'art for art's sake'

Forums: Art
Email this Topic • Print this Page

hey
you all seem very interested in mordern art and such which could be seen as contreversial. I saw this quote in another chat forum
'art for art's sake'
i was just wondering on your views. Is it correct and what does it mean by art's sake?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,457 • Replies: 12

No top replies

I think the phrase, art for art's sake, was an expression of the 40s and 50s, an expression of Modern art. It has been the object of much criticism in recent years, but I still like it. I don't admire the creation of art for commercial purposes (although that has its purpose), nor do I consider it art's place to change society; it is a very weak tool for social change. If anything it reflects social changes. As a neo-modern artist, I try to create images for the sake of the viewer able to respond to them deeply and enjoyably (I talk here about a kind of spiritual enjoyment). It is the pursuit of aesthetic joy that motivates artists who make art for art's sake. This is not to say that such artists are apolitical beings. I, for one, try to promote political causes by non-artistic means.

0 Replies

First, I do not see how modern or current art could ever be seen as controversial. Art includes music, the visual arts, architecture, and fashion. What is controversial about what is being created in this century or the last one?

Secondly what do you consider modern art?

And welcome to A2k phosferous!

0 Replies

When you dissect "Art for art's sake" it doesn't make much sense. Art isn't conscious, and doesn't care if it is being made or not.

Really, art is for people's sake. I think that the people who made this art were inferring that they did it for the heck of it, to get a kick out of the act of making art. Implied in the statement is that it wasn't art for politics, or art for social change, or art for expressing the subconcious or inner childhood repressed feelings, etc.

0 Replies

JoanneDorel wrote:

First, I do not see how modern or current art could ever be seen as controversial. Art includes music, the visual arts, architecture, and fashion. What is controversial about what is being created in this century or the last one?

Secondly what do you consider modern art?

And welcome to A2k phosferous!

Au contrare*, I would say it was all about controversy. From Duchamp's toilet bowl, to blank canvases, to vaccum cleaners selling for millions, to oldenburg's stuffed giant hamburgers, to "Piss Christ," shock-value has been a guiding tenant of contemporary artwork.

(*Yes, I did in fact say "Au Contrare." Smarmy, isn't it?)

0 Replies

art is in the eyes of the beholder
I have found what you have all said very intresting. I belive that art can be based around ideas that may be against or shock society, such as the urinal. This creates controversy, and a lot of modern art has been caught up in this. Some critics may find a painting of a dot on a page not 'real' art, but then comes the question of what real art is. However, that is not where my problem lies. Would you agree that art is opiniunated? Therefore the reason that the art was created alson lies within personl views, does it not?
Hard rock that does not apeal to the pop culture has a meaning behind it even if some people, or a large % of society feels different.
Thanx for th wellcome
phosferous

0 Replies

i have just re-read what you posted about art for people's sake, portal star. But isnt that selfish? Art is a means of expression, so by creating it for people, limitations are added. Can one not just create art for the heck of it? By doing so they express their emotions of the moment without considering to much .This creates the basis of art. Something like art for emotions or expressions may be a better statement

0 Replies

phosferous wrote:

i have just re-read what you posted about art for people's sake, portal star. But isnt that selfish? Art is a means of expression, so by creating it for people, limitations are added. Can one not just create art for the heck of it? By doing so they express their emotions of the moment without considering to much .This creates the basis of art. Something like art for emotions or expressions may be a better statement

You are forgetting that you are a person.

Art is for humans by humans. Writing is for humans by humans. The medium is not sentient, it doesn't give a damn.

0 Replies

The phrase originates from French philosopher Victor Cousin 1792-1867

"We must have religion for religion's sake, morality
for morality's sake, as with art for art's sake....
the beautiful cannot be the way to what is useful, or
to what is good, or to what is holy: it
leads only to itself."

0 Replies

Great, Shepaints. I'll save that one.

0 Replies

shepaints wrote:

The phrase originates from French philosopher Victor Cousin 1792-1867

"We must have religion for religion's sake, morality
for morality's sake, as with art for art's sake....
the beautiful cannot be the way to what is useful, or
to what is good, or to what is holy: it
leads only to itself."

I don't know that I agree with that. I think that we have perfectly good reasons behind morality, religon, and art.

Morality keeps peace among people. It is merely social code.
Religion is a way of enforcing social code, and a way of dealing with social issues in a prescribed way - kind of like law.
Art pleases the senses and engages the mind.

0 Replies

James Whistler (1834-1903) was the leading proponent of art for art's sake. " Before a painting
is anything else....it is, first and foremost, a
blank surface covered with colors in varying
patterns. His portraits, landscapes, and night
pictures were less representative of a subject than
experiments in decorative design. He intended
no moral uplift in his paintings, saying:
"Art should be independent of the claptrap."
annotated mona lisa

radical or what??!!

0 Replies

Some art is part of the claptrap; some is not.

0 Replies

'art for art's sake'

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know