Art for Who's Sake?

In the first chapters of John Dewey's "Art as Experience," he laments the disconnect between art and everyday life. He seeks to restore the aesthetic to common experience. His focus seems to be on a more utilitarian concept of art as in the decorative aspects of tools and other domestic objects. His idea of the purpose of art would appear to be almost solely in the service of the community. Dewey points out that the idea of "art for art's sake" would have been alien to ancient cultures like the Greeks. Art produced for religious purposes gives it "the maximum possible of emotional and imaginative appeal" in his view. That a work could be "merely" a specimen of fine art and nothing else is rejected. To Dewey, this loss of connection makes art meaningless.

The role of capitalism and nationalism are two culprits that Dewey finds guilty of contributing to artists and their work being isolated from the mainstream. That the economic system has weakened the bond between art and society at large as the wealthy seek to establish their social status by collecting art is indisputable. Nations have also long celebrated themselves with museums featuring native art and that of conquests.

Dewey's proposal that art is only of value in relation to it's connection to the community seems misplaced to me. While bringing the aesthetic into day to day life is a laudable goal, making it the only one is wrong. It would appear to relegate artists to mere craftsmen who crank out beautiful but primarily useful items. Is mass appeal the exclusive goal of art?

In the past, artists were dependant upon commissions from religion or the rich and powerful. This hardly seems ideal. Where is the role of the artist as society's critic?

Does the idea of artists expressing themselves have no place? Many in the community find connection with art through seeing their own experiences reflected in those of the artist. Isn't that of value?

Dewey dismisses the spiritualization of art outside of any concrete experience but surely the awe and reverence one feels in the presence of great art is a communal experience just as valid as any felt in a religious setting. He celebrates the artist's process of working until they are satisfied with the result but if the aim is to please a patron or the community as a whole, how can the artist ever be truly content with the outcome?

To me, creating is a need akin to eating, drinking or sex, it is an act of self-fulfillment. Not a cog in the greater community.