Time after time, when artists have felt themselves threatened from one direction or another, and have had to justify themselves and their activities, they have done this by insisting that art serves no ulterior purposes but is purely an end in itself.
That the function of the arts is to teach was an idea almost universally held in Europe before the seventeenth century. According to Indian Poetics, their object Vas considered to be the evocation of trance or, an aesthetic emotion-a thrilling or beatific sensation roused by the appeal of beauty through transport to a different world of pleasure.
The French critics of the seventeenth century asserted that pleasure is the end that art strives to communicate, but this is different from the Indian theory. It was in the nineteenth century that European poets and critics came to assert the concept of the concept of art, - that are exists for its own sake, and its justification must be sought in something apart from its effect on human mind.
If it does produce pleasure, it is only to be looked upon as a by-product.
Thus, art may be taken to mean the perfect mode of expressing the perfect. Its mission is fulfilled when beauty is realised. Apart from that, Art has no existence. Recalling the Platonic doctrine of Beauty, the modern exponents of the doctrine of art for art's sake, assume that there exists in the mind of the artist what Keats called "the Mighty Abstract Idea of Beauty", and his function is to embody this idea in a satisfactory form.
The perfection of a work of art, therefore, depends on the extent to which the formal expression has been able to approximate to the Abstract Idea. The clearer this image is in the mind of the artist; more satisfactory is its transmission in the work of the work of art.
Hence, the artist must devote himself to chisel, polish and refine his work until perfect approximation of form to idea is achieved. This approximation towards perfection' is to be achieved for no ulterior object, but for itself only; the artistic form is its own justification.
That is why Pater and his disciples attached greater importance to the style than to the substance, to the aesthetic. Style is the distilled quintessence of art-expression, since it is by style alone that an expression gains perfection, and an inner experience is most satisfactorily expressed.
There is, no doubt, that the exponents of this theory did a world of good by drawing attention to the need for attending to style. The quality of expression in any art, it was emphasised, depended as much on the clarity of the artists perception— as on the mastery over the material.
That is why the aesthetics are so fastidious about minute details and the correct choice of words.
If the experience is unique, only the perception of the details make it so, and for every unique experience there can be only one way of rendering it exactly. This is the basis of the theory of art for art's sake' and of pure poetry".
While it has encouraged greater attention to the craftsmanship of poetry which looks upon the poet as a maker", a 'builder' with words, it has certainly led to the growth of what is called the ivory tower' attitude to life.
Expression becomes lifeless when it is viewed apart from its object; for unless there is the bond of reciprocity between the artist and those who view his art, the expression becomes cold and mechanical. It may please or amuse for a moment.
For the true artist, to introduce any purpose in his art is, as Tennyson has symbolically narrated in his poem- "The Lady of Shallot', would be fatal. Ruskin, that great Victorian exponents of art, was firmly of opinion that art should have a moral purpose.
But there is a worse evil. The pure artist glorifies his art until it transcends life. Hence arises such paradoxical views as 'virtue is the product of art' Baudeliare ; and that the object of life is to imitate art Wilede. Such ideas tend to formalise life into a pattern of beauty.
All art must be, in the first place, a reflection of changing social order, and consciousness; and secondly, a creative influence on human mind. The end and object of art is the Social Man. Art is great, but life is greater than art end so the artist must for ever strive to envisage, comprehend and express the totality of life.Art for art's sake: Art for art’s sake, a slogan translated from the French l’art pour l’art, which was coined in the early 19th century by the French philosopher Victor Cousin.
The phrase expresses the belief held by many writers and artists, especially those associated with Aestheticism, that art needs no.
Art for Arts' Sake Dear Friends, When I was asked to write to you about my views of the role of the Arts in society, I did not hesitate to embrace the task. Over the past three years, I have been working on a PhD in Music Education. "Art for art's sake" is the usual English rendering of a French slogan from the early 19th.
century, ''l'art pour l'art''. It expresses a philosophy that the intrinsic value of art, and the5/5(1). "Art for art's sake" is the usual English rendering of a French slogan from the early 19th century, ''l'art pour l'art''.
It expresses a philosophy that the intrinsic value of art, and the5/5(1). Get an answer for 'What is meant by the phrase "art for art's sake"?What is meant by the phrase "art for art's sake"?' and find homework help for . A Literary Analysis of Art For Art's Sake PAGES 3. WORDS 1, View Full Essay.
More essays like this: Not sure what I'd do without @Kibin Sign up to view the complete essay. Show me the full essay. Show me the full essay.
View Full Essay. This is the end of the preview. Sign up to view the rest of the essay.