What do you think of the value of art?

In light of the recent CH issue and all, it got me wondering, what does art mean to perhaps non-practioners of it(I'm a pianist personally). Of course art in this case, could be taken to mean not only music, but other forms like painting etc.

So anyway, do you think the arts is useless? Just a plaything of the rich( i'm not rich though!)?
Or perhaps do you think it holds the key to the secrets of mankind...

Jam it back in, in the dark.

So I guess it raises the issue of "Public Funding for Arts".

I've heard a few points for the abolition of funding for arts personally.
If the art is popular, then people will pay for it. Government subsidies would unnecessary wouldn't it?
If art is not good enough to be popular, then the government should not reward it for its failure.
So we have the unsubsidised pop music industries floating around. One evident example would be Britain's. However it is interesting to note that their film industry(heavily subsidised) failed to take off.
----why should london have <insertbignumber> symphony orchestras if there is not enough demand to justify them all?-------

Art is elitist.
Just like , CH vs CH-haters, some individuals view CH-ers as elitist snoobish people, its often argued that why shouldn't the government fund more popular pastimes of the people like soccer or pop concerts. Why should it be just the favourite leisure pursuits of the elite who staff the government?

but..

Perhaps through subsidies, art can be made more available to the general public, that is, elite culture would reach out to all, and slowly breakdown into a part of the normal society.

I think there is actually very little people left to maintain a diverse and extensive artistic sector. So the arts would not survive, and ultimately maybe quality of life would degrade.
I guess it wouldn't be very clever to subject the arts as a commodity like when we study oil prices in economics. So by exposing it to the ups and downs of the business cycle, things lost during recessions could very well be gone forever.

But in the end, I think living in the 21st century, although the Arts are the soul of society, perhaps artists should strive to be commercially viable as well. However it does, of course, come with its trade-offs.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by Watts

Think about this for a second; all those old pieces by the masters made hundreds of years ago would not be worth much. With past renditions of styles/themes no longer in demand nothing would be preserved since they are no longer commercially viable. It'd be like eight track tapes, ditched for the new hotness.

I couldn't agree more. But I guess if you're an arts group that depend on your public performances as a source of income, it is inevitable.

You create something for now. In future its almost all forgotten. But you get cash for now. You don't worry about your basic necessities.

Then again you could say, "Is this really art?"
I mean you create not for art but as a means of living?

But I guess even the great masters then, like Mozart or Beethoven, they had to create new works for money. Were they not art? I would think not.

But its a difficult question.

Pardon me if I sound silly at times. I consider myself to be quite naïve at this subject.

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