art is in the eye of the beholder

a common fight amongst art lovers, is art even art without motive behind it? it’s like loving someone just for their looks, it’s meaningless and will soon fall apart. Motive gives it a story, we see some depth into it, an artpiece is something that gives us the perspective of that person, and momentarily, we see the world differently, in the lenses of someone else, and carry a bit of their soul with us, something that was voluntarily given away to show the world a bit of their heart.

but that’s not all there is there to it, right? Art could be something pretty, something that makes us gasp in the actual gorgeousness of it, to elicit a response of our own, to sooth our soul, or to energize and regain our sense of self. To compare art to a person, what is the purpose of a person? to live, to be healthy, to change the world, what is exactly the purpose of anything in the world? Why are there fruits? is there some exact purpose for them? surely it can’t be that they are simply there for us, that would produce a whirlwind of contradiction from humans, because it implies that we aren’t here for ourselves, that we are simply the background characters to a protagonist. Just like that, art doesn’t have to have a motive, it can simply be itself, and it would still be just as groundbreaking as one that is with motive. Art, in anyway, always shows a bit of the artist to us, in anyway, but not just that, art without motive lets us piece that into our hearts, a little to shine the creativity of it, to show how we draw inspiration from it, becoming our own storytellers, each seeing through our own lenses, at the same exact thing, and marvelling at how we are different from each other in our analysises.

So a final judgement, should art have a motive? well, a common saying is tha,“beauty is in the eye of the beholder”, and it could be applied here, except to exchange beauty with art(although they are synonymous, of course).