[Dalewyn]

I'm merely stating the sometimes brutal reality of art and its real (intrinsic) vs. perceived value. When a society needs to respond to a challenge, art is among the first things that are put aside due to its unnecessary nature (lack of intrinsic value). Namely in times of war or disasters.

I've also only touched on how art has lost perceived value over time regardless, which I feel is in large part due to there being more and more an oversupply of artists as time goes on. "AI" accelerates this as I've said, but the trend itself has been around for a long time.

[yterdy]

That's not true at all. In war? The Nazis took great pains to preserve (stolen) art; the Islamic State went out of their way to destroy it. Americans vigorously catalogue war efforts, with much risk to photographers. Even going back to ancient times, weapons and armor were lavishly decorated. What's the enduring symbol of the space race? An American flag, planted on the moon. And the way out of the Great Depression was the WPA, including its art and architecture initiatives. One of the few fully-intact survivors of Japan's economic crash in the mid-90s was its animation industry; the US gaming industry grew while the rest of the economy languished following the GFC. I could go on.

Art is political; it stirs passions, which is to say that it's the motive force behind (public support for) many great undertakings. In these cases, you've mistaken pricelessness for worthlessness. You're just one in a long line of very incorrect people to mis-define "intrinsic value"; designating that as a "brutal reality" is ironic, since you won't face the actual reality.