Thanks for the link Morgan. 

2. I don't mean that art is entirely divorced from everything else, but that some art (or, I should say, artists) do not take the social role of their artwork seriously.  Also, although, say, Richard Wagner was a great composer, antisemitism plagued his late works. It was not just that his art was still good, but the political significance of it changed, but that his art became worse during this later period as a direct result of the social significance of it changing.  He is not a great example because he was not being careless or apathetic, he was an anti-Semite (as far as I know) and presumably other anti-Semites believe his later work was better.  But if you look at popular rap music, many of the rappers are diffidently socially-unconscious.  They do not realize the impact of their music on society, and furthermore, they don't seem to care enough to inquire.

A purely aesthetic work of art would be one like gangster rap.  It may be that rapping about killing, raping, etc... is aesthetically pleasing in some way, but as Richard Rorty paraphrases James: "truth and reality exist for the sake of social practice, rather than vice versa."  And in this same line way of thinking, I believe that aesthetics exists for the sake of social practice, rather than vice versa. 

Anyways, I know this last claim is controversial with regards to both aesthetics and certainly truth/reality.  I would welcome someone taking me up on this point.