[osense]

I disagree that art is limited to things which have no clear value for survival. People have decorated every-day objects in their surroundings for millennia. Survival-themed video games have an innate attractiveness to many of us. Some even seek out to make their homes as plain & functional as possible and call it an art movement — minimalism.

[TheOtherHobbes]

Imagine an art-free world. Everything would be as functional and utilitarian as possible, with zero design and decoration.

Our world looks and sounds nothing like that. We put an incredible amount of effort into aesthetics. Virtually nothing is 100% utilitarian. Shape, colour, texture, and sound are all considered essential.

None of that has direct survival value, but it clearly has such deep emotional benefits that most people would find it very hard to be happy or functional in a purely utilitarian world.

[slfnflctd]

This is hugely visible in architecture.

There is a gray, rectangular building made of cinder blocks not far from here. The lighting is sufficient for all tasks needed, and its heating, cooling and drainage functionality is optimal.

A more recently built structure used for a similar purpose sits a few blocks away. Several pointless curves, colors and contrasting materials were used in its design. Light is allowed in from overly large windows near the roof line, leading to wildly varying amounts of illumination in much of the interior. It does not heat and cool evenly. The landscaping is excessive and requires additional maintenance.

Strangely, construction projects seem to be trending away from the former type of structure and toward the latter.

Which building would you rather work in?

[pishpash]

In fact we reject purely utilitarian landscapes as, variously, alien, cold, robotic, or dystopic.

More specific to music, it clearly has a unique value even within art. Multiple directors have said something to the effect that a movie doesn't work until the music is put in.