If art fails the intended purpose by the artist, but...
CMV: Art is practically useless, especially in the area of politics/making the world a better place.
Okay I think I understand your position better now, because of the question "What's the goal?" Of course, if the only goal of a piece of art is to end a war, and it doesn't end the war, it was pracitcally useless *in regards to that specific goal*. Maybe this was a speech barrier problem, but to me, useless means "absolutely no use, in no respect whatsoever". Does "useless" only mean "not usefull for the intended goal right now" for you? Thats why your question puzzled me a bit. I think goals are completely irrelevant to your argument, that art is useless. If art fails the intended purpose by the artist, but instead enriches the lives of millions, or even only one person (the artist him/herself), how is it useless? It has been made use of! Maybe not the intended one, but there are an inconcievable amount of other possible und potential uses. If your Thread would have been something like: "Art never reaches it's intended goal, if this goal is anything significant in the area of politics", my argument would miss your point, but thats just not what you have said, right?