A Minor Treatise on the Beauty of Impracticality

“My practicality consists in this, in the knowledge that if you beat your head against the wall it is your head which breaks and not the wall... that is my strength, my only strength.”
-Antonio Gramsci

“Our real discoveries come from chaos, from going to the place that looks wrong and stupid and foolish.”
-Chuck Palahniuk

It could be said of our time (possibly any time) that there is an obsession with the idea of being 'useful'. Certain practical minded folk always seem to have the time to degrade the contributions of artists, writers and their ilk as a certain kind of overly entertaining drivel. Of course, on average this position will last in regard to a particular artist's* work for a century or so after which it might be viewed as the only worthwhile work. In this vein I think specifically of philosophy, i.e. Sartre is only now becoming accepted as a viable philosopher while E.M. Cioran still kicks around the realm of novelty.

First, let us dissect the meaning of 'uselessness' and pay particular attention to its relationship with 'practicality'. First, obligatory definitions (we will omit definition of 'useful' since it is the direct opposite of 'useless'):

Webster:

use·less (\ˈyüs-ləs\) adjective 1592
: having or being of no use: a: ineffectual (a) b: not able to give service or aid : inept

(Definition of 'practical' truncated to pertinent definitions.)
prac·ti·cal (\ˈprak-ti-kəl\) adjective Middle English, from Late Latin practicus, from Greek praktikos, from prassein to pass over, fare, do; akin to Greek peran to pass through — more at fare 15th century
1 a: of, relating to, or manifested in practice or action : not theoretical or ideal (a) (for) b: being such in practice or effect : virtual (a)
3: capable of being put to use or account : useful (he)

I submit that the concepts of 'practicality' and 'usefulness' are in a supremely unhealthy co-dependent love affair. Since the two seem to be interdependent upon one another it is difficult to separate the two and examine them as individual concepts. However, 'practicality' being the weaker of the two lovers** gives us an opportunity to perhaps convince it that it means something other than what is openly stated.

Is there difference between between our star-crossed lovers? In endeavors such as this one I find it useful to give credence to etymology. 'Practical' comes directly from O. Fr. 'practique' meaning 'fit for action' by way of Latin and Greek. 'Use' derives from the same channels with the words 'user' (O. Fr. "use, employ, practice") and 'oeti' (O.L. "use, employ, exercise, perform"). In this sense we can see the subtle difference and obvious similarity. However, it is also clear that the two concepts are far too intermingled to pull apart. No matter how much we wish to explain that they should not toss themselves carelessly at one another, they seemed determined to make it.

The next logical step is to examine common usage or course. This movement will perhaps cause the breakdown of the relationship and set 'useful' and 'practical' at odds. Let's imagine a law firm has a case before it. It must be decided whether to take up the case or not. Lawyer #1 asks the question, "Is it practical?", lawyer #2 will ask the question, "Is it useful?" Lawyer #1 examines the case, determines that there will be a large amount of money required at the outset, the prospects of winning a negligible, etc. He comes to the conclusion that it would be decidedly impractical to take up the case based upon this information. Lawyer #2 considers this information, but also considers that the case bears some uniqueness, touches on a "higher cause". 'Useful' at this point carries a slight connotation allowing for the prospect of idealism.

Is it then reasonable to assume that the main difference between 'practical' and 'useful' lies in the consideration of idealism? If this be the case, then we have found our answer.

Digressing to the initial example of the arts, I submit that no art can be 'practical' when one considers that it often does not contribute any tangible benefits. On the other hand it is 'useful' because it provides a context for interpreting 'practical' exercises, i.e. the benefit of thought experiments in the vein of Huxley or Orwell. In this sense, they can make the movement towards 'practical' if and only if they become internalized by the reader or in the case of Huxley and Orwell by the broader population.

All 'practical' movements are 'useful', but not all 'useful' movements need to be 'practical'.

_________________________________________________

* Note that when I use the term 'art' or 'artist' or any other derivatives or synonyms I speak generally about all acts of creative creation.

** Poetic license taken. 'Practicality' has displayed through Webster that it is more unsure of its meaning and in def. 3 it attaches itself to 'usefulness', ipso facto, it finds itself in the weaker position.