Was “Art for Art’s Sake” Ever a Thing?
The phrase “Art for Art’s Sake” or “L’art pour l’art” expresses the idea that art is valuable in and of itself, independent of any political, social or ethical significance. I let myself think a bit, and I don’t believe that there ever was or ever should be just “Art for Art’s Sake”.
I think art is inherently not just art, but rather an expression of beliefs or concerns or anything that the artist wants to express. The artist does so through their art. It’s much more than just a pretty picture or a nicely written text, and that’s exactly why it interests people.
If there was just “Art for Art’s Sake” then what would even be the value in said art? And the answer is, I don’t think there would be any.
Now when I came to that conclusion I decided to do just a bit of digging on the subject and see what the greatest minds of the past think about this. The man who first articulated the phrase: Théophile Gautier, of course believed in his words, and argued that art is fully independent of any human values that we try to bestow upon it.
“Art for art’s sake means for its adepts the pursuit of pure beauty — without any other preoccupation.” — Théophile Gautier
And I just think that this line of thinking can be seen as flawed, meaning that in the pursuit of beauty the artist will create art that is more than just “Art for Art’s Sake” the artist will, knowingly or not, embed in their art some kind of significance that is outside of just pure beauty.
Oscar Wilde was another advocate for “Art for Art’s Sake”. In a 1891 letter to Bernulf Clegg. Wilde told him:
“Art is useless because its aim is simply to create a mood. It is not meant to instruct, or to influence action in any way. . . . A work of art is useless as a flower is useless. A flower blossoms for its own joy. We gain a moment of joy by looking at it.”
Wilde says that art is not meant to instruct or influence action in any way. That I can understand, but I feel that Wilde fails to acknowledge the fact that art influences millions upon millions of people. Whether it was or wasn’t meant to, art does and will keep influencing millions of people.
And I think that’s an amazing thing. Art can prompt millions of people to rally for a cause, art inspires other artists to express themselves through art. Art influences people, and from my pretty limited amount of research, the advocates for “Art for Art’s Sake” absolutely dismiss that massive aspect of art.
I also found that Friedrich Nietzsche doesn’t believe in “Art for Art’s Sake”. (Fair disclaimer, I haven’t read any of Nietzsche’s works in full, only read excerpts and fragments) Now with that out the way, in Nietzsche’s “Twilight of the Idols” in the chapter “Skirmishes of an Untimely Man” Nietzsche says this:
When the purpose of moral preaching and of improving man has been excluded from art, it still does not follow by any means that art is altogether purposeless, aimless, senseless — in short, l’art pour l’art, a worm chewing its own tail. “Rather no purpose at all than a moral purpose!” — that is the talk of mere passion. A psychologist, on the other hand, asks: what does all art do? does it not praise? glorify? choose? prefer? With all this it strengthens or weakens certain valuations. Is this merely a “moreover”? an accident? something in which the artist’s instinct had no share? Or is it not the very presupposition of the artist’s ability? Does his basic instinct aim at art, or rather at the sense of art, at life? at a desirability of life? Art is the great stimulus to life: how could one understand it as purposeless, as aimless, as l’art pour l’art?
As all philosophers of the time, Nietzsche of course says it in a pretty convoluted way, (I’m just thankful it’s not like Hegel’s or Kant’s writing) but the message is there. Can art really be nothing but a pretty picture? Even if an artist made an active effort to make art devoid of any social, political or ethical messaging, would it even be possible? I don’t think so. Art is a form of human expression, and in everything we do we will express some sort of message or beliefs, consciously or not.
I don’t think there is a possibility of “Art for Art’s Sake” and I don’t think there should be. I feel that this phrase downplays the importance of art in society. Art always was and always should be more than just “Art for Art’s Sake”.
