R: Art Should Have a Purpose

Art is one of the most enduring and universal facets of the human condition. It has been with us since millennia before recorded history and is ubiquitous to every culture. Art's inherence to human nature, however, has not stopped humanity from using it as a tool to achieve goals, both benevolent and malicious. From religious icons and idols to propaganda posters, monuments, and even political cartoons, art has and will continue to be used for political, cultural, or spiritual affect. 

Some artists, however, wish to eschew this linkage between art and purpose. James McNeill Whistler, the great 19th-century American expatriate painter, was a central figure of the Aesthetic movement, a movement that yearned to create "art for art's sake", free from social mores and political ideologies, appreciated for its inherent beauty. Today, we see a transition from the staid, realistic paintings of the pre-Industrial era to more abstract art forms that attempt to display emotion, thought, or, sometimes in the case of abstract art, nothing at all.

Should art have a purpose? Can an artwork truly be devoid of any goal or purpose, or must an artist imbue his or her work with some subjective end in mind? How do modern artworks play into this debate, and, as conservatives, should we appreciate modern art as a legitimate artform, or should we cast it away as yet another aberration wrought by the tearing in twain of traditional societal bonds and values?