So did we continue the art discussion somewhere else? That was nice to see after a few days away from Lichess.
Of course (at least imo)
@GSP0113 is wrong and
@krasnaya is right, though he defends it on the wrong reasons. Art definitely has a purpose: to change the world, obviously. It will not, and probably can not, but it should.
I understand that GSP would have art be "useless" as to not have it become an instrument of some interest group. But this does not mean that we have no other option than fall into the empty formalisms of art for art's sake. On the contrary, art can, and art should create it's own standard. Art is art only in so far as it creates it's own standard. The more it desires, the greater it is. You see that in this way it has a purpose, yet does not communicate.
Krasnaya is wrong if he says that art has objective criteria. It does not. Art is wholly subjective. But, and I have made this point earlier at the start of the discussion, subjectivism doesn't rule out universalism. And this is a point that everyone here is missing.
As art creates its own standard, it is alone in it's sort: it is a singularity and thus universal. As a raster Kantian corrolary, I want my judgement on the work of art to be universal, i.e. if I say this is good then I want you and everyone to find it good also, and I am intolerant to other opinions. This is what makes art art. There are no art "taste buds". If I like this Mcdonadls hamburger I will not try to convince you of its merits. But with art, it is more than taste. In so far as the art work desires, something is at stake, and that is what makes art so great.
Sorry, for the messy writing, not my mother tongue and I need to be off to a chess tournament soon!