Printable View
For a photograph the form is the impact of the photographic settings, while the content is the subject of the photograph. It seems the form becomes how something is captured, while the content is what is being captured.
I have taken "art for art's sake" to mean creation for the sake of creating, being in itself an end, not a means.
Jon1jt's post seems to follow a similar line.
Hmm..I think art for art's sake works well (for me as reader) with poetry but not so much with fiction. I like fiction with a good plot, if the writer uses good (beautiful) technique to get that plot across thats only a plus.
I'm afraid some guys have gone a little bit out of the topic.
Another idea of the doctrine is that it is not nature that produces art but rather art itself creates the nature. Do you think it is logical or acceptable?
Sorry for going out of topic, it appears the term "art for art's sake" is an ambiguous one....but that is certainly an interesting notion. I think that this statement that art creates nature kind of ties in with the notion that existence revolves around perception. SO I could definetely buy into this way of looking at art and nature.
No I do not. Art is merely a reflection or an abstraction of nature. It does not possess the creative faculty; that is the sole possession of humanity. You could argue from a creationist point of view that humanity itself is art, but if we are limiting this discussion, as I assume we are, to works of art made by humans then the works of art obviously cannot be held accountable for the creation of nature.Quote:
Originally Posted by godhelpme2
This argument is essentially using the terms of one world and applying them to another. One cannot speak of the physical world with terms designated for the metaphysical. It would be like saying that the portrait made the man, which is an absurdity unless taken as a metaphorical statement. But this argument of art for art's sake would necessarily intend such a statement to be literal.
Good point, Virgil. I seem to recall that Sartre had something to comment on that very idea in his Literature and Existentialism. I'll have to look it up and refresh my memory.Quote:
what about music? How does a Beethoven symphony, clearly high art and yet having no intellectual content (it's all abstract), fit into this discusson?
That familiar saying seems very valid to me. Some people have said that a play is nothing without an audience. Well, I'd say it has its own integrity without an audience watching it. Play rehearsals w/o an audience certainly are real.
Another phrase is "making life an art" or "living as art" -- also described as "immediacy" without any alternate, added or ulterior purpose. Just living to live. Or just to be. Or direct being. "Being for being's sake" sounds decent enough too.
If an artist has some other intention other than the execution of the art, then an alternative purpose (ofttimes money) creeps in and artistry may be reduced.
The philosopher Susanne K. Langer talks a lot about aesthetics -- art for art.
I don't believe "art for art's sake" was meant to suggest that art was nothing more than a pleasing arrangement of colors, sounds, shapes, words, etc... without meaning or content. Rather, I believe it was intended as a rejection of the notion that art can/should be judged (as art) based upon non-art values such as religion, morality, politics, etc... As such, it is in direct opposition to many contemporary literary theories that espouse the notion that everything is political and should be read with a proper (politically correct?) cant. In other words, artists such as Baudelaire, Wilde, Pater, Whistler, the Impressionists, Debussy, etc... were not making art without "meaning" or content... but rather, they all rejected the notion that we should, for example, reject Shakespeare as a literary artist because his plays did not profess some noble moral... because good did not neccessarily prevail, evil was not always ugly and ignorant, etc...
To often, I feel, "art for art's sake" (l'art pour l'art) is imagined as the products of some simpering, effete, aesthetes who value nothing more than beauty for beauty's sake. Of course music and abstract art might be seen, on one level, as nothing more than a pleasing arrangement of tones, colors, shapes, textures, etc... On one level, this may be a valid description. However... just because we cannot ascribe a definite clear "meaning" to Mozart's Clarinet Quintet or Rothko's "Seagram's Paintings" does not mean they are "meaningless". neither should we assume that literature (however many links it may share with visual art or music) may just as easily succeed as nothing more than an arrangement of pleasing words. I doubt that any great art can truly be seen as meaningless or without content. Essentialy, 'art pour l'art is the foundation upon which Modernism was built... freeing art from the neccessity of servicing some external value. Art could continue to be political (Beckmann, Guernica, Steinbeck, Brecht) but it was realized that one might value... even admire a work of art in spite of it's presentation of political views that were contrary to one's own... moral views that were doubtful (at best)... or even no morals at all.
I profess such a belief (or one quite close to such) myself. Walter Pater's Conclusion to The Renaissance is one of my favorite passages in literature (and perhaps the one that best explains what I value about art. I personally do not read with some political/social/economic/moral/religious agenda in mind. Neither do I read to merely reinforce my own values/beliefs. I greatly enjoyed reading Plato, Rousseau, Dante and many other brilliant authors... in spite of my having "fought" with them all the way. As a visual artist myself, I bristle at the notion that my work SHOULD convey a certain moral/ethical/political/economic/social/religious value. I read... listen to music... look at art... so that I can engage in a sort of intellectual intercourse with great minds different from my own. I create art in order to give form to my thoughts (not to what others think I should be thinking).
Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
so basically what you're saying is that you produce art for art's sake. :D
artist as god is as old as adam. is it acceptable? depends on the quality of the artist.
You know, we think that works of art whose base meaning is to create a work of beauty are not inferior to those that try to express philosophical, moralor political views.
Take the last scene with Sofya and Svidrigailov from "Crime and Punishment", for example. Oh, you could extract some generalisation or idea out of it, but really, the stark emotion you get from the scene is something you can't describe with words. It is higher than words, unique. It can inspire you,you can communicate how you feel about it by writing your own piece of art, but how to put it in words?
However, analyzing is much more social, you can sit over a coffee table and exchange words about the work of art, but you cannot exchange the emotion you get from it. (other than creating your own work of art)
Or, as Billy Collins put it:
Quote:
Introduction to Poetry
I ask them to take a poem
and hold it up to the light
like a color slide
or press an ear against its hive.
I say drop a mouse into a poem
and watch him probe his way out,
or walk inside the poem's room
and feel the walls for a light switch.
I want them to waterski
across the surface of a poem
waving at the author's name on the shore.
But all they want to do
is tie the poem to a chair with rope
and torture a confession out of it.
They begin beating it with a hose
to find out what it really means.
Billy Collins
Yes, beauty can be a very laudible aim for art, as much so as social expression. The intention of the artist, or the content of the art is not the conflicted issue; it is the attempt to divorce art of its social background that raises questions. It is the suggestion that art can pertain to itself alone that is preposterous. Regardless of how art is criticized, it cannot ultimately be thought of a springing from itself, for itself. Without humanity, there would be no art; therefore, art pertains to humanity. As a more self-evident example--there would be no art without physics. This is not meant to suggest that art must at all times be judged in terms of its relationship to physics, merely that it cannot come about divorced of physics, with or without any knowledge of physics on the part of the artist, and therefore can at all times be related or thought of in terms of physics. The same goes for art's origin in humanity. By this we can assume that the intention of the artist is not all-important; by it we also see that an artist cannot possibly create something that has naught to do with society or nature, no matter how one may try. To suggest that it can be divorced of all human experience, be that natural or social, is not only absurd, but sacrilegious.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taliesin
effete ephebes is what i call literary dabblers concerned exclusively with effect. for god's sake get out or as hamlet says "there are more things on heaven and earth than are ever dreamt of in your philosophies, so therefore as a stranger give it welcome."Quote:
Originally Posted by godhelpme2
I've been meaning to contribute to this discussion. So here goes. Several points.
Part of the discussion seems to be whether art should be didactic (present some overarching meaning) or aesthetic. This is an age old question. As someone pointed out, Pater advocates an art for art's sake point of view, which would emphasize the aesthetics of a work; Tolstoy, contemporaneously believed that all art requires a moral lesson. These are probably the two extremes of the spectrum and one can assume that there are elements of both in most works. However, it strikes me that didactic is a sub set to aesthetic—you can have art that is not didactic, but you can’t have art that is not aesthetic. Even didactic art requires form and shape.
Another point I wish to make is that one must not confuse the notion that specific art forms are a craft that requires the manipulation of a particular medium. Some have argued that you can’t string together words randomly that sound beautiful but have no meaning. I agree but perhaps for different reasons. But the basis of your argument is that art in general requires meaning. That it needs to have some philosophic/moral/intellectual point. But literature (poetry, novels, short stories) is a form that uses words as the medium for creativity, the building blocks if you will. Their very nature requires meaning to be present. As a parallel, the building block of pottery is clay. You can’t make a work of pottery out of paper, and still be called a work of pottery. Words/sentences/paragrapghs are the clay of literary art forms. In order to create a literary art form it must be created within the context of meaning. It’s not that art requires significance, it’s because the medium itself is built up of meaning. Fine art is the art of arranging shapes and images; music is the art of arranging sound. That is why it is clear that they don’t require the same need for intellectual content as literature, which is the art of arranging language (at it’s most general definition).
For this entire discussion to make much sense, there are some things that I believe should be clarified. The primary thing is: What is Art?
I believe that people have been discussing that for several millenia.
After that has been established, then a definition of art as it applies to writing would have to be found, and that would entail defining exactly what writing is. By the time we finished with that, we probably would have already decided what the application of "Art for Art's sake" would be in regard to writing, and the thread would make a great book.
artist as god is as old as adam. is it acceptable? depends on the quality of the artist.
Perhaps far less offensive than theologian as art critic... or politician as theologian;). Seriously, I do not imagine that "l'art pour l'art" should be taken as a suggestion that the artist is the first and last word upon everything. Perhaps the romantic notion of the artist/poet as visionary presented an image of the artist as percieving the world with a greater eye than all the rest of humanity. I would imagine that the artist is merely better at giving form to how he or she percieves the world. Jacques Louis David envisioned Napoleon as a great hero. Goya witnessed Napoleon as one of the causes of the horrors in the Franco-Spanish War. Both are brilliant artists. I judge their success or failure based upon how well they were able to give their perceptions artistic form not upon whether my own politics agree or disagree with what they conveyed. Of course the nearer in history works are, the more difficult it is to separate the art from the politics/religion/morality. Many still find it difficult to appreciate the brilliance of the filmaker Leni Riefenstahl who was known mostly for the groundbreaking films she created in support of the Nazis:
http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k2..._-_Hitlers.jpg
... and yet we have little difficulty in appreciating the artistic works by Renaissance artists which essentially glorified brutal and sadistic rulers such as the Borgias, De Medicis, etc... who only differed from Hitler in terms of scale. I do not assume that artists are beyond political/moral/ethical/religious judgments... but rather, I would agree that art needs to be judged on artistic terms. In other words... I may disagree with what has been said and yet still admit that it was expressed excessively well... and still feel that the time spent in the presence of this artist was not wasted.