> If you read my and other responses in this thread, the arts/humanities are far from useless (they just have a less direct economic effect).
I never said arts/humanities are useless. I said they are luxuries, and the fact that people are bemoaning that it costs so much money to enter a non-lucrative profession is the very definition of a first world problem.
> Historically important art/music has often been ignored, ridiculed, censored, etc. To suggest that it only has social/cultural value if it appeals to a popular/paying audience is overly simplistic.
It might very well have social/cultural value. If you're not independently wealthy, you'll want it to appeal to a popular and paying audience if you like having food and shelter and toys.
> I'm not saying there's no overlap between capitalism and art in general, but if they're perfectly aligned then we miss the challenging, obscure, alternative, upsetting, disruptive, etc.
They're not perfectly aligned. However, if your "art" doesn't align with a paying audience, be prepared to be a starving artist with huge student loans. Society is not beholden to you to help you self-actualize your life. Get a job that pays money, and then do your obscure art in your spare time.
