I have seen some pretty convincing arguments for that, and people nowadays assume that, personal taste notwithstanding; likewise, some think art should teach us something, and so and so) through its very own means.
Of course, this assumes that art has an actual role in society, but that's another discussion entirely. There's also the matter of "effective" vs "not enjoying" and what makes "good" art, which also deserves its own discussion.
So yeah, it's just me agreeing with those who saw a value in it, and repeating what they've said.
Just so it's fairer, those are not exactly my words, just what we've learned in class these days (I'm a lit student). Aristotle proclaimed that tragedy's ultimate goal was a kind of pleasure (katharsis, although nobody agrees on what kind of pleasure) and Horace proclaimed that a poet's ultimate goal was to instruct AND please. It's just that I agree with those positions (I really should start citing like Fay does); I mean, if I wanted to unveil the great misteries of the humanity I'd discuss it with someone else and that would give me intelectual pleasure, in which case art is completely unnecesary. Then art must produce a very particular kind of pleasure (that of experiencing beauty? depends on how you define and it's pointless here; liberating those especific emotions to which the artist aims perhaps? ...
Nah, come on. It's yur gurl Keisha Fabo. I was callin' to see if you funna wanna gonna go to da park wit me and we can go look for sum thug daddies to fuck with. You know, with da pocket full o' grub and da stacks on deck, you feeel me?
Foozz? He's not an unreasonable person, and I'm not really out to convince anyone this time. I just wanted to put in my two cents. Besides that, I can totally understand his position and I respect that.