The Arts have Value, in and of themselves

Money does not equal value. Poop in a can literally has sold for $162,000 http://en.wikipedia.org... In order to argue that as a value you have to go on a bit of tangent. Having super rich people pay money to other otherwise worthless people (besides their "art") can stimulate the economy and thus has value. But that's not art having value by itself now is it? That's art having value because it stimulates the economy, which can be done in much a similar fashion a dozen different ways. So if you would please, do not mention Art's Monetary value again... as that clearly obfuscates the debate. Additionally, to make sure our definitions are clear. I will accept photography only insofar as you mean actually taking pictures for "artistic" value. This does not include scientific and history reasons for photography (Slow-mo shots of things to understand the science or the Zapruder film). Additionally, Architecture is only insofar as the beauty of the architecture is concerned and not the utility. There are breakthroughs in ergonomics of buildings that are from the field of architecture, but I would not call them Art. Feng Shui is on the fence. Same thing goes for culinary arts and literature. Literature only extends to Novels (as Non-Fiction isn't art, it's historical or scientific documentation). Culinary arts, when taken as "food science" can mean healthier meals, this does not count towards the "culinary arts". "As I said earlier, we obviously will not die without art. Nor will we die without mathematics, the sciences, etc" This is one of my main points of contention actually. YES, we would DIE without science. Not on a personal scale, as the individual doesn't even have to know how to breathe by him/herself anymore because of science of society (iron lung). But, if we as a society had no concept of science or math... we would ALL DIE. We worry that we'd have mass hysteria if even just the Internet collapsed, or god forbid the electric grid went down.... but if we lost all concept to do math and science? Our ability to perform math and science experiments are what excelled us above the animals. (Although, they obviously experiment too, we are MUCH BETTER at it). Math and Science are ESSENTIAL to a civilized society. It made us harness fire, create the wheel, pull the level, and swing the pulley. It made us float, it let us fly... science my dear lady is paramount, and there isn't much debate on that subject. We would die without it (as a society), and even if a few people managed to survive, they'd be living in near cavemanesque fashion as they hunt and gather and struggle to make fire and keep warm. Think I'm exaggerating? Explain to me a world that will function without Math and Science. If it's better than Hunter/Gatherer, you'll really have to give me the details. Now, I don't have to argue that art is detrimental, but I can argue that it is possible that it is stifling to one's own imagination, and not an asset. In a world in which we all agree that Art has no Value, we will still create Art. It is innate in us. But what's more, art, as something that has no value, does not require (as my opponent suggested) a singular goal or direction. My art is just as good as your art, is just as good as any art depending on the eye of the audience. Therefore, when we see other's art, it can become incorporated into our art, but doesn't that still mean it's theirs? Its not new anymore. It's a new configuration... possibly... but by having this universal purpose of art, it goes against what Art is... useless from a societal standpoint. Basically, what I'm saying is that Art itself becomes more original the more separate it is, and thus we shouldn't put a societal value on it to bolster it towards uniformity. Through individual fulfillment will Art takes its place. I'm sorry, I skipped ahead a bit. Art has no value. There is no part of Art that has ever kept someone warm, got them from place to place, or helped them live longer. That's inherent in the definition...if it was useful, it'd be called science! (As you can tell from how I clarified the definitions above) Now, I'm not going to take it as a tautology here... because we're arguing some other type of value than utility. I may have to change the argument a bit here. As I must concede that Art does give the individual fulfillment. But that only lasts as far as he is fulfilled, then it is separate. Art fills a need we have to create. We wish to create things with utility, but we simply can't. So we substitute. We can (1) create Art and feel fulfilled because we have created something (regardless of what, at least it's original.. right?) or (2) merely peer into the eyes of those who have created, and feel their fulfillment through us. It truly is trite, is it not? Art not only has no value in itself, by the way I just explained it. It prevents us from our true aspirations. We want to explore the universe, we want to understand our being, we want to create utility among men, but all of these things can sabotaged when the desire to create anything supersedes the desire to create something useful. Sure, that need to create is fulfilled, but it isn't done in the way that it should be, that it was intended for. And what's worse with what's art's become, we can just watch other people do it and feel our need to create disappear. "Fairy tales do not give a child his first idea of bogey. What fairy tales give the child is his first clear idea of the possible defeat of bogey. The baby has known the dragon intimately ever since he had an imagination. What the fairy tale provides for him is a St. George to kill the dragon." G. K. Chesterton, Tremendous Trifles (1909), XVII: "The Red Angel" Which is exactly my point, albeit, in the opposite direction I'm sure Chesterton imagined. We have monsters inside us... and there are monsters all around us... we can be told how to slay them, and thus discover nothing... or we can conquer them ourselves... we can make our own path. And while that path is covered in blood, tears and toil... we must carry on or perish. Let us not fall to temptation.... for it will never bring us true happiness. So, after all that nonsense... I'm not sure if I arrived at Art is OK for the individual yet. I think, I'm conceding that it is unavoidable, but that it isn't productive. I could almost call it detrimental to the sciences. We can go from there later... but I think that's where I want to start. Regardless, I have made it quite clear that societal Art is a terrible thing. That not only does it not have value, but it also wastes our minds. It's monetary value is absurd, and its cultural value.. well.... actually.. I haven't talked about it's cultural value... only on its effect on the individual... so yes.. can we go there next? Let us talk then about the "cultural value" of art. Lastly, I just noticed you were saying that math and science can't capture and share beauty... while this is true, because the second it is described as "beautiful", in that light... it is not scientific. That does not mean that science has not increased the beauty in the world. Look at any photo taken by Hubble of any Nebula or Planet or Galaxy.... there is certainly beauty there... but that is also a scientific endeavor. While it is beautiful... it's value isn't in that it is beautiful, but that it can give us insight to other galaxies and planets so that we can better understand our own (and maybe someday visit the places we now have images of because of science). Most art that exists today (save Cave Drawings and scribbles in the dirt with a stick) was assisted by science (paints,tools,any material really)... what in science today has been assisted by art? (and not kids learning math and geometry from paintings and music.. i'm talking real science breakthoughs assisted by art)