I feel inclined to write to address a letter to the editor printed in the Guardian on Friday, as the prospect of that letter misguiding young and naive readers as well as old non-opinionated ones scares me for the harm it could do to the future of the art community in T&T, should it be taken as fact or moral standard. The letter advocates that art only has redeemable worth if it can be bought or sold for a profit, in other words, it must have economic value.
So let's try to define what art is, as a source of activity. The simplest definition I know of art is one given by a Roman Catholic priest in his book on "Art and the intellect" in which he describes art as a "habit of the intellect."
Inherently, man is driven to create art as a natural output of his intellect; one of the endeavours of the intellect, other than thinking, analysing and conceptualising is also, art. It's as if in the course of its activity the intellect has a subconscious desire or duty to express itself through the creation and appreciation of art.
The creation and appreciation of art goes way back, before the idea of monetary benefit. The money issue may have arisen as a consequence of our love for art as artefacts and our willingness to posses it, but that does not explain our reason for creating it.
So when a country invests in art such as the creation of monuments and statues and other physical works that are merely symbolic, they do not represent the desire to make profit but simply they represent acknowledgement and appreciation of the creative capacity of a their nation in creating such symbols that commemorate the nation's identity or achievements.
Machel Montano's album is, if nothing else, a monument of the local art form, as is Sparrow's memorabilia and Kitchener's legacy an embodiment of the collective local creativity. Another key misconception to clear up here is the point that all art has to have economic value to justify its important or relevance. N
o one can truly judge art of another. One man's meat is another man's poison. Art is expression. While critics may try to evaluate its social, moral or economic content as a means of crediting one piece of art over another, the exercise is futile.
No one needs someone to value art for them; either it appeals or it does not. Also, from generation to generation each period has its own preferences and representations that were desirable for the expression of the time, so to compare the value of art across different periods is also futile.
Nevertheless, one must agree in one part only with the letter "The value of Montano's music is largely symbolic." Rightly so, any other use of art is bastard. The fact that it has become a commodity of the capitalist laissez faire market system has no bearing on its true raison d'�tre. Ask any true artist.
John Thompson
St James