Art

First, I think it is most important to define what we are considering as "art." I am designating "art" as any physical representation of an idea. Because I have observed various ideas for what "art" is, I believe this broad definition will be correct in almost all circumstances. Even in the case of what we would call "art" in "nature" (a flower, a tree) - I don't believe we would consider it art until it is directly considered at all, which requires the formulation of an idea that it is representing by its existence.

This is important because I would like to directly examine what appears to me the two different modes of art. Because we are dealing with a representation, we are also dealing with a communication (if "communication" refers to any mental impact on a living being by something external to itself) - or what I will call a "reflection" - that of a communication made solely with oneself in order to achieve an emotional benefit caused by the observation of a physical representation of an idea.

"Representation," by definition, implies the existence of a physical affection caused by something. This is important because there are only two possible modes of human-caused representation - a "reflective" one that is meant solely to achieve a kind of self fulfilment, and one that is meant to achieve self fulfilment by that of "communication."

The conclusion is that the only "practical" application of "reflective" art is in the enjoyment found in analyzing how the author is interpreting their own feelings, and how that might affect the receiver in the future (this CANNOT be of any intention of the artist, or it becomes a non-reflective communication). Remember - this "art" is encompassing of all idea-representation. This includes writings. Generally, art as a two or more party communication is made for the sake of change, then, whereas art as a form of reflection is made for sake of entertainment.

Because "change" as an intention is the only progressive intention, I would say poetry will tend to be less practical than other kinds of writing. All writings that are not encompassing of change as an intention are less practical than other kinds of writing.

It would seem that nearly all modes of art ARE somewhat affected by the foresight of audience interpretation. This isn't what is concerning me.

What is concerning me is the writings that are considered "philosophy" that are reflective rather than communicative. I believe that philosophy concerned with "living the good life" would be built on progression rather than entertainment. Any works that are encompassing of both must be distinctly partitioned, in order to maximize the effectiveness of the reflective portion. Otherwise, time spent analyzing the author's self reflection will likely not be as progressively spent.