Or: On What art should be about/ What purposes it should fulfill
The question of “What art should be about” is misleading because it is not about contents or subjects. It is about effects, and feelings, and art’s distinguishing features in nowadays’ society and world. Therefore, the questions of “What purpose art should fulfill” seems the most appropriate to me; that said, the vocabulary in terms of art is rather tricky: art does not “serve” it doesn’t necessarily aim at specific intentions [if any, it might probably be overcharging/whelming]. Art is.
That accepted makes it a lot easier to approach art. Release the pressure. You don’t need to find anything. But you will find a hundred things if you want. Premise that the art you are seeing is good. Before touching on the theatrical or getting pathetic here, back to the leading question: Art does
Challenge perception and thought
Break – everyday – rationality; break with/ away from
Present new mode of feeling and thinking. Allow feeling (instead of primarily thinking)
Cause: awe, happiness, fear, shock, overcharging/charging [German: Überforderung]
This is neither thought to be a handbook for artists nor perceivers. Artists don’t need a handbook. And art doesn’t allow for being guided. But it does allow for all different kinds of approaches. (In this sense it is gentle. It might ask a positioning from your side though.)
Since our everyday is so guided, and governed by rationality and function (not to mention efficiency), and since art – by its mystery, mysterious trade and prices, its reputation and strange ubiquity – has been put on a pedestal not easy to be approached; and since the latter is neither taught, e.g. in school, nor possibly wished by too many, these remarks may act as an entrance to the realm of art for those who have not found it yet.
There is no wrong. And art is gentle.
The artists on this website, concerning the author, ‘provide’ the outlined purposes through their work. Of course, artistic judgement is subjective. But it needs argument.