Why We Fear Art More Than Weapons

Lately, I’ve been stuck on the question, ‘What is it for?’

While an irrational prejudice forms about some subjects, for others, it’s not even considered.

Actually, by asking this question, we can envelop everything we engage with in our daily lives into a cloud of meaninglessness. That’s why I find it a dangerous question.

The reason I’m so fixated on this question is my contemplation about art and engineering. As I see more artists who are somewhat engineers, or artists who possess technical capacity akin to an engineer or the capability to convey what’s in their mind; the question ‘what is it for?’ has started to bother me even more.

For instance, what could Zimoun’s work, full of sensors, motors, cables, and electronic boards, possibly be expressing?

Nothing. What use is it to us?

Even though it seems to serve no purpose, it creates an immersive experience. And with a minimal infrastructure at that. Actually, even asking ‘what is it for?’ is a reflection of the experience it creates because it evokes an emotion, albeit a negative one. The more we can’t find an answer to the question, the more everything seems meaningless and is thought of as garbage. The skill expended and all that material.

By the way, there’s a lot to discuss regarding art as well. For example, right now, the art community has its own unique economy. Works made for the king in the past aren’t called art, but art can still reach the king, or it can make a person a king.

Let’s not digress. Let’s get back to the question I’m stuck on. Why do we ask this question?

I think it’s an ethical contradiction. Because the answers received aren’t satisfying. What is it for? For nothing. What does it express? Nothing, whatever you understand. Why is it made? Because of the human desire for self-expression.

Well, do we ask the same questions in other situations? Do we contemplate the answers?

For example, let’s look at these machines:

What are they for?

They are for killing people.

What are they used for?

For show of power and for killing. To impose, to force acceptance of certain things. To destroy.

Or are you as disturbed by social media, which has become part of our daily routine but destroys the brain’s reward mechanism, distances people from thought, and pulls children away from creativity?

Art; while creating awareness, developing thought, provoking creativity, is found unnecessary and meaningless. Just like social media, it’s a product of the feeling of self-expression. It just does it in a more abstract and meaningful way. Yet, it’s art that becomes the useless thing, not social media.

Similarly, war machines, made to kill people; are brought into existence through storytelling, just like in art. It’s said they are not for killing, but for killing when necessary, for defense. Just like the atomic bomb, which changed world history. This doesn’t disturb us, but the non-functionality of art, which kills no one, does.

For example, put a nude statue anywhere in today’s Turkey, we’ll debate it for months, even years, but the bombs and bullets fired become a source of pride for us.

It’s not an aesthetic debate but more of an ethical problem. What measures the moral and ethical value of an object is the measurable, sellable, and controllable result it produces. This leads us to another contradiction. While killing is an immoral and illegal act, doing it professionally is something as virtuous as to be a source of national pride.

Philosophical ethics, however, doesn’t view the matter this way. Because the human being is a thinking entity. The existence of art is also a result of this intellectual production. It actually views the purpose of humans as becoming conscious, questioning, evaluating their own position. This is precisely why art has been the enemy of powers, religions, and those in authority for thousands of years.

What is disturbing cannot be considered ethically bad. On the contrary; because it makes one think, causes discomfort, is outside the ordinary, it is one of the most ethically correct actions. The very fact that it makes one ask ‘what is it for?’ is proof of how ethically correct an action it is.

The real ethical problem is this:

As societies collapse ethically and morally; they become more utilitarian. Instead of questioning the legitimacy of tools meant for killing, they become enemies of works, books, statues, paintings, music, dance meant for thinking. Utilitarianism overrides conscience.

Then, this question is more correct:

‘What is the human being for?’