I hate art

I listened to a radio show about art, modern art, their definitions and their public perceptions. It started with experts in studio ostracizing some journalist who earlier that week admitted to not understanding modern art. Then they went on to wagging their figurative finger at the general public who stubbornly appreciates the wrong kind of art. The message of the show was the following:
People wrongly assume that

•  for something to be called art, it must involve a great deal of skill or effort
• art has something to do with beauty and creating things that you would want to look at, listen to, watch, etc.

when in fact

• the purpose of art is to 'ask important questions'
• pandering to human emotions is only art if it is used to convey complex hidden 'meanings'
• art that pursues beauty, tries to be pleasing, not ugly is not art, it's kitsch

It follows that

• you have to be educated to understand art (especially the modern variety)
• if you don't, you should be ashamed of yourself
• modern art should be taught at schools 

This whole fiasco of a talk show perfectly illustrates the three things I love the most about humanists:

1. Their belief in the magical power of words

There was a famous performance in a Warsaw art gallery a couple of years ago consisting of a lady peeling potatoes. Countless discussions ensued about whether or not it was art or even 'real art'. Not once have I heard an expert saying: 'Listen guys, it's just a word. Words have meanings that we assign to them. These meanings change in time. We can call it art or kitsch or potArtoe or any other word you can think of because it won't change anything. Why don't we instead discuss whether it's great or shitty, interesting or boring and do we want more of it in our galleries? After all, if it's a worthless piece of shit it will stay this way no matter which word we choose to describe it'. This is such an obvious observation I'm a little embarrassed to write it (hence the third person). Yet somehow artists and critics manage to miss this point completely. As long as something fits the nebulous definition of 'art' (which they themselves invented), it automatically gets thrown into a box labeled 'awesome stuff that everyone should try to understand and admire and if you don't, there must be something wrong with you'.

2. Chutzpah
Guys have cojones; gotta give them that. I can understand art community's reluctance to call video games or designer clothes art. But do you know what else wouldn't qualify as art (according to the criteria mentioned earlier)? The works of Shakespeare, da Vinci and any music ever written. Stunning. To claim that  feces in a can  is more of an artwork than Sistine Chapel (because it 'asks important questions') - this is a whole new level of hubris.

Not pictured: humility.

3. Their utter inability to question dogma 

The other thing that I literally never heard anyone say is: 'Why do we care about this 'art' thing anyway? What is so great about it? In what ways exactly, watching a woman peel potatoes makes you a better (wiser?) person? I know that some of us love it, but is this enough of a reason to shove it down everyone else's throats? After all, there are people, who enjoy shooting hogs from a helicopter and I don't see it becoming the mark of a cultured person.' You can despise fishing or cooking or jogging and nobody will think less of you for it. You can even get away with hating sports or video games. We have discussions about merits of abortion, religion, even pedophilia, but questioning the value of art - it simply doesn't happen. Don't get me wrong - art certainly has entertainment value (so does hog hunting). Maybe there's even more to it than that. It's entirely possible that art

• fights dementia (like solving crosswords)
• helps develop empathy (like taking care of a pet)
• helps children develop cognitive skills (like video games)
• raises IQ scores (like solving IQ tests)
• or maybe it doesn't really help any of the above - maybe appreciation of art is CAUSED by high IQ, empathy and so on (in which case promoting art would be quite pointless)

Any of these would be a valid point in art's defense (if proven true) but none of them would justify the quasi-religious reverence the art has in society. None of them gets mentioned by humanists, anyway. Firstly - they feel no more need to base their beliefs in evidence than young-Earth creationists. Secondly - they know that using objective criteria to evaluate art would spell a disaster for modern art - for even if a trip to Louvre makes you smarter, it's highly doubtful the same applies to watching the potato-lady. Lacking in entertainment value, the only thing the modern art has going for it is snobbism and critics approval. If you take that away, only a can of feces remains.

So, what gives art (or even just the word 'art') so much power over our imaginations? It's simple. Throughout human history there were people, who made paintings, sculptures, plays, books, and other things for the rest of society to watch, look at, enjoy and admire. Some of them were so skillful, their works are still remembered thousands of years later. It is because of them that societies came to associate 'art' with greatness and universal beauty. More recently, modern 'artists' came. They didn't have the skill and the guts to compete with the giants before them, but still wanted the fame and respect that comes with the job. So they hijacked the word 'art' and gave it a new bizarre meaning that fits them even though it doesn't include the things that made art great in the first place. They hoped no one would catch up to them, but we did. God, I hate art.