Home > Literature Group > Discussion Board

What is meant by the phrase "art for art's sake" ?

The phrase "art for art's sake," means that the intrinsic value of art is not linked in anyway to a moral, didactic or utilitarian purpose or function. It affirms that art is valuable as art per se.

It was Benjamin Constant in an entry in his Journal intime
for February 11, 1804 who first used this phrase l'art pour l'art. However, it was the French literary giant Theophile Gautier (1811-72) who adopted this phrase as a slogan and popularised it.

Edgar Allan Poe in his essay, "The Poetic Principle" (1850) offers a clear explanation of this creed. Poe asserts that a poem should be written only "for a poem's sake" and that the chief aim and purpose of a poem is aesthetic.

John Keats's "Ode to a Grecian Urn" underscores what has been so well explained in the above post. In this poem, the poet ponders the permanence of pursuit and desire captured in the paintings on the surface of the urn.  Yet, the aesthetic beauty of this poem is clearly what predominates. In the final lines Keats writes,

When old age shall this genertion waste,/Thou shalt remain, in midst of other woe/Than ours, a friend to man,/to whom thou say'st,/Beauty is truth, truth beauty,--that is all /Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.

In life, beauty is certainly not always truth; the urn's message is one appropriate only in the timeless world of art.

It means that it is not married to the worth of the painting in monetary terms but is valuable for the expressions, moods, and feelings it creates.

The impression created in my mind by the phrase "art for art's sake" is that the artist does not create a work of art in expectation of getting some thing in return for his efforts. The artist create the work because he enjoys the process of creating that work of art. This does not mean that the work of art will have no value after ist is created. It only means that, creating a work valued by others ins not the motivation for the artist.

Let as take the example of a singer, singing in a place where there is no one to listen. Obviously the singer is enjoying the process, but the song has no value beyond the pleasure given to the singer.

I believe there are many painters like Vincent van Gogh and Gaughin just painted impulsively what they liked to paint. Now their paintings are worth millions of dollar, but they were driven to painting not by desire to earn money but by some internal impulse to paint.

As the phrase itself suggests, 'art for art's sake' refers to an attitude or a philosophy to evaluate a work of art for its intrinsic aesthetic merit, rather than any social/moral/political issue or question that it is expected to relate itself to. A work of art involves an aesthetic experience as much on the part of the artist as on the part of the reader/peruser. The value of the work lies in the value of that experience. A work of art may or may not have a bearing on any real issue/problematic, but it should not be assessed in terms of such issues. 'Art for art's sake' is opposed to the socialist/Marxist philosophical position that all works of art are purposive & belong to the super-structure founded on an economic base.

Anything for its own sake is not assigning monetary value or value of any kind other than the mere pleasure of the object or person itself.  It is pure appreciation despite any faults or flaws.   

The prior posts have implied that an assignment of a value occurs when creating art.  Art may be created simply for the pleasure the artist derives in creation, which is what the phrase conveys, and an artist is certainly free to do so.  However, some posts, certainly from non artists, have suggested it to mean that the "highest" value assigned is when art is done without any thought of renumeration or accolade.  An artist may derive satisfaction from creating art; every artist in every art form from every era would certainly conclude and agree that their creative satisfaction is increased when properly compensated for their creative ability.  Had that been the case, Poe wouldn't have nearly starved to death several times and his quality of life wouldn't have degraded so that he was dead by 40. Poe was writing tongue-in-cheek. Why artists for art's sake? Do secretaries file for filing's sake, or doctors heal for healing's sake?  Perhaps not.

I feel that "art for arts sake" means simply creating something for the pleasure of creating something. There is no intended audience and there may be no point or reason attached to the work.