Do you believe in art for art's sake?

Question

That is to say, that art does not need a functional purpose.

Answer 1

Absolutely!

Art does not have to be functional, it's art.  It can be gloriously unuseful, but bring the greatest pleasure you can imagine.

Art for the sake of art is magic... an artist somewhere simply had no choice and had to create it.

Answer 2

No. I hate "Big Black Box" art. That means nothing to me. It might mean something to the artist. The artist might have been having dark thoughts when he/she created it. But, how is it supposed to relate to my life?

Instead, art should be something that can pretty much be universally accepted as taking talent to create.

Answer 3

I think that's one of the defining characteristics of art; it has no functional purpose.  It exists for self-expression and for vicarious experience.  Sure, some arts are functional--didactic theatre, music therapy, moralistic literature--but those are the exceptions and they're considered art by association, not by function.