Art for art's sake
By - www.artfineheart.com
"Art for art's sake" is the usual English rendering of a French slogan from the early 19th century, ''l'art pour l'art'',
and expresses a philosophy that the intrinsic value of art, and the only
"true" art, is divorced from any didactic, moral or utilitarian function. Such works are sometimes
described as "autotelic", from the Greek autoteles,
“complete in itself”, a concept that has been expanded to embrace
"inner-directed" or "self-motivated" human beings.
Ironically, the term is sometimes used commercially. A Latin
version of this phrase, "Ars gratia artis", is used as
a motto by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer and appears in the circle around the roaring head of Leo the Lion in its motion picture logo.
History
"L'art pour l'art" (translated as "art for
art's sake") is credited to Théophile Gautier (1811–1872), who was the first to adopt the phrase as a
slogan. Gautier was not, however, the first to write those words: they appear
in the works of Victor Cousin,[1] Benjamin Constant, and Edgar Allan Poe. For example, Poe argues in his essay "The Poetic Principle" (1850), 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.[2]
"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 neutral or
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 theCounter-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.[3]
Such a brusque dismissal also expressed the artist's
distancing him- or herself 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 Victorianmoralism. 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.
In Germany, the poet Stefan George was one of the first artists to translate the phrase
("kunst für die kunst") and adopt it for his own literary programme
which he presented in the first volume of his literary magazine Blätter
für die Kunst (1892).
He was inspired mainly by Charles Baudelaire and the French Symbolists whom he had met in Paris, where he was friends with Albert
Saint-Pauland
consorted with the circle around Stéphane Mallarmé.
Criticisms
George Sand wrote in 1872 that L'art
pour l'art was an empty phrase, an idle sentence. She asserted that
artists had a "duty to find an adequate expression to convey it to as many
souls as possible", ensuring that their works were accessible enough to be
appreciated.[4]
Contemporary postcolonial African writers such as Leopold Senghor and Chinua Achebe have criticised the slogan as being a limited and
Eurocentric view on art and creation. In "Black African Aesthetics",
Senghor argues that "art is functional" and that "in black
Africa, 'art for art's sake' does not exist." Achebe is more scathing in
his collection of essays and criticism entitled Morning Yet on Creation Day, where he asserts that "art for art's sake is just
another piece of deodorised dog shit" (sic).[5]
Walter Benjamin discusses the slogan in his seminal 1936 essay "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction". He first mentions it in regard to the reaction
within the realm of traditional art to innovations in reproduction, in
particular photography. He even terms the "L'art pour l'art" slogan as
part of a "theology of art" in bracketing off social aspects. In the
Epilogue to the essay Benjamin discusses the links between fascism and art. His main example is that of Futurism and the thinking of its mentor Filippo Tommaso
Marinetti. One of the
slogans of the fascist Futurists was "Fiat ars - pereat mundus"
("Let art be created. Let the world perish"). Provocatively, Benjamin
concludes that as long as fascism expects war "to supply the artistic
gratification of a sense of perception that has been changed by
technology", then this is the "consummation", the realization,
of "L'art pour l'art".[6]
No comments:
Post a Comment