[Hercuros]

I am personally not a big believer in the idea that art is just a means to an end (even if that end is something we consider very valuable). This article uses the words "purpose" and "goal" a lot, and it is that aspect that I disagree with, although I would agree that art is phenomenon that can only be considered properly inside of its social context.

That is, saying that a painting is just a tool for the painter to evoke certain emotions or experiences in the viewer (or social goals for the painter, like wealth and status), just as a hammer is a tool for driving nails into wood, is to reduce the painting to a mere instrument.

Art is meaningful to people, and I think that cannot be reduced to art being just a goal-directed tool we use to manipulate/control the world or people around us.

[tarakat]

I think of it as art itself being the goal.

While artists may hope their art will also fulfill other goals, I wouldn't want to live in a world without art, where those goals are instead fulfilled by expending equivalent effort to turn the crank of some machine. I suspect neither would the author of this article.

[boredemployee]

I agree. I often see the top 1% who are really successful in art, using art as the means rather than the end. note how mediocre their art is versus other great skills they have like networking (i.e.: current pop music) with very rare exceptions.