I have recently been studying the value of art at college and this question was posed to me and I thought well this is actually quite intresting so I thought i'd dedicate this blog to the topic, and well general philosophy i'll add more questions as time goes on, but back to the question above.
People argue that there are three values of art, the first is that art is imformative, the second is that it is expressive and thirdly is that art is just art and valuable because of it's form.
Whilst you can argue that art is valuable because of one of these I argue that using the term 'art' you are leaving the question to broad, not art is the same therefore you need to approach individual artworks un-biased and consider each of the above 'values' I find that alot of artworks have all three and that artwork is valuable for the one that stands out the most an example is "the diving and the butterfly" a clip can be seen here
It is informative, it is expressive and it has unique form, I find all three combine in value and make the artwork even more valuable than if it only had one, but the 'value' that stands out the most is its expressive qualities, his perspective, the tragedy and weirdly enough the occassional piece of satire.
To conclude art has many values but we need to decide on a one-by-one basis which artworks are valuable because of each 'value.'
