There seems to be a general consensus that Art is something to be understood. In fact, art critics endeavor to comprehend it as much as possible in order to analyse it. However, the audience do not have any obligation to do so. Moreover, it seems that one of the most frequent answers for the question: “why do you dislike Art?” is “because I do not understand it.” Therefore, the case is generally not that people do not appreciate Art; indeed, they feel scared of even looking at it, since they know it is too much complex to be understood. A possible solution for this obstacle seems to be incentive people to enjoy art even if they think they do not understand it’s meaning, due to the fact that Art is arguably not about understanding, but about appreciating.
As a result of the latter solution, it seems that the next step is to clarify that Art is not just about pleasing sensations. Indeed, it is not about what people want, and sometimes it can be even harsh and painful. A good book, for instance, frequently may not have a happy ending – and sometimes it will not even have an ending at all. In front of these statements, one may ask why Art should be appreciated, if it goes that way. The answer seems to be that Art enrich people who appreciate it. It leads one to doubt any absolutely sure and leave his or her comfort zone.
The question now seems to be how a generation that has been raised under the easiness and objectivity provided by technology can become interested in appreciating something as much complex and subjective as Art. Indeed, the society has been seeing Art as useless in front of more pragmatic knowledge areas. Schools, for instance, has arguably been prioritizing science subjects over art; music; literature; dance; or theatre classes, and some of them do not even offer the students those options. A good example of this overestimation of rational thinking is Japan’s situation, where in 2015 a great number of Universities abolished social science and humanities due to a request from the education minister in order to prioritize “areas that better meet society’s needs”, as he said in his letter. The answer for this posture seems to be the same that had been given before: although it has been widely believed that Art cannot be applied to society in a way that brings concrete results, it enriches people’s life experience.
Arguably, Art makes people think about issues they have never thought before, and by thinking people generally become more complex, sensitive and deep. These characteristics can be considered some of the ones that differs humans from other animals. Therefore, it would be almost impossible to survive in a world without Art. The problem is that it has been more difficult to make people understand this, since society seems to think otherwise. An effective measure to change this scenario would be a new education system. School has been, to a certain extent, preparing students to become profitable employees, and not fulfilled human beings. However, since it seems to be a very difficult task, and that would requires some years to be accepted, another feasible solution may be the use of technology to spread art, and arouse people’s interest about it. A way by which it can be done is making use of social networks and blogs to discuss Art with an accessible language. It is clear that this practice would not change people’s bias towards art in the blink of eyes, but it may be the first step to make it happen.