If art deserves its enormous prestige (and I think it does), then it should be able to state its purpose in relatively simple terms. I believe art is ultimately a therapeutic medium, just like music. The second question has long felt either vulgar and impatient or else simply unanswerable.

But could this really matter to me? What should art really be for?

We look at the caption and dutifully learn some key dates, the provenance and perhaps an explanation of an allegory. In the solemn galleries of museums, which is still where most of us pick up cues about how to behave around art, many of us are – in our hearts – a little lost (the gift shop is more helpful it may be embarrassingly easier to have a fruitful time with the postcard than the original). The way the establishment presents art to us doesn't invite us to bring ourselves into contact with works. The cost and prestige of art typically draws us back from such steps. We don't assemble our own private galleries on our computers. We don't have playlists of favourite images on our phones. Few of us involve paintings or sculptures in our emotional lives. Yet few of us would think of turning to the visual arts for this kind of help. Almost all of us are, without training, DJs of our own souls, deft at selecting pieces of music that will enhance or alter our current moods for the better.

I t comes naturally to most of us to think of music as therapeutic.

The sorrows of love alain de botton