ART FOR ART: PART ONE.
Oh, Wikipedia. What would we do without you?
I've been motivated to revisit my old art school thoughts about 'meaning' in Art. The catalyst for this was a comment that was left on this blog by a mystery poster named (appropriately?) "Art." I responded to his/her post -- which you can read in the "FOR SALE" entry -- but have felt the need to flush this idea out a bit more. So, I plan to do a series of posts/blogs that address the issue of whether or not Art has to have 'meaning' to be Art.
This first part is a Wikipedia entry that I just found. And, before anybody starts ranting and raving about the legitimacy of Wikipedia as an actual source, I would like to point out that this is just a jumping point. I just want to bring everybody up to speed on the 'Art for Art's Sake' movement which I believe is a crucial part of my future discussions.
Here we go... This is from Wikipedia:
"Art for art's sake" is the usual English rendition of a French slogan, ''l'art pour l'art'', which is credited to Théophile Gautier (1811 - 1872).
Gautier was not the first to write those words. They appear in the works of Benjamin Constant, and Edgar Allan Poe, in his essay "The Poetic Principle", argues that:
We have taken it into our heads that to write a poem simply for the poem's sake [...] and to acknowledge such to have been our design, would be to confess ourselves radically wanting in the true poetic dignity and force: — but the simple fact is that would we but permit ourselves to look into our own souls we should immediately there discover that under the sun there neither exists nor can exist any work more thoroughly dignified, more supremely noble, than this very poem, this poem per se, this poem which is a poem and nothing more, this poem written solely for the poem's sake[1].
Gautier, however, was the first to adopt the phrase as a slogan. "Art for art's sake" was a bohemian creed in the nineteenth century, a slogan raised in defiance of those who — from John Ruskin to the much later Communist advocates of socialist realism — thought that the value of art was to serve some moral or didactic purpose. "Art for art's sake" affirmed that art was valuable as art, that artistic pursuits were their own justification and that art did not need moral justification — and indeed, was allowed to be morally subversive.
In fact, James McNeill Whistler wrote the following in which he discarded the accustomed role of art in the service of the state or official religion, which had adhered to its practice since the Counter-Reformation of the sixteenth century:
Art should be independent of all claptrap —should stand alone [...] and appeal to the artistic sense of eye or ear, without confounding this with emotions entirely foreign to it, as devotion, pity, love, patriotism and the like.
Such a brusque dismissal also expressed the artist's distancing himself from sentimentalism. All that remains of Romanticism in this statement is the reliance on the artist's own eye and sensibility as the arbiter.
The explicit slogan is associated in the history of English art and letters with Walter Pater and his followers in the Aesthetic Movement, which was self-consciously in rebellion against Victorian moralism. It first appeared in English in two works published simultaneously in 1868: Pater's review of William Morris's poetry in the Westminster Review and in William Blake by Algernon Charles Swinburne. A modified form of Pater's review appeared in his Studies in the History of the Renaissance (1873), one of the most influential texts of the Aesthetic Movement.
The Latin version of the slogan, "ars gratia artis", is used as a slogan by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer and appears in the oval around the roaring head of Leo the Lion in their motion picture logo.
It is well to remember that "art for art's sake" is a European construct and a product of the industrial revolution. For example, in many cultures, image-making is a religious practice. Before photography, but after the rise of a middle class in Europe, art was not only "decorative" but the only way that people documented what objects looked like.
I've been motivated to revisit my old art school thoughts about 'meaning' in Art. The catalyst for this was a comment that was left on this blog by a mystery poster named (appropriately?) "Art." I responded to his/her post -- which you can read in the "FOR SALE" entry -- but have felt the need to flush this idea out a bit more. So, I plan to do a series of posts/blogs that address the issue of whether or not Art has to have 'meaning' to be Art.
This first part is a Wikipedia entry that I just found. And, before anybody starts ranting and raving about the legitimacy of Wikipedia as an actual source, I would like to point out that this is just a jumping point. I just want to bring everybody up to speed on the 'Art for Art's Sake' movement which I believe is a crucial part of my future discussions.
Here we go... This is from Wikipedia:
"Art for art's sake" is the usual English rendition of a French slogan, ''l'art pour l'art'', which is credited to Théophile Gautier (1811 - 1872).
Gautier was not the first to write those words. They appear in the works of Benjamin Constant, and Edgar Allan Poe, in his essay "The Poetic Principle", argues that:
We have taken it into our heads that to write a poem simply for the poem's sake [...] and to acknowledge such to have been our design, would be to confess ourselves radically wanting in the true poetic dignity and force: — but the simple fact is that would we but permit ourselves to look into our own souls we should immediately there discover that under the sun there neither exists nor can exist any work more thoroughly dignified, more supremely noble, than this very poem, this poem per se, this poem which is a poem and nothing more, this poem written solely for the poem's sake[1].
Gautier, however, was the first to adopt the phrase as a slogan. "Art for art's sake" was a bohemian creed in the nineteenth century, a slogan raised in defiance of those who — from John Ruskin to the much later Communist advocates of socialist realism — thought that the value of art was to serve some moral or didactic purpose. "Art for art's sake" affirmed that art was valuable as art, that artistic pursuits were their own justification and that art did not need moral justification — and indeed, was allowed to be morally subversive.
In fact, James McNeill Whistler wrote the following in which he discarded the accustomed role of art in the service of the state or official religion, which had adhered to its practice since the Counter-Reformation of the sixteenth century:
Art should be independent of all claptrap —should stand alone [...] and appeal to the artistic sense of eye or ear, without confounding this with emotions entirely foreign to it, as devotion, pity, love, patriotism and the like.
Such a brusque dismissal also expressed the artist's distancing himself from sentimentalism. All that remains of Romanticism in this statement is the reliance on the artist's own eye and sensibility as the arbiter.
The explicit slogan is associated in the history of English art and letters with Walter Pater and his followers in the Aesthetic Movement, which was self-consciously in rebellion against Victorian moralism. It first appeared in English in two works published simultaneously in 1868: Pater's review of William Morris's poetry in the Westminster Review and in William Blake by Algernon Charles Swinburne. A modified form of Pater's review appeared in his Studies in the History of the Renaissance (1873), one of the most influential texts of the Aesthetic Movement.
The Latin version of the slogan, "ars gratia artis", is used as a slogan by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer and appears in the oval around the roaring head of Leo the Lion in their motion picture logo.
It is well to remember that "art for art's sake" is a European construct and a product of the industrial revolution. For example, in many cultures, image-making is a religious practice. Before photography, but after the rise of a middle class in Europe, art was not only "decorative" but the only way that people documented what objects looked like.
