args

CMV: Art is practically useless, especially in the area of politics/making the world a better place.

I think I see the problem here particularly after reading some of your responses to others. The view you have of usefulness disregards many things other human beings find very useful. I don?t think I could change your view of art unless I changed your idea of usefulness which I think may be too subjective to be possible. I will, however, challenge you on the idea that something factual cannot also be art, and reassert that art will get a point across in ways that cold facts cannot. In fact one of the most common usages of art is to inform. Ex: A lot of people hadn?t heard of the Tulsa massacre until Watchmen featured it heavily. So here is the dictionary definition of ?art?: ?the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.? https://www.dictionary.com/browse/art You will notice it does not preclude works of art from being based in fact and the last sentence means an artist can present anything they deem more than ordinary significance. I also noticed you changed my example of an artist capturing something factual from a photorealistic painted portrait to an actual photograph. I do believe a photograph of a live event can be art, but I?d love it if you?d address my point about the portrait because I think it illustrates things pretty well PS - I disagree the massive counter culture hasn?t done anything. I think again your looking for a metric that doesn?t exist and then saying that means there was no effect at all