[kmoser]

> Tying artistic and financial success [...]

If you're referring to the article's description of the study's measure of success, the metrics had little to nothing to do with direct financial gain.

> [...] in the sense that they have vanishing influence on public discourse.

Nothing inherently requires art to be a part of the public discourse. Sometimes artists create art for art's sake, and/or just to make a buck. Sure, occasionally some art makes it big in the public eye and becomes part of the zeitgeist, but the vast majority of art barely sees the light of day.

[lkm0]

The article, to me, comes across as focused on art as a job, especially sentences like "greater creativity and success in creative careers". There's a ring of self-help/pop business that just strikes me as artless.

> Nothing inherently requires art

Of course not: I've used academic in the precise sense of people deciding to go through the institutions of art, and coming out with a noticeable lack of tasteful intelligence. Is art education just a quest for social self-realization? is it a sinecure for the happy few? That I have no idea illustrates the point.