Today, I am going to ask a question. My aim is not to answer it, but only to provide some thought.
The Question…
“Is it an obligation to use your creative talents?”
To elaborate on this a little bit, we are asking a big question here. Does an artist have any obligation to create art? If so, who are they obligated to?
Some theories…
I have heard three general responses to this. My only goal in this next section is to give an explanation of each of the three theories. I will also provide some of my thoughts on each of them.
An artist has no obligation.
The concept: According to this school of thought, the artist has no obligation to create art. I see this more commonly presented by people who do not believe in spiritual gifts or talents. They often believe that there is no negative impact of not creating art. If there is, it only harms them. Otherwise, any negative results cannot be their responsibility.
Some thoughts: I wonder why this is such a common concept. I personally do not see any benefit to believing it. If the artist is not obligated to create art, why call themselves an artist? If it is not their purpose, what is the point of the label? It is widely believed that the impact of art, whether it is necessary or not, is positive. So, withholding that could still be a negative effect, right? I don’t know, but I certainly think it is interesting to debate.
An artist has an obligation to society.
The concept: An artist is obligated to create art for the benefit of society. When I have seen this presented, the goal of art is often seen as edification. So, the artist is obligated to create art that will better society. If they choose not to create, they are withholding potential edification from their society.
Some thoughts: If this concept is true, I have a question. Is all art inherently beneficial for edification, or can an artist create art that is “bad?” What would happen to an artist that didn’t comply? What would happen to an artist that didn’t meet the contribution standard? In a society that has so many perspectives and so many people, is it possible to create art that will actually benefit everyone? I think this concept has the potential to be the most dangerous. I think that it also comes with some implication that the artist gained their talent from society. As if society invested in them to develop their talent, so now they must give back.
An artist has an obligation to God.
The concept: This comes from a belief that creative talents are God-given. I have seen it presented as an obligation, but also as a form of giving thanks. So, sometimes it is direct: The artist is obligated to create. Sometimes it is indirect: Everyone is obligated to worship, the artist does this best through creating art. It is commonly paired with the belief that God, or some higher power, also inspires this art. Some people believe that there is punishment for not using our God-given talents. As if it is a form of slothfulness.
Some thoughts: I have seen this idea the most. I am personally most in alignment with this concept, as well. I’m not sure what I think about whether or not there is punishment for neglecting to create. However, I think that there is an element of truth to the idea that you are effecting others. I often see this concept paired with the idea that an artist is created to create. That is their purpose, and only they can fulfill it. It’s less about punishment for not creating, and more about giving back through creating.
One thing I don’t understand about these…
Why do we need to know? Doesn’t every artist have a desire to create? Who cares whether they are obligated or not? I have never met someone who truly called themselves an artist, but struggled with identifying one school of thought to unite with. I think that getting caught up in this stops an artist from focusing on what’s important… the art.
Thank you!
Thank you for taking the time out of your day to read through this! Let me know what you think of these concepts in the comments below.