purpose v art

In class we talked a bit about purpose, and its relation to art. Does have a purpose? If so can it loose it’s purpose? Does it need a purpose? Fundamentally, I can’t decide if art has a purpose or not. I think it certainly has a means, which can be considered a purpose, however that’s less concrete than an actually goal. Lets say an artists paints cause it makes him or her happy, and a singer sings for the same reasons. Both of these forms can be considered art, but they both have a purpose. On the same token art, in its most basic form, might only be art because its purpose is indefinable, leaving the question open; does art have a purpose. I think, that art can still be considered art, even with a definite purpose. However, then we get into the question of what makes art art? Cause once you get twice or three times removed from the art, the purpose can change and is up for interpretation. So then is it still art? Or is it simply an undefined form? I’m getting confused just writing this so let me clarify a bit. Lets say that art is only art without a purpose. Then the first person to create anything that could be considered an art for (which could really be anything), just did it for the hell of it? Or did they do it expecting something in return? Cause if the first caveman to mark a wall did it expecting to see a mark on the rock when he was done, then it has a purpose. As basic as you can possibly think of art, there is always a result intended or expected, therefore it has a means or a purpose. So….it’s still art? I think so.