Can Art be Useful?

The content of this article was written in response to Caroline Sinder’s essay In Defence of Useful Art: How art allows for confrontation, exploration, and systematic problem solving (2020). Although based on work I previously completed as part of my studies in the University of Galway, it has been adapted for a general audience and may differ slightly from the original, more academic version.

Can art be useful?

The article in question appears to remain focused on whether art can be practical. And although there's certainly overlap, the distinction might be key.

The majority of the works discussed are tools which double as ideas. ScanMap is a tool which allows society to monitor police activity, holding up a mirror to the tools the police use to monitor society. Image Scrubber is a tool that blurs images of people at protests, holding up a really... blurry mirror? Although there are some outliers presented like I'M BLUE (IF I WAS █████ I WOULD DIE), these aren't necessarily any more practical than a movie… are they? No, but almost everyone would agree that both of these kinds of experiences have the capacity to be useful.

So… how can art be useful? We can rule out the need for it to double as a tool, as this only confirms its practicality. And we can rule out the inclusion of an idea, because that's all art - and those ideas are by no means useful. But how about the ability of the ideas within (if we assume they’re useful ideas) to reach the person who would benefit the most from them?

There are many important threads that could be pulled from there (such as accessibility), but I’m going to focus on one in particular, resonance.

Young men are typically responsible for 80–90% of annual homicides and assaults. Young men are also, by far, the group most likely to be victims of violence. All of this before considering that 80–90% of enlisted soldiers (in conscripted and volunteer forces) are male. It is therefore really important that society (and art) speaks to young men. 

Video games represent a direct line to this group, but the utility of any 'art' created in this medium for this demographic is only as useful as its ability to convey the positive message it contains. They aren't going to learn anything from the positive messages contained in Animal Crossing. Because they aren't going to play Animal Crossing. For it to be useful, the art would need to be everything (or even something) we do not want men to be. And then find (or even better, let them find) a way to become something we do want them to be.

Useful art actively attempts to be more than art for its own sake, or art that appeals to an audience that already understands the idea being conveyed. It identifies who would benefit the most from an idea and envelopes itself in their world and culture, pulling its creator(s) in during this process, altering them and their understanding of the idea all the while. The original idea will fade away, because (if done correctly) the creator(s) will eventually identify with the audience to some extent, offering them a new perspective on the idea that they cannot unsee and preventing them from ever making what they originally sought out to.

The upside? The Useful Art and Artist can become a bridge between opposing groups, ideologies and more.

The downside? Now nobody likes them.