggle between Art as Critical Reflection or Entertainment Purposes


It is rather easy to dismantle by formally asserting that it can be both— that art can serve as a critical reflection and/or for entertainment purposes; however, I conceive of such matter as two table room matter discussion— to which we may explore later.


Upon reading "Sex in the Movies" by Alexander Walker— though, not its entirety or even finishing the first chapter— a promising start can be made:

"Some years later she confessed, ‘Never have I liked being a vampire and never, of course, have I believed there was any “such animal”, but since the public did and liked to see me as one, I agreed to become one. Naturally all sorts of wild rumours and weird stories about me sprang up and naturally the company exploited my . . . vampishness.'""
- Alexander Walker


The specific excerpt is subjected/grounded on the discussion of films/movies; although, a fundamental relation or link can be perceived on industrial level: If art is for serving entertainment purposes, how then do we treat the actors/actresses behind?— or even, do we consider and see the subjective feeling behind the person, not labelled as an actor/actress? If the public love the portrayal of the character acted by the actor/actress, does the glimpse idea of wrestling with the actual person's feelings about the character even exist? Purposes and motives of the actor/actress is vital, whether it be the desire for publicity or financial reasons to survive such period of depression or true desire to be on stage/act. It would be undeniable so, under audience's perspective, to not ponder on the motives behind of the actor/actress— they just are. We see ourselves laugh, cry, or mourn at the scene, but how come we do? In essence, there is a source of some critical elements on why the director and team successfully do so— and this line of inquiry births the critical reflection in any forms of art: Who are we as an audience?— do we really love the transaction between "audience-director"? The arousal of art as critical reflection then begins.


"But his mocking and cynical illustrations of corruption were, by their very nature, hard for the middle-class American moviegoers to reproduce in their own homes and emulate in their daily life. For lessons in sexual pleasures and marital comforts, they turned rather to de Mille."
- Alexander Walker

Beyond the subject ground in film, the first sentence reveals that the other director (Erich von Stroheim) produced a daring front of reality, to which is "hard to reproduce" or "emulate"— if not incorporate or relate to— by the American moviegoers; the inevitable result is to turn into the other director (Cecil B. DeMille) that lend/produced a desirable film, which the audience love/desired. In consideration of such transaction, art is a projection to attain the unattained desires or fantasies (relationship of audience-director) rather than a communication of art's purpose— or intellectual purpose. This is where "two table room matter discussion" then exists. Suppose that in a room, there are two tables and in each table is occupied by two people; on table one, one individual is thoroughly charming and entertaining and the individual before them is wonderfully enjoying the company the individual is providing; on table two, both individuals are discussing what style and form of entertaining and charm the individual in table one is employing to the individual before them. In this two-table-room-matter, it cannot be denied— unless by forceful engagement— the natural inclination to gravitate towards table one and potentially sit with them. On such consideration, if we were to be in table one, the forbidden message is that seriousness and depth kills atmosphere; on the other hand, a critical message is that it offers complacency— we should not question whether the person is sociopath, psychopath, or a narcissist, as long as we enjoy their presence and company. Meanwhile, the other table questions whether they are a sociopath, psychopath, or a narcissist, regardless of how enjoyable their presence is.


In any sort of matter— and as an ending— why do we offer our vulnerable neck to the vampire?— should we question why we even enjoy/entertain the idea of offering our neck?