There are two good reasons to study philosophy. One is that philosophy teaches one to be exacting in sorting out ideas and how they are expressed. That's method. The other is that philosophical ideas have value independent of social utility. I mean they can be pursued for their intellectual pleasure even though they may not produce social power.
In art (at least) whatever one makes is subject to an approbation that may have nothing to do with the ideas associated with it. In the artworld, networking is everything. There's no way around that. Whatever is said about art with respect to meaning or importance is irrelevant as a measure of quality. The art marketplace is the only measure of quality and access to the artmarket is totally controlled by networking and its whims. Those whims are determined by cash. If an artwork sells for $100,000 it is ipso-facto more meaningful and of higher quality that one selling for $1,000. But the sale has to occur in an artworld context that is sustained by networking esteem. In other words it has to take place in a prestigious gallery or auction-house or in some direct relationship to those venues. But there are wrinkles. Even though quality is determined by artworld institutions (prestigious gallery, etc.) it is also evident that when something of any kind succeeds in the markeplace it generates the most excellent of that kind. In other words, if ironic cartoons achieve marketplace quality as art then more ironic cartoons, probably better made or more uniquely presented in the same or similar prestigious venues, have higher quality. That's how criticality enters the mix and obfuscates -- while providing a veneer of philosophical independence -- the underlying reality of sheer whim and raw networking as the fundamental definers of art and aesthetic experience. wc
