Art: function vs purpose

Rereading some of the articles I have stored in Pocket for a rainy day I came across this thought-provoking piece from Francois Matarasso, which he published last October:

My concern about the argument that art changes lives is different. It’s to do with the thinking behind the argument and a long-standing confusion between the function of art and its purpose.

By function, I mean what it enables human beings to do or be: its unique power or capability.

By purpose, I mean the application of that power or capability.

The function of a hammer is to drive in nails, which is very useful if you want to make something from wood. A hammer can be used for other purposes, including some terrible ones: hammers have been turned into weapons. I have always found this distinction between function and purpose useful in thinking about art and cultural policy.

In A Restless Art, I felt it was necessary to begin by explaining what I understand the function of art to be. This is what I wrote:

‘Art is the creation of meaning through stories, images, sounds, performances and other methods that enable people to communicate to others their experience of and feelings about being alive.’
A Restless Art, p.38

In other words, the distinctive (if not unique) capability art that gives human beings is being able to create and communicate meaning. That is common to all art, wherever and whenever it has been created, whatever judgements you make about its quality, and however you respond to the meanings it creates.

Let me think about this for a few minutes…