We seem to take it for granted that some works of art or fiction have "aesthetic value", which is classed as being of higher value than mere "entertainment value". However, the two don't actually seem that different. Both are values mainly of pleasure, not usefulness or truth; both can criticize or reveal; both can be judged by fixed standards, or based on personal taste. So what is the real distinction between aesthetic and entertainment value, other than that we hold aesthetic value in higher regard?

Is the natural human body considered art? I guess one would have to define art first, and in what context it is being called art. Also, who is the artist? The creators of the human, or the human? Perhaps art is simply creation with creative intent. Would the parents be the sculptors where the genes would create a piece of art, or is it only a canvas they created? What would some arguments be, for and against this idea?

What's the difference between aesthetic and entertainment value?

What is the purpose of art in periods of economic decline?

I'm wondering about the interaction of a viewer with a piece of art. Beyond a basic psychological response of "I like it" or even a highly-reasoned critique, is there anything about art which spurs the viewer to do anything, to take any action? I suppose I'm asking about our response to art. Can you qualify a 'good' piece of art as one which produces a certain response in a person?

I was listening to some rap music, and I was impressed by the artist's skillful use of rhyme, metaphor, imagery, allusion, and general wit. The artist is clearly skilled with the same tools of good poets and authors. Unfortunately, the music was also degrading; as it celebrated misogyny, violence, homophobia and elitism. It's a crying shame the artist wasted such talent to create something so hateful and unedifying. Would this artist's work be considered good art? Certainly there have been artists who have created disturbing, ugly pieces. However, it seemed to me such pieces were always meant to challenge the viewer, and ultimately aid in our growth and understanding. Is it possible for a great work of art to be degenerative, to make us more bigoted instead of enlightened?

On the subject of art - I have done only little research regarding different philosopher's opinions on the validity and place of art in society. It seemed some pre-Socratic philosophers believed art and tragedy were the only worthwhile endeavors in life, and contrariwise, that philosophers have since decided reason is the only valid way to approach life. Can you provide a more recent overview of the philosophical place of art in society, and/or classic/recent texts where I could read more?

There seem to be two major assertions about how an artwork comes into existence: the first one considers the artist to have some kind of access to the "essence of truth" or something like that; the artist receives the idea in an inspirational moment and consequently creates the artwork on that foundation afterwards. The second assertion considers art to be the product of a huge mental or bodily effort. The second one is undermined by the statements of many artists. But what do you think about the first assertion? I'm not sure about refusing it right away.

Let's agree that something is art if the art world views it as art. Many famous painters were refused exhibition for years, only to have their rejected works considered masterpieces at a later date. Others were considered great artists, only to be virtually forgotten. Operas go in and out of fashion. Same with literary works. Does this mean that the same works can be art at some points in time but not art at other points in time?

I have listened to various recordings of Handel's Messiah recently. Each has different rendering of the original work. What is the difference between modifying musical works of art and "touching up" a classical painting or poem?