Rantman

18

What is the purpose of art? Is it for the creator or for the audience? If both, which gains or should gain more precedence? For reference, arts here is an umbrella term referring to everything that's fun on this planet (video games are interactive art compilations). 

That art is for the creator is an attractive line to pursue. Art is a medium of expression often superior to conventional language, and has much relaxed social norms and allows you to make songs about depression, loneliness and death without alienating yourself. Even language and the way you talk is a form of art, in a way. Additionally, most creators derive immense satisfaction from creating their art and receiving validation on it. Some like embedding a message, social or otherwise, in it too. When you are talking to someone, the person feels more obligated to listen and react to you, which may restrict what you talk about it. On the other hand, releasing art places no obligation to its viewers to go through it fully, which allows a much broader dissection of topics. Not to mention the deep exploration of fiction, which simply doesn't occur while talking. The way you write might be very different from the way you speak. One does not simply speak 700 pages in a few hours (on the same topic!), but one may be able to read 700 in a week or so. 

But then if the audience is deriving nothing from it, why would they view and experience art in the first place? Do they just exist as a medium to provide artists with livelihoods and validation? Of course not.

From the audience perspective, most art is of course entertainment. In our long monotonous lives (double our natural lifespans) and endless boring jobs, even a few minutes of artistic entertainment refreshes and clears the mind. Yet, it is not just that, is it? If art was just for entertainment, then sad songs and dense books wouldn't find a market really. Even more than entertainment, the value of art lies in its ability to form a connection. Whether its a song you relate to, or a story that intrigues you and gets you to believe its world for a short while, art connects directly to the imaginative and/or emotional side of our brain. It doesn't replace social interaction, but most arts tell a story, a message. There's some instinctual drawing in our human minds towards these stories. If you think about it, the economy, law, morals etc. are all stories, in a way. Someone had an idea, what if we traded in a common currency so that we could trade goods better and have some way to save the value from perishables in the future, and everyone just went along with it. We are living out the story of how apes decided to assign value to rock(gold)/paper to exchange goods and services.

But which is more important, the satisfaction of the storyteller or the storylistener? Should artists be paid and appreciated to do whatever they want, even if what they make is pure nonsense (in the bad way)? Or should an artist always be a people-pleaser, making works that satisfy their target audience?

Like the equivocator I am, I would say a bit of both. If artists are left too free and praised for every piece of trash they make, then we have art styles like monochrome, abstract expression, and songs like gucci gang making millions, while true art suffers. However, the best art comes from the heart, which is not possible if you have too much anxiety about your audience's reaction. Hence, what I would say is that while artists are free to express themselves in whichever way they want, however absurd, its up to the audience to decide whether the work deserves appreciation and has artistic appeal. Unfortunately, the revenue model of artists stems from the audience, which ends up making many artists doing popularist/generic works to attract viewers. On the other hand, artists with a cult following build up such strong, loyal fanbases that the artist isn't bothered by the quality of their work, which is deplorable. 

So, what I'm saying is art exists both for the artist and the audience, and each must focus on their utility from the work. Art for the sake of art is a good artistic exercise, but if the results aren't satisfactory, its the audience's duty to recognize that and pursue only the best or most unique in their respective art fields. Else we have people splashing paints on a canvas (literally), and getting overly paid for it, while artists spending hours of dedicated hard work on their works getting overlooked.