In Defense of Art

When I switched concentrations from history to history of art and architecture halfway through my sophomore year, I anticipated (and hoped for) drastic differences between the departments. What I could not have anticipated, however, were the newfound prejudices that I would experience as a student who studies modern art.

As the years have progressed, I have found myself taking an increasing number of visual and environmental studies (VES) courses, primarily because I realized that it made me uncomfortable to accept or reject certain works of art without ever attempting to create it myself. What I discovered is that the VES courses that I have taken have been some of the most rewarding academic and personal experiences in my Harvard career. It is very surprising to me, then, when those who have never remotely been involved with the VES department—or art whatsoever, for that matter—go out of their way to reject it very publicly.

Such opinions don’t stray too far from historical debates over the purpose of art. It wasn’t too long ago that some philosophers, such as Georg Hegel, deemed the sole function of art as a way to convey the Spirit of God in visual terms. Its ultimate purpose, in his opinion, was to disappear entirely once mortals were enlightened with the Spirit. Plato himself believed in the eternal existence within the subjects of a work as an imitation of a phenomenal world.

Luckily, things have changed, and the purpose of art has expanded greatly. Consider the function of photography in the imagery of Vietnam or the Great Depression, or the role of Constructivist art in uniting millions of Russians. Pop art forces us to examine our absurd consumer society by parodying such a culture. Art is an immensely powerful tool in shaping the way in which society sees the world in a particular context and reflecting upon that context.

With the rise of postmodernism and its discontents (as the saying goes) and post-postmodernism, artists are now confronted with new sociological and philosophical issues. At the same time, art has reached a very exciting time in its history because of the increasing number of materials and media which it utilizes. In February, Central Park was transformed into a saffron wonderland through “The Gates” project, 27 years in the making. It was a surreal project that was enjoyed by all types of citizens and visitors.

And art can be seen by a greater number of people every year. It is no longer something limited to the elites. The new media enable artists to engage in a greater number of projects that appeal to a broader range of individuals. Consider, for example, the course History of Science 152, “Filming Science,” which was offered last spring. It was specifically geared towards scientifically minded individuals, to pursue a specific academic topic and convey the idea so that anyone, whether within or outside of the sciences, could comprehend this subject matter. It is exciting to think that we are increasingly able to fuse multiple disciplines in order to understand the world around us.

The problem is that there are still a number of people who are unwilling acknowledge art as a legitimate academic pursuit, despite the fact that we attend a liberal arts institution. And this belief not only leads to uninformed opinions about the inferiority of art as a field of study, it leads to a disparity in facilities between the fine arts and natural sciences in an alarming example of how Harvard prioritizes the latter over the former.

At the opening ceremony of the $260 million New Research Building at Harvard Medical School in 2003, University President Lawrence H. Summers stated that “there is a pervasiveness and ubiquity to what is happening in the life sciences that touches every school in this university and almost every department.” While Summers frequently makes public speeches supporting the role of science on campus, he only occasionally, if ever, makes similar claims about arts in the Harvard community. Construction continues on multiple new science buildings in the North Yard area as well and much of the University’s Allston planning has centered on the placement of new science facilities.

Meanwhile, the Fogg Art Museum, built in 1927 and not renovated since, is neither climate-controlled nor air-conditioned nor wheelchair accessible. In fact, the building is so grossly outdated that it can only display one to two percent of the university’s collection of artwork. I have been told by faculty members that Harvard literally must reject donations of artwork because there is nowhere to put them.

It is disturbing, though, that individuals—including University administrators—must be convinced of the necessity of the arts at Harvard. This is an issue that does not simply concern VES students, but all members of the Harvard community.

As one friend of mine succinctly put it, students who study the sciences are the ones who are making our bodies healthier and our lives longer. Art, on the other hand, is the reason that our lives should be longer. It is our privilege to enjoy it—and to study it with the support of both the University and our classmates.



Thea S. Morton ’06-’07, a Crimson photography editor, is a history of art and architecture concentrator in Quincy House.