BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Art, Fashion & Design >

Art for Art's Sake

  
 
Herald of the Yellow Sun
17:34 / 23.02.06
I remember reading recently an interview of the director of Brokeback Mountain. The journalist starting talking about the message of the movie, and the director said how a sociopolitical message can be a good thing, but the art has to come first. I haven't seen the movie, but this statement struck a gut-level unease with me. I've never really bought into the concept of "art for art's sake," as it seems like such an unsubstantiated reason for doing something that it would just be pointless. I like art, but I don't think that people all just suddenly saying "what we need is more art" with nothing else in mind would create an aesthetic revolution. To draw a comparison, what if people were to engage in cooking for cooking's sake? Not to feed themselves or anybody else--just to cook. It seems pretty silly to me.

To me, what makes art is what went into it. It could be a specific social criticism or political statement, it could be the emotional state of the artist, it could be a certain philosophy, belief, fear, or anything, just so long as it's something. I also recognize that painting is fun and therapeutic, and I'd consider these valid reasons to make art. To say that an artistic creation is just art to be art is a contrived notion to me, like this completely bourgeouis conception of art in itself as being beneficial and necessary to society. Art is so diverse that to group it all together as serving the same purpose is like randomly picking a book off a shelf without regard to whether it's literature, physics, history or photographs of deer. Somehow to me, I think that thinking about "art" every step of the way is not what leads to a good painting. What do you all think about it, though?
 
 
Digital Hermes
21:22 / 23.02.06
To be honest, I think you're taking Ang Lee's statement a little further than he intended. Part of what makes Brokeback Mountain so good, is that it is more than a story about two gay cowboys being done by hollywood. From a filmmaking, or theatrical, perspective, if you get too wrapped up in intention, the art can suffer. Brokeback is ultimately about Jack and Ennis, who happen to love each other, and happen to be male. Heck, I think just about any narrative art (and maybe even non-narrative art) suffers when intention is put before craft. I started writing better fiction and plays when I started listening to the characters, and stopped forcing them to mouth my message.

But that's a sort of focus on Ang's statement, and not looking at your greater question, art for art's sake.

Yes! Artists just exploring their particular field have been responsible for innovations we now take for granted. Art for art's sake could be applied to Citizen Kane, and just about every shot of every movie since (whee, hyperbole!) was influenced by innovation in that movie. There are cases in music, theatre, and painting as well. Much of the world we take for granted as normal, is due to the innovation of people just exploring. That exploration may not be aesthetically pleasing to you, (it's not always for me) but I think it's necessary.

Maybe another way to say it: I love getting the chance to hear most new music. That said, I enjoy most new indie bands right up until they start singing. {Shudder.}
 
 
Herald of the Yellow Sun
22:51 / 23.02.06
Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm all for exploration. Granted, sometimes it's unpleasant, but at least in theory I like it. I would consider exploration a way to make art, though, and would not call it an equivalent to 'art for art's sake.' I definitely see your point, though--too much focus on a preconceived message can make a work especially of narrative art go where it doesn't want to go. I've also had the experience of completely letting go of the original intention and ending up sort of disillusioned and at odds with it a ways down the line. The point I originally tried to make was that if someone was really focused on making art, or maybe on making 'good' art, it could reflect negatively on the end product. Basically, if I read a book, see a picture or hear a song, I don't usually say "Wow! That's really artistic!" I'll notice the emotion behind it, the thought that went into some ideas, the interaction of the characters and their unique personalities, or something like that.

I think what Digital Hermes took art for art's sake to mean, I would identify as art for no sake in particular, which I can support, depending on the medium. In writing, for example, I agree that it's better not to clutch relentlessly onto an original concept, but to allow different ideas work their way in there and decide between them what works. For painting, one can just sit down and do it with no thought whatsoever ahead of time. I would draw a line between sitting down to paint and sitting down to create art, though. In the first, there would be nothing to guide it from the beginning, and whatever's happening unconsciously, and later on consciously as well, would decide what happens. At least from what I've observed, though, the word 'art' carries a lot of baggage and a lot of preconceived notions with it. I think this is pretty clear, because for one thing Ang Lee probably would have just said not to let the message drive the entire work instead of saying the art comes before the message. People wouldn't always be asking "is this art?" or "what is art?" if it didn't have these tenuous yet awe-inspiring connotations. Thus, saying "I'm going to create art with paint" is equivalent to saying "I'm going to render my musical taste in the medium of paint" in terms of restrictiveness. I chose music instead of politiks because the comparison is easier, but I think it gets the point across that art for art's sake could be as predetermining as art for socialism's sake.

I wouldn't expect everyone to go on to agree with me in this, but I'd say that art for art's sake is worse than art for some message's sake. My feeling is that while both reduce the authenticity of the work, at least the latter is expressing a real thought or feeling of the artist's, even if it is suppressing others. The former, though, is not really expressing anything at all. I would distinguish if someone created a work of art with the intention of changing the world of art, though. At least that would be "art for new art" instead of just "art for more art."
 
 
Digital Hermes
00:38 / 24.02.06
Okay, you're saying a lot here, but I'm not sure where we diverge on what 'art for art's sake' entails. Who would be some prominent artists, in any medium, that are of this school?

Are you basically describing artists that are essentially being clever with their medium, rather than saying anything?
 
 
Saveloy
11:40 / 24.02.06
"To draw a comparison, what if people were to engage in cooking for cooking's sake? Not to feed themselves or anybody else--just to cook. It seems pretty silly to me."

The art version of that would be somebody creating a work of art and then hiding it away or destroying it without anyone ever looking at it (seeing being the art equivalent of eating or 'feeding').

Which sounds equally silly and, being equally rare (if it happens at all) suggests to me that what people actually mean when they talk about "art for art's sake" does not match your interpretation above. I can't imagine that any artist paints or sculpts purely so that they can say "I have added to the sum total of art in the world, and I have done it because I believe that art is a good thing".

Isn't "art for art's sake" most often used to cover creative acts that satisfy non-utilitarian requirements? Utilitarian requirements being things like education, illustration, change in attitude/perception - things that happen outside the gallery - and non-utilitarian requirements being pleasure, enjoyment of shape and colour etc.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
12:22 / 24.02.06
Pretty much, yeah. The big argument here is essentially between the school of Tolstoy, who argue that a work is only good if it is morally improving, and the school of Wilde, who argue that an artwork is good if it succeeds as art, without a social function.
 
 
Alex's Grandma
19:44 / 24.02.06
Good thread.

I'm due to go to the pub for going to the pub's sake in a minute or two, 'pologies for brief reply, but to use the above example, Tolstoy as opposed to Wilde, couldn't it be argued that sometimes anyway, the atist's intentions end up being a bit at odds with final result? Wilde, the aesthete's, work, at least in prose, seems to be full of simple moral lessons (The Picture Of Dorian Grey springs immediately to mind,) whereas Tolstoy, the moralist, seems, in War And Peace, to have created this sort of faberge egg of a novel, which is beautiful, obviously, but ultimately doesn't really have that much to offer in terms of advice for living, as he seems to have realised himself by the end of the thing, hence the (somewhat unnecessary, I feel) socio-political coda? I haven't re-read War And Peace in a while now, or in fact ever, but I seem to remember that the last section felt like being slapped in the face by a wet pair of socks, after a very pleasant dream.
 
 
All Acting Regiment
00:36 / 25.02.06
I'm wondering how well the message can be got across if the work isn't "good art"? You could say that "An Inspector Calls" only works as an attack on bad middle class ethics because of how good it is at affecting us.

And is there really a difference between form and message, or form and content? Or, to use an illustration:

If this fearsome Aztec Death God had been crafted to look friendly and cheerful, would it be a fearsome Death God?

I think what Ang Lee might have meant was that he wanted the film to exist equally well outside of today's climate- to be beautiful even when the context has changed and thus the "message" too.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
16:10 / 25.02.06
Or that the socio-political message of a film can be marred if the art of it sucks.
 
 
Olulabelle
23:43 / 26.02.06
I don't know if art for arts sake as a concept even truly exists, except perhaps at school when you're made to paint or sculpt a thing for homework. But even then it's about learning 'how to' and the actual art which is created is not so relevant a thing in itself as the process of learning involved in creating it.

In my car there is a piece of Blu-tak about the size of a gobstopper. Most people who sit in the passenger seat play with it and make little mini-sculptures which stay a while until the next person changes it. That, I suppose is art for arts sake, because although the person making the thing is enjoying doing so it has no purpose to serve other than to pass the time.

Art for arts sake, it could be argued, is the mass-produced poster images sold to make money, but the people who buy them are buying art that they like to decorate their home and presumably it pleases them.

The more I think about this the more difficult I imagine it will be to find an example of true art for arts sake.
 
 
Digital Hermes
15:21 / 27.02.06
The more I think about this the more difficult I imagine it will be to find an example of true art for arts sake.

That was where the confusion I shared upthread had come from.

Another good point was the learning aspect. Art students, people who are trying to figure out their craft, particularly when going to school, defintely create art for art's sake, or at least for the sake of their grades. Yet, even there, we can see it's not for the pure unadulterated desire to create more art. If art can be seen as a form of communication, then you could argue that it's impossible to be done for it's own sake, it must be grounded into another individual.

Ultimately, and let me know if I'm misrepresenting it, it seems as though the real target of this subject is not Ang Lee, though his quote was it's genesis, but the artists who often deal in obscurity and obfuscation. Whose work is impenetrable. In their case, it's still not a pure form of art development, it's a desire to be perceived as 'deeper' and more 'sensitive', then they really are. People who are more in love with being called an artist, and living that life, then they are in love with creating art. (Yipes, that was a bit ranty, wasn't it?)

All of that hostility aside, for an artist to make any sort of communication (even something as simple as, 'isn't this beautiful/sad/funny/tragic') they must know their art, and to be concerned with how to use that art, rather than using it as a stepping-stone to their point. Otherwise, why choose are to communicate?
 
 
Herald of the Yellow Sun
16:30 / 03.03.06
The more I think about this the more difficult I imagine it will be to find an example of true art for arts sake.

That was one of the questions that came up earlier, and I think a valid point is one that the idea of art for art's sake exists not as an actual practice but simply as a meme, possibly to make art seem more profound and to defend all art as being useful. There are always other contexts surrounding art and artists, so it probably could be said that art for art's sake is a fallacy. That doesn't mean that one can't argue against it, but just that one has to argue against belief in it, rather than its practice. However, Digital Hermes brought up an excellent point about how art for art's sake could exist and explained it better than I have.

Ultimately, and let me know if I'm misrepresenting it, it seems as though the real target of this subject is not Ang Lee, though his quote was it's genesis, but the artists who often deal in obscurity and obfuscation. Whose work is impenetrable. In their case, it's still not a pure form of art development, it's a desire to be perceived as 'deeper' and more 'sensitive', then they really are. People who are more in love with being called an artist, and living that life, then they are in love with creating art. (Yipes, that was a bit ranty, wasn't it?)

Exactly on the mark (and not too ranty at all). I wouldn't necessarily say all artists who use obfuscation are creating art for art's sake, but perhaps all artists for art's sake do use obfuscation. Basically, it's the intent of the artist that we are looking at here. People who are creating blue sticky tack sculptures in a car probably aren't creating art for art's sake, because I doubt they're saying "did you say that art I made? Did you, did you?!" after making it. They're making art for fun, or to pass the time. I could be wrong, but I doubt they talk about it and call it art when they're done. Painting, sculpting or whatever for fun or to pass the time are not the same as doing those things for art's sake. Of course, nobody would actually say that they created something for the expressing purpose of putting more art in the world. They might talk about their art at a party or something, though, and the same would apply even though they're less overt about it. Basically, we first have to agree that being an artist, having created art, gives a person a certain level of status and prestige that is not possessed by non-artists. Although, as stated before, this wouldn't be the sole purpose, one could still create art with the idea of gaining prestige as an artist. Creating art so that one can talk about being an artist, show up at fancy parties and make friends in high places is the sort of thing that I would call art for art's sake. This is what I would criticize as a faulty, pompous bourgeouis attitude. A person doesn't need to have a gallant political message to make art, but I'd prefer them not to be thinking "will this make good 'art?' Will this impress people at cocktail parties?" as they create.

As for Ang Lee, I'm not saying that this is the exact attitude he had when creating the movie, I doubt it was. What I'd like would be for people not to refer to things other than that described in the last paragraph as art for art's sake, because in my opinion they legitimize what I feel to be an illegitimate concept.
 
  
Add Your Reply