The concept of Art for Art’s Sake is the idea that art is created and often should be viewed as art, and only art. It is the idea that art should not be obliged to serve one particular function, or group of people; rather, art is valuable purely because it is art, even if it is completely devoid of any ethical, symbolic, or other meaning. Art in the Art for Arts sake movement was meant to be a comment on art within itself, the focus became the actual canvas, rather than the greater meaning or purpose of the painting; it was a comment on and a result of the exhaustion within the art movements because of the constant need for art to comment on the social/political. The idea of Art for Arts sake was a rebellion against the previous notions of art and the ideas of previous art movements that art must serve some moral, didactic, or enhancing purpose, be it to glorify the aristocrats, reveal the plight of the peasants, or rebuke previous art forms. The movement was also a rebellion against a society that many artists believed was becoming increasingly corrupt and polluted through the technological advances of the industrial revolution, the growth of cities and urban life, and the death of simplistic, rural lifestyles, which were viewed by many artists as more pure.
These artists, who participated in the Art for Art’s Sake movement, believed that the only way art could survive was if the art refused to allow itself to be used for anything other than art. Because of the recent use of art, what these artists considered to be an exploitation of art, the movement caused artists to paint things that were unrecognizable, or at least unusable for the public, in order to prevent the exploitation of their art. An example of this type of exploitation (from a somewhat earlier period) is the painting “Bubbles” by John Everett Millais. Although originally he painted this portrait of his grandson, the painting was later used, much to Millais’s dismay, in advertisements for Pears’ Soap. The effort to prevent this type of exploitation was much of the rationale behind the idea of Art for Art’s sake, and the types/styles of art that emerged from this movement. However, because the only way to avoid exploitation of art was to make the art unrecognizable and non-meaningful or unintelligible to the viewer, this movement caused artists to paint increasingly abstract works of art. As a result, the work, technique, and their credibility as artists was questioned as a result of this distance from the viewer created purposefully by the artist.
The concept of ‘Art for Art’s Sake’ manifests itself in many movements and by many artists during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and is still influential in modern art practices today. As mentioned above, impressionism is an early manifestation of the idea of Art for Art’s Sake, as seen in paintings by Claude Monet. His paintings attempted to capture color, light, and shadows, with little regard for technical aspects of painting. Another example is cubism; the cubist artists did not want their work turned into advertising and propaganda like “Bubbles,” but they still wanted to be taken seriously as artists and to bridge the gap between the artist and the viewer, via the painting. More recently, the idea of Art for Art’s Sake can be seen in the paintings of Jackson Pollock, who studied under Thomas Hart Benton. In his later work, Pollock painted using unconventional methods and materials, and his paintings were quite abstract. The idea behind this sort of painting was that the canvas/painting should be a representation of Pollock’s feelings/soul at the exact moment of the painting, and that the act of creating the painting itself was the essence of the art. Also, he believed that any recognizable object or form within the painting must be removed or covered up, so as not to produce any type of recognition or association within the viewer. An example of this type of painting is his work entitled “Autumn Rhythm.” This philosophy is a manifestation of the idea of Art for Art’s Sake.
- How does the concept of Art for Art’s Sake help to transform the meaning and function of art in the late 19 and 20th centuries? What is the relevance of art for arts sake for art practice today>?