What do you think of the value of art?

I hate to bring up Scott McCloud, but I like his definition of art as: "something which does not directly arise from the two basic needs of survival and reproduction." Of course, this brings up questions like: Does the professional artist make art for the sake of money? Or does he make art, and thereby make money for it?

I would say in general that art is indeed "useless" in a practical sense, i.e., you can't use it to do anything. However, I would say that the value in art is taking whatever materials are available to us (as humans), and using them to create an expression of self more direct than words, based on how one uses them. It's a much more gripping way of communicating one's personality, which is naturally and unavoidably reflected through how one handles their material of choice, be it painting, music, sculpture, etc.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Salient, I was using the word "useful" in a purely practical sense. Perhaps I didn't clarify that. What I meant was, art is not strictly necessary to life in the same way that oxygen or water is. One can live without art; one cannot live without oxygen.

By the second quote, I meant that whatever medium an artist chooses, due to their personality, what they create from it is unique to them. No other person would handle the same material in quite the same way. How they treat the material reflects their beliefs about how to use it, and through that, their personality.

And yes, I know Warhol wasn't a surrealist . I just like the juxtaposition

As for McCloud, I personally like him, but from what I've seen, he gets a bad rap some places, and I didn't want to start anything.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

That's a good point, Magi. I hadn't thought of it that way. It'd be interesting to see what purpose art serves if you look at it from different perspectives.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.