Abstract

This paper considers John Carey’s case that the arts have no value; in particular his rejection of John Ruskin’s and Immanuel Kant’s treatments of art. I show, against Carey, that Ruskin has a cogent argument that art has inherent value in light of its connection to religion, morality, and use. I also show that Kant is likely to be correct that art has value when it satisfies us in its symbolic use when we enter a “world” in order to interpret or understand it. Since both Ruskin and Kant are more successful in their respective treatments of art than Carey is, we should conclude that Carey’s case fails.