Here is the above-mentioned clause: "The Congress shall have Power ... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" (National Constitution Center). Useful arts? Hmm. I know I have trouble defining art, let alone what constitutes useful art. As I read Starr's discussion of the formation of copyright law in the early republic, I was initially troubled by the phrase useful arts. I'm not exactly sure how this phrase was defined in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century America, but it seems to be the root of evil that causes parents to respond to their children's decision to become English (or any other liberal art) majors: "English? What are you going to do with a degree in that?" Although the answer is obvious to us, I feel that we must justify ourselves to the public with alarming regularity.
The idea that a phrase such as useful arts exists is unnerving. Even though I don't hear this term thrown about today, the meaning I infer from the words is still very much alive today. I'm happy to say that copyright protection does not seem to rely on whether or not the art in question is useful (otherwise I don't think anyone would have read about a certain wizard); however, the stigma attached to those in literary studies during an age of technological wizardry is not justified. I'm not comparing English majors to a persecuted minority, but the fact that the two cultures are in constant competition is a blight on human civilization. Artistic creativity should not be perceived as standing in opposition to scientific creativity; likewise, the study of these two cultures should not stand at opposite ends of the spectrum. I do not claim that art should not have justification; on the contrary, I believe it should have a justification. Moreover, it should be justified in the same way that science is: it produces practical knowledge that directly benefits human civilization.
Forbidding the thought that liberal arts has both qualitative and quantitative value is what leads people the world over to question the value of literature. A novel is as practical as a prescription drug; a poem is as useful as vulcanized rubber. Although novels and poems don't cure illnesses or help drivers to safely travel, the literary works can be as practical for their intellectual stimulation or cathartic properties. The arts are useful but not universally, in the same way that a pill for erectile dysfunction won't be useful for everyone. Advancements in science are not always universally beneficial. Literature is the same way. One novel that I might cherish is a paperweight for someone else. It is my hope that one day I will no longer have to justify the basic study of literature, much in the same way that a chemist doesn't have to justify the basic study of chemistry.
Hi Peter, I loved your post on "useful arts!" In the late 18th c, though, useful probably referred to something that enlightened or informed, since the concept of art for art's sake was a later Romantic invention. Still, it's interesting to consider the lingering didacticism with theUS emphasis on the practical and the mechanical. The Humanities--as the study of what makes one human--has always been under attack, since it produces critical minds rather than passive workers. I agree that we need to keep promoting the Humanities, and English especially, as useful in more profound ways. Good stuff. dw
ReplyDelete