What has art to do with living?

Can you imagine a world populated by human beings without art? There is somehow an inextricable link between what it means to live as a human being and the existence of art, the capacity to create it and respond to it. But how does art give our lives the meaning that it does? Or rather why? Does it share any common properties with other items that make human life meaningful, i.e. medicine, scientific discovery, morality? And then how is it distinctive from these other avenues of meaning? It is peculiar and ambiguous as to it's teleological character. Where scientific discoveries tend to lean towards the purpose of progress, medicine towards better healthcare, morality towards better governance, to what purpose does art lean if it does at all. Is the artwork itself the purpose and the end to which it was created? And if so, where do we derive meaning from it? Let's suppose it is suggested that a painting is created for a merely aesthetic purpose -- pleasing horizontal lines and circles or something to that effect. Of course this is hypothetical since a surface aesthetic purpose may cover for a true purpose of profit (galleries, pornography, etc), persuasion to vote a particular way (propaganda, etc). But let's for now suggest that a truly aesthetic purpose is true. Is the work necessarily art? Let's take a portait for example. Is a portrait always created for an aesthetic purpose? Probably not. It is meant to resemble the subject to which it is portraying, whether that subject is aesthetically pleasing to look at or not. This does not disqualify the portrait from being considered a work of art though. So a truly aesthetic purpose is too specific rather than encompassing. Thinking this way it is pertinent to ask whether or not art can be grouped is such a large category or if it needs to be separated into various categories (literary arts, visual arts, film, etc). Can we really classify all of these as art using categorical principles. Chances are slim, though it has been tried. Principles, however, would need to encompass the actual artists' purposes and context, and the actual artworks' context, which is of course impossible with artworks temporally separated, sociohistorically, culturally separated from their times. An undergirding categorical principle would need to take all of this into account for each artwork. A daunting, and perhaps useless task. Another problem with applying principles to all artworks is that once a principle is proposed that encompasses all artwork, that principle is usually too broad encompassing more than what is allocated as art. For instance, I draw some squigly lines on paper, and call it art. Chances are, most people will disagree with me. But according to a categorical principle that undergirds art I am correct. See the problem. This is not to suggest a relativism with regards to art since it is obvious that some things are considered art by a wide majority and other things not. What is considered art must be taken into account even if it is being labeled art based upon inadequate principles such as only aesthetic ones. The ambiguity as to who decides what art is and how they decide is one of the underlying problems I'm noting here. For instance, a certain gallery was having an exhibition, and an artist decided to go to the local hardware shop, buy a urinal and enter it into the exhibition as is. The first year the judges (authorities) deemed the urinal inadequate art, but then later recanted entering it into the gallery. A year later is was taken out. So you see there is a certain disagreement on what makes art art even to those we recognize as having the authority to make such decisions. The only way I can characterize art based upon these examples is that it is 1) something that communicates meaning in communion b/w artist and artwork with the interpreter -- his or her experiences and context and 2) something that stands the test of time remaining an artwork regardless: it is better understood and perhaps appreciated given its context and history, but one needs not know these things to appreciate it. To know the purpose of the artist, the context, etc perhaps allows for a more full appreciation of the artwork, but not a necessary appreciation. The artwork should be able to stand on its own two legs apart from these communicating them within the work itself. The latter statement 2) would disqualify the urinal, but give the Harry Potter stories a chance to prove themselves to the world. Anyway, back to purpose. What purpose does art serve then or is purpose-free art a distinction that separates art from other meaningful endeavors? Well, I think art can be both. Let me explain. What about scores composed for film, such as the Lord of the Rings score by Howard Shore. The composer is given video clips and audio dialogue to work with limiting the scope of a score for the purpose of amplifying mood and giving a quality to the film that would otherwise be absent. This greatly limits the artist and the artwork for the purpose of contributing to the overall work of art -- the film. Does this nullify score composers as true artists having restrictions placed upon them, or having a purpose for composing when I've suggested already that some purposes for artistic endeavors kill the artistic component? I don't think so. I would suggest that these limitations actually enhance the overall artwork. This is not propaganda or pornography or something to that affect. Finally I think that art, because of its ambiguity and varying forms is oftentimes linked and described in terms of morality, aesthetics, values, etc. We lend art -- its creation and interpretation -- a transcendent quality that encapsulates human nature pointing to possibilities beyond, or rather pointing to situations presently. For instance, we will say that a novel is great because it encapsulates justice, reveals what evil really is, or maybe it just makes us happy (with a sappy romantic ending with a kiss, or Benji comes charging home). These are all various ways in which works of art are described and reviewed by critics. But the connection between art and morality, or art and aesthetics is less realistically made since some artworks can be interpreted in such terms and others cannot. Abstract art comes to mind with regards to morality. Is an abstract painting always linked with morality? Is a painting portraying French aristocrats making their way to the Guillotine aesthetically pleasing? Not always (if ever). This does not discount its status as art since many will consider it art, but it does discount an aesthetic principle in such a case. Well, I've said enough for now...back to Greek exegesis.