As photography and film give accurate images of the world around us or an imaginary world, and as they use symbolism, explain concepts and can produce beauty, is there any room left for traditional art?

There's plenty of room left for traditional art. Why? Because the arts aren't really in competition for room. Painting can give accurate images, represent an imaginary world, use symbolism, etc., but that doesn't mean there isn't room for sculpture, literature, photography, film, theater, dance, etc. Why wouldn't there be room for them? If it were the case that each art had a distinctive function, then it might seem that the invention of an art that could perform all artistic functions would render those other arts superfluous. But this would be mistaken. Swiss army knives haven't rendered screwdrivers and bottle-openers superfluous. Moreover, the individual arts don't work like that--they don't each have distinctive functions. Each one of them can do a variety of things--and it is up to artists to show us what can be done while working in those forms.

Read another response by Aaron Meskin
Read another response about Beauty