The idea that art (of all type) is a sort of antechamber one
habituates, or medication one swallows, in order to "improve" one's self
and/or one's society, is a bourgeoisie, Victorian-era, artifact.
The Victorian notion was that the, then-trebling, early-industrial
era's 'great unwashed' could be demographically reduced, or socially
improved, by supplementing the workers otherwise squalid existences with
calibrated doses of culture.
These ideas have persisted to our day and
are now greenhouse-propogated by relational aestheticians and
non-profit ( governmental and private) entities who dole out public
funds based on 'measurable' audience-outreach and measurable
audience-enrichment ... read "improvement".
I've no argument against, nor practical alternative to these hoary
ideas and practices - mine is a subjective observation. Nothing more.
