The discussion on what is the purpose of art is one that has engaged many people across generations and places. We’ve also offered some answers to this question. In the end, the conversation remains open, as most art critics can at least fall in accord that there is not only one answer to this question, but rather more, that are all true at the same time.
One of the answers that has been given is that the purpose of art is to draw attention to things that we could easily not notice, but which are relevant and have a strong importance. Thus, in a world such as the world of the Middle Ages, when everyday life was rather dark and sad, the bright colors and beautiful compositions of religious paintings reminded the people who saw them that there is beauty in the world. As the world became more and more cosmeticized, as was the case in the 20th century, art started focusing on the more hidden aspects of life. Moreover, the artistic movement of which a painter is part of and the concepts that stand at its core are also connected to this idea of showing what is important.
In Lech Majewski’s 2011 film “The Mill and the Cross”, Pieter Bruegel explains that his most important character, Jesus Christ, is, at the same time both in the center of the painting and hidden. This small scene is a true insight into how art in the past used to work: the most important aspect was always showcased with strength, but it was also showcased with extreme care, since important things are not to be vulgarized.
The concept of attention and art is also tightly bound to the idea of cliché. A cliché can be defined as a statement that is overused and lacks originality or relevance. Of course, not to be confused with an aphorism, which is a statement that, while obvious, holds a lot of value. The problem that appears from this confusion (and perhaps due to other reasons) is that many aphorisms fall for clichés, which leads to people disregarding wisdom. It can be said that it is very likely that the process happens the other way around: people reject wisdom and thus aphorisms are regarded as clichés.
In this sense, we can understand where clichés come from. For example, when the first photographers who took a photo a beggar in front of a Gucci store, the idea was novel and interesting. In a world that seemed compartmentalized, the artist was drawing attention to the fact that we all live in the same world and are connected. This image featuring a contrast between the rich and the poor made many people ponder on the idea that life is not the same for everyone, but that we can through art have a better understanding of someone else’s life. And that goes both ways. The poor managed to understand that often the life of the rich is not as glitzy and glamorous as it seems and the rich managed to understand that some aspects of their life could be anytime replaced, and thus to be grateful for the material things they have. However, once everyone started creating this type of images and charity became more and more preeminent, the focus on programs to help the poor increased and the rich became more and more less represented in culture, making a statement that some people lack money is no longer something that most people need to be reminded of. This theory can be applied to wide range of cases: talking about things that are obvious and clear unfortunately has the opposite effect than the desired effect: it vulgarizes the concepts and makes them a… cliché.
Thus, in art one should always maintain the fresh aspect, the novel aspect and to work with archetypes instead of stereotypes.
Otherwise, all the things that matter and could be changed will only become a background for shock, irrelevance and stark superficiality.