Art does NOT have an inherent value! I can knock that down easily, to both of our relief!
Most people don't argue that art has -inherent- value, like would abstract expressionists, for an example. Some modern and post-modern art forms hold art as an end in itself, but that has been rejected by the Aesthetic world for good reason, time and time again. Even Hitler had a point when it came to this. As I understood, he was rejected from an art academy on the basis that abstract, non-representative art was the new thing at the time, and Hitler wanted to paint homesteads, you know, art with -relativistic- value.
Art has relativistic value, absolutely. I could look at an anime and think, "This cartoon wants me to feel like sexualizing children/hypersexualizing adults = good time and normal." This feels wrong. It feels wrong for anyone with a conscience to experience such a realization.
If I said that consuming art for art's sake is wrong, that is a defensible position. I can go into a sandbox, make a mess, knowing that it was not an effortful "piece," and claim it was a work of art. It would objectively be wasting people's time to draw attention to this chaotic impulse, yet we would defend it if art indeed had inherent value.
Music has no inherent value. It's valuable because we experience space, and more importantly, time. If we lived eternally, music would sound like hell. Music sounds good because we know our time is ticking and music makes that a good thing, while being immortal, the temporality of music would at least be absurd, if not offensive.
Cave painting couldn't have preceded the fact that people figured out how to have food in their bellies and find shelter from the cold, though. That's literally the only point on primitivism I want to make :p