Art for art’s sake, part I
30 January 2008 7 Comments
This is my third line of thought following up Jack of all arts, crafts, wannabe and Is art defined by communication? It was also prompted by “Mo-Coffee’s” comment on the latter post, in which he paraphrases Tennyson on poetry: “A poem doesn’t ‘mean,’ a poem ‘is.’”
Tennyson’s commentary, it seems to me, more or less represents the idea of art for art’s sake, which Wikipedia defines as “a philosophy that the intrinsic value of art, and the only “true” art, is divorced from any didactic, moral or utilitarian function.” The idea is credited to Theophile Guatier who lived in the mid nineteenth century.
The inclusion of the phrase “the only true art” sends up all kinds of red flags. Perhaps this part of the idea and definition was meant to exclude propaganda in its many forms, but it makes me think of the isolating and — in my opinion — counterproductive and potentially dangerous artist-as-genius mentality (an idea of mine that needs more exploration). That said, let’s look at art for art’s sake as “a philosophy that the intrinsic value of art is divorced from any didactic, moral or utilitarian function.”
Art that “is,” or art for art’s sake, is affirmed by Francis Schaeffer in his little treatise, Art and the Bible, on page 33 of my 1973 edition: “A work of art has value in itself.” He goes on in the same paragraph to point out that “Art is not something we merely analyze or value for its intellectual content. It is something to be enjoyed.” The point is made earlier in the book that certain instructions for for the fabrication of the tabernacle and then the temple were abstract and “for beauty“: Multi-colored pomegranates on garb, chains and pomegranates adorning freestanding pillars and and precious stones for beauty.
What about works of art that are not necessarily “for beauty” — and I say this without desiring, at this point, a discussion on personal aesthetics. What about paintings intended to comment on society, such as Picasso’s Guernica? Do these works also possess innate value though their content is less than pleasant?
But then where do you draw the line between works of art and propaganda, perhaps on the basis of how well-known an artist is? Maybe judging by the quality of the craft?
Agreeing that art bears an intrinsic value — regardless of message, intent or ability to communicate, relevance to a cultural context — lends an incredible amount of validity to modern conceptual or non-representational artwork. If a person agrees with the doctrine of art for art’s sake almost anything can become art. Is this a slippery slope, one that leads to curators fabricating boxes with a set of instructions sent to her by the artist — a box that many people in our culture will, for whatever reason, look at and think “That’s not art?”
I’m going to call this inquisitive ramble part one on art for art’s sake, and hope I can come back to it in the near future.
If art is to be divorced from didactic and moral functions, should we exclude as “true” any art which seems to present a message? Is it even possible for art not to have a message of some sort?
While I do not wish to deny that some art should be enjoyed for its own sake, I think that limiting true art to that which is “art for art’s sake” is perhaps too narrow a category.
Someone can “comment on society” without that comment being propaganda. That distinction shouldn’t have anything to do with the renown of the speaker (fame) or the quality of the vocalization (craft).
Is that comment systematic? What organization/government/State/etc. is disseminating the comment?
I think I may be the only advocate of art for art’s sake on your blog
I’m glad to see you taking on this very tricky issue, and I find your comments really perceptive. I think you do point out many of the problems with the concept. Certainly as expressed in the wikipedia definition. Any manifesto (recognized by phrases like “the only true art,”) sends up red flags indeed.
And yes, you make an excellent point about work that comments on society that is not “beautiful.” Guernica, certainly, also everything Goya ever made, not to mention Kara Walker’s work (a contemporary artist). I don’t know how you might feel about this next statement, but for the record when you make this point you are perfectly aligned with the Post-Modernist movement, which railed on all work that embraced “beauty,” and preferred artwork that was either extremely political or ambiguous. OK, I didn’t mean to say y’all love all things Post Modern, just the anti-beauty part, but it is interesting where that idea led us culturally over the past two decades. Further complicating things, there are tons of politically charges PM artists I ADORE (Kara Walker, for one).
I’m curious what y’all make of Gregory Wolfe’s most recent editorial essay in Image–http://www.imagejournal.org/current/editorial.asp
It makes some interesting comments on the intrinsic, and necessary, theological need to recognize “beauty for beauty’s sake.” I think I hear you all saying you would agree (perhaps concede) to this to a point, but not to the point of accepting some/all modernist/ contemporary/ concepts, particularly certain kinds of abstraction (minimalism?). Am I reading that right?
Lot’s of questions remain. How does one define beauty? What about Keat’s line from Ode on a Grecian Urn:
‘Beauty is truth, truth beauty,—that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.”
Wouldn’t that allow us to consider Guernica “beautiful,” on the grounds that it points us to a “truth?”
Also, I wish Tara Donovan didn’t give you so much trouble. I see you reading the fact that the curator puts the cube together as reinforcing the “artist as genius” idea, but could it not also be seen as reinforcing a newer paradigm that art is a community event, that it’s creation should involve more than one person? What do y’all make of Christo?
@ Mo-Coffee:
Oh boy, you hit on a bunch of stuff. I fear my post wasn’t all that coherent to begin with, hence my referring to it as a “ramble.” I’ll try and respond to all that you’ve got going on there but may not hit all of it tonight.
First off, beauty is something I strive for in my own work and thought. It has been a driving force since I became an art student, even if my questions above may have given you a different impression. By no means do I think an work of art MUST be beautiful, but I hope a lot of artists even today are considering the idea of beauty as they design and craft their works.
I have no bones about being referred to as post modern, in fact I generally couldn’t care less how people label me. I hadn’t picked up on PMist’s distaste of beauty as you point out, but it makes some sense off-hand. Adding: There’s a blurb at the end of this post from last week about my take on post modernism.
The definition of beauty is something I’ve mused on here occasionally, though mostly with respect to the human form: http://theaestheticelevator.com/category/aesthetics/beauty/ .
And, lastly tonight, I don’t really feel that Tara Donovan gives me all that much trouble. All I know of her is from the article I read and posted on earlier in the month. I used the example again here since it was fresh in my mind; perhaps it wasn’t the best of examples.
I learned from one of my ceramics profs to value collaborative work, and I am eager to see artists more involved in their communities in a number of ways — which goes back to the beef I have with the isolating nature of the perpetuated artist-as-genius mentality. By no means do I mind that she’s stepping out in this way, it’s just not something that I can get on board with in the way that she is reportedly going about it. It smacks of mass production in my mind more than collaboration, though in reality it’s probably in between these two ideas.
I don’t mind Christo’s work, but it seems to me to be in a completely different category. His environmental installations are fascinating — I’ve long had the desire to do things on a large scale (even if not quite that large) — but hard for me to say much more about him. In general his works have never been either engaging or off-putting to me; they’re just there.
Why do you ask?
WordLily said: Someone can “comment on society” without that comment being propaganda.
I agree.
There were a number of holes in my writing; I had worked on this piece a while and wasn’t getting much further on it, so I went ahead and posted it for the time being. I got a little carried away with my questions, not getting into answers as much as I should have.
Pingback: This just handed to me… « Conscious, and Occasionally Organized, Ramblings
For what it’s worth, Mo-Coffee, I don’t think what you thought you were hearing (Anti-beauty, anti-abstraction sentiment) is being expressed here — not by me, certainly. I’m not sure what you’re referring to.