Debate me:

Visual art only has any real real value if it's design or integrated into an object (murals, decoration etc.) or used as nothing but a tool for visual storytelling

Art as in simply drawn imagery is completely worthless and meaningless without historical significance or intruiging context behind it.
Ever since cameras became relevant paintings and drawings that serve no purpose beyond depicting an object yet most artists still latch on to the idea of pictures that depict objects have any value whatsoever.

The fact that porn drawings and character designs make up nearly all of the low tier online art market (that excludes money laundering business of fine art) proves tjat the public sees no value in drawings as pictures unlike back in the days when it was the only way of capturing an image.

If the artista consider drawing fun and menaingful for themselves it has personal value but if the drawing doesn't manage to actually raise any emotions in the viewer, it is meaningless to everyone else.

If the artist's only motive is to please themselves then drawing hyperrealistic portraits and random fantasy landscapes and figures has value but if the artist makes art in order ro distribute it to other than such art is worthless these days.

Also the reason why 99% of comics on the internet, including ic and co are utter shite is because they're made by people whose primary focus is drawing and storytelling comes as a secondary motive

Tl;dr in modern days art has any value only if it's used as a tool for storytelling or designing something that has a function because photography has made everything else obsolete.

Also porn drawings are not visual art just as porn videos aren't film art