The Merits of Art

I was in the park a couple of days ago playing frisbee with some friends. At one point, I glanced up at the branches of a tree. I saw that in stark contrast to the branches, filling the empty space between them, was the bright blue of a brilliant spring sky. I had a brief thought. One that was neither new nor original, but a thought that seems truer and truer each time it pops into my head. It was something like, "the art of nature is far better than the art of man." Normally, when I have this thought, I also tend to think that perhaps all of man's efforts to create art have been somewhat futile and silly. The fact that I am so very rarely impressed by any art lends support to those reoccuring thoughts and feelings. I wonder, is art dumb? Pointless? Silly? Does it have any value? Is it worth devoting any time and energy to?
These questions come from someone who is very fond of art, and especially sensitive to beauty. Some music has a way of "killing me softly." There have been times when I felt like I was being crushed by the emotional weight of certain songs. I'm also a fan of visual art. I started drawing on a regular basis around the age of 9. I drew nonstop throughout school. Over the years, I developed a style that I feel is distinct and interesting, though I've had trouble finding the motivation and time to create many pieces that are worthy of display. I'm not a successful artist, yet I still feel as though I've got this sharp sense of what is "perfect" or of high quality when it comes to art. Call me an elitist. please. I really want to believe...
Anyway, about art. I think that we live in an art depressed society. We need more of it. I've always thought that Americans, at least, could benefit highly from waking up a few more neurons on the right side of their brains. Creativity, imagination, feeling are things of living and core components of the process of creating art. If we aren't being creative or feeling deeply, can we say that we are really living? Yet, here I am, posing questions like, "is art dumb?" I don't know about you, but I'm ok with it, because, as much as I like to glorify art, there is something I find even more important, and that is questioning my most basic assumptions and predispositions. The questioning of ideas and ideologies is an act that, in large part, defines who I am. What complicates this process of questioning is a belief that also defines who I am. That is: its nearly impossible for us to determine what is true. In other words, I'm agnostic. I question, but then I have a hard time believing the answers I come up with. Its the only way to be.
That said, we can ask this question about the merits of art, or the merits of creating art, and look for answers without any interference from a pro-art bias.
If there is any merit to art, what is it, and what is it not? And, what types of art have the most value? My opinions are:
Art which is an exact representation of something real is low art (art with little merit). I can't see the point in trying to replicate on paper, canvass, or film, what is in front of our eyes. If there is any creativity or expression in that sort of exercise, it is not significant at all. So, I don't like a lot of photos, still life paintings, landscapes, portraits, etc.
Art which is created very methodically, in extreme detail, is not usually art of high value. Slow, deliberate work on pieces of high complexity, I believe, will have been created with a greater detachment from an artist's passions or guiding emotions, and made by employing something of a heartless, robotic love of process and perfection.
Art that arises from very simple, primitive, and/or negative emotion is low art as well. Sure, everyone knows that people, especially men, feel anger from time to time. Anger is not unique or special. Also, there is nothing subtle about anger. There is usually nothing intelligent or beautiful about it either. Anyone can embrace anger and create angry art. I'm thinking of heavy metal music, gansta rap... I recognize that most emotions are simple and primitive, but that doesn't mean an artist should not have standards. She shouldn't produce art that expresses simple emotions exclusively. So much art would be the same, if that were the case.
So, art shouldn't be too methodical, or left brained; but at the same time, it shouldn't be made slave to emotion. Instead, art should arise from some sort of artistic sensibility; which involves a little imagination, some thought, a willingness to resist basic urges, the ability to embrace randomness, and a feeling for flow, balance, and contrast--which is related to the minds ability to really see detail (contrasts, curves, repetition, layout, etc) and to "remember" much of the visual details it has experienced throughout life..and then reproduce it in its core forms/patterns.
Let me note that I find little value in art that isn't different or somewhat original. I'm very aware of how we are all a product of our environment. To break free from the mold, people should create. Art allows us to explore ourselves-to look for a way to free our minds and "hearts" by tinkering with our core programming-the core programming put in place by things outside our control--our environment, the teachings of our parents, and so on. Art is something that, if exercised properly, can help us increase control over who we are and who we will become. A lot of people aren't happy with who they are. I think one way to change is to find out what makes us tick, and then begin to probe, push, and stimulate those core emotions/sensibilities through art. ((this is rather vague. oh well))
So art does not lack value (surprise!). It helps free us from ourselves. It brings us joy, both in the creation of it (fun, and an ego builder) and seeing it.
As much as a desire to be better than others or dissatisfaction with oneself motivates some people to become good artists, art cannot be about competition, and it shouldn't be relied upon to give us a sense of self worth. If it were a competition, nature would win hands down. And even if we became famous, we'd still be mortal, which means we'd always be capable of being unfairly dissatisfied with ourselves.