The Arts have Value, in and of themselves

Thank you for the mutual forfeit, I tried my best but missed the deadline. Amazing weekend though! Worth losing out on a round :) Not to dwell on the subject, but I don't make up these definitions out of thin air. Blame Webster. Value, in it's DEFINITION, is linked to monetary value. You may choose not to like that, but you cannot simply by will forcibly declare it untrue. That being said, I will respect your request and not reference monetary value any more. However, this is not a point lost, but rather one suppressed. As for definitions-- you have left photography rather open, but I am going to assume that most photography is art, save for a handful of instances. Perhaps architecture, literature and culinary arts are all truly BOTH. I am willing to proceed under that assumption, but I do not condone middle-school-gym-class-style picking and choosing of certain things from a single discipline, while crediting them to vastly different sources. These things are art, science, or both. I concede society, over time may shrivel and die without science. I meant on a personal level. BUT I argue that society would likewise shrivel and die without art. No one has ever really performed either experiment, but I think the outcomes are equally unfavorable. A society without beauty, inspiration, emotion, color, music, etc. would surely cave to depression, apathy and melancholy. Not exactly a recipe for success. How can you possibly argue that art stifles the imagination?! I am arguing the exact opposite-- art encourages and nurtures the imagination. To that point, you provided no real evidence or example to prove that art has ANY negative effect on imagination. All evidence points toward MY argument. Art IS inspiration. Art IS imagination. You have many a medium at your fingertips. All you need to do is choose your method of expression and externalize the wonder within. Also unsupported is your argument that value decreases originality. And again, I starkly disagree. Value encourages more uniqueness, more creation. Value increases sharing and circulation, increases the permutations of media, method and sentiment. Like information, the more art is shared, the better it becomes. Art is a representation of sheer imagination. It allows our minds to go where science cannot. With art we may venture into the realm of the impossible, the improbable and the whimsical. IN FACT many of the things that science has recently made possible were FIRST imagined by artists, who were told they were crazy for acknowledging such possibilities. Take the moon landing (Jules Verne, author, artist); the internet (Mark Twain, author, artist); flying machines and armored tanks DaVinci (Renaissance man, artist). And don't tell me that science just happened to fulfill the visions of these people who just happened to come before and predict such things. No, science followed the path of imagination that was paved by ART and amazingly brought many grand ideas to fruition. And even today, many of our visions of the future of science are best illustrated by art. Ideas about traveling to other planets were common in literature, television and movies long before there were labs and scientists dedicated to that cause. Art is the imagination engine of invention. Think of it that way. Because it's true. Further, I feel you underestimate the value of fulfillment. We do not ALL need to be constantly creating things for utility. There are far more humans than there are necessary inventions. Additionally, you fail to acknowledge that not all inventions, experiments, etc. are useful and/or successful, never mind necessary. A useless invention, even if pioneered by science, is still useless. Science has its dead weight too. Fact: different people have different aspirations. Thus, you cannot say that art bars us from them if you cannot speak to the true full range of aspiration. Also, you argument proposing art allows the many to watch the few create, thus dispelling their desire to create a) has no factual or evidentiary basis and b) can (if true) apply just as much to science!!! If anything, the wonder of art inspires even more creativity. It could be called a positive feedback cycle. Honestly, when you start to talk about falling to temptation, you begin to sound like Billy Graham. I see no place in this argument on either side for crazed Christian ramblings. Neither art nor science has anything to do with temptation. And even if they did, the point is irrelevant. Many things that tempt us are perfectly harmless. And true happiness, like aspiration, is different for everybody. Temptation DOES make some people happy. ART makes some people happy. And yes, science makes some people happy. Anywho, moot, moving on. You speak of a mind as though there is a finite amount of thought any one person can expend in a given amount of time. The greatest minds have the power to think deeply about many things. The only waste is not using one's mind at all. Cultural Value: Art practically defines culture. The songs we sing, the movies and television we love, the food we eat (not out of utility, but out of tradition, desire and in the name of flavor!), all of these and many more manifestations of the arts compile what we call culture. And the regional differences in these pursuits defines others' cultures. Our devotion to our own culture is a big part of why we continuously strive to create more. We want to optimize enjoyment. On the flip side, the arts by way of culture allows us to learn about others' cultures. This is all very positive and productive though. Culture helps define groups of people. It also helps instill traditions and in some ways serves as ambassador to other peoples. Every country needs to feed, shelter and clothe its people. Every country must sometimes fight to defend itself. Culture is the wonderful segment of society that simultaneously makes us different, but also brings us together. And without the arts, it would not exist. Now, I see an implicit value in culture for all of these reasons and more. I cannot imagine that you would argue against culture, but in the case you do, you will have to actually disprove a) that culture is a positive, constructive and unifying force and that b) the arts make the backbone of culture. Learning: You bring up a good point-- kids DO learn math from music and geometry from paintings. Exactly. Or it can go the other way (learning music from math, etc.). This implies an academic value to the arts, on top of the other mounting values they have. Like math and science, the arts have to be learned, practiced. Even those who do not create novel arts, do well to know of them. Familiarity with the arts, in the simplest terms possible, increases one's ability to communicate with those around them in ways that are effective and thorough. Numbers and proofs cannot possibly convey every message a human would need to send. In fact, (and I talked about this a lot before so I will try not to rehash too heavily), the arts strive to encompass the full range of communication mediums. Learning them, especially in conjunction with math and science, makes for a truly FULL skills set. This fact is proven by the existence and SUCCESS of Renaissance men (and women). If this is not utility, I don't know what is. And here, I feel the value is again implicit. In conclusion of this round: 1) art facilitates imagination, 2) imagination leads to invention, 3) art leads to more (NOT less) creation, 4) art often predicts science, 5) art yields genuine fulfillment, 6) art not only has but defines cultural value, 7) by extension, this is another facet of the value of art, 8) art facilitates learning in general, 9) art improves communication (good). Thus, art is useful, has value and provides something unique to the individual as well as society. Good luck!