Art is used for psychological and healing purposes

The argument

Since art may induce emotions in people, therapists, psychotherapists and clinical psychologists use it as part of the diagnosis and treatment. Therapists usually think of art not as a focus on the end goal, but rather on the process of healing through art. For example, therapists use the Diagnostic Drawing Series to determine the personality and emotional functioning of patients. This treatment has been successful in kids, adolescents and adults in groups or individually. Art therapy may offer insight into the troubles the patient experiences and suggests a direction for therapy.

Premises

Counter-arguments

That art is used therapeutically shows one application of art, not the purpose of art as such. The question asks what art is for, and the sibling positions — expression and communication — hold that healing uses are downstream of a more basic function: art heals precisely because it expresses and communicates emotion. On this reading, therapeutic use is evidence for those accounts, not a rival purpose. Critics also note that the overwhelming majority of art is never made or encountered in a clinical setting, so elevating a specialised professional practice to "the purpose of art" mistakes one particular use for the thing's defining aim.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] That therapists can use art in treatment establishes a use, not art's purpose; art's capacity to "induce and express emotions" is the very expressive function the rival positions identify as primary. [Rejecting P3] Offering insight and a direction for healing is a benefit of engaging with art, but benefits are not purposes — reading also aids therapy without that being the purpose of literature. [Rejecting C] The conclusion generalises from a specialised clinical practice to art as a whole; most art is created and experienced outside any healing context, so therapeutic use cannot be its defining purpose.