I didn't misunderstand you at all. You have almost completely miunderstood my response if that's what you got from it.

And no, it's not a paradox. You can find a great deal by me on paradoxes on Medium. I know what paradoxes are and I know what contradictions are. You have stated a contradiction. Nothing can have value by not having value.

Bascially, you buy into the Romantic ideas on art. Yes, they are recent, and that matters a great deal. Kant was responding to art that had completely divorced itself from its roots in religion. There was an attempt to justify art when there wasn't a real understanding of what art was about, what its origins were, etc. I don't find antifoundationalist arguments like that remotely convincing. If you divorce your understanding of anything whatsoever from its historical development, you don't understand it at all.

Art comes from humans and interacts with humans. You can not want art to have ethical implications, but that has no effect whatsoever on whether or not it does. In fact, there is scientific research that has demonstrated that it does. Unfortunately, facts don't care what you think of them or whether you think they ought to exist.

Art for art's sake is not true. It's a belief. It has influenced the creation of a great deal of art, with the consequence that we have ended up with nihilistic, decadent postmodern art. The great thing about periods of decadence is that they get replaced with new paradigms, revolutionary art that is not at all founded on the old notions on which they were founded. Modernism/Postmodernism is founded on art for art's sake. I prefer to think and work in the new paradigm.

I am the author of “Diaphysics” and “Hear the Screams of the Butterfly,” and a consultant, poet, playwright, and interdisciplinary scholar.

I am the author of “Diaphysics” and “Hear the Screams of the Butterfly,” and a consultant, poet, playwright, and interdisciplinary scholar.