Author: Dorn, Charles M.

Publication Year:

Media Type: Periodical (article)

Summary:

Abstract:

While the meaning of these terms is problematic and their relation to the purposes of art somewhat unclear, those who are involved with the conduct of art or with its advocacy or education remain obligated to search for their meanings and relatedness, especially as they impact the efforts of individuals, governments, and arts institutions to define clear and unambiguous cultural policies. In recent times, most efforts to define these terms have ignored what they mean aesthetically and have relied almost exclusively on arguments supporting the utility of the arts as general welfare, thus substituting the aesthetic question of What is art? for the utilitarian questions of What is art for, and what does it contribute to the common good or general enlightenment? This view has dominated public art policy argument since 1965, when the arts and humanities endowments were created. More than anything else, the utilitarian argument has shaped and defined public cultural policy in ways that have divorced the art object from contributing to the general welfare by redefining it more as aesthetic welfare involving acts of private appreciation than as collective public acts of appreciation. (p. 18)

Arts & Intersections:

Categories: Community Development