Al-Qalam University Katsina
College of Humanities
Department of English and Literary Studies
CODE:3318 TITLE: Intro. to Literary criticism
Art for art sake: A short critique
Art for art sake is the usual English rendition of a French slogan “l’art
pour l’art”, from the early 19th century which expresses a philosophy that
the intrinsic value of art, and the only “true” art, is divorced from any
didactic, moral or utilitarian function. Such works are sometimes
described as “autotelic”, from the Greek word “outoteles”, that is,
complete in itself, a concept that has been expanded to embrace “inner-
directed” or “self-motivated” human beings.
In criticism, Friedrich Nietzsche claimed that there is no art for art sake,
arguing that the artist still expresses his/her being through it. When the
purpose of moral preaching and of improving man has been excluded
from art, it still does not follow by any means that art is altogether
purposeless, aimless, senseless — in short, “l'art pour l'art”, is only a
worm chewing its own tail. "Rather no purpose at all than a moral
purpose!" — that is the talk of mere passion.
A psychologist, on the other hand, asks: what does all art do? does it not
praise? glorify? choose? prefer? With all this it strengthens or weakens
certain valuations. Is this merely a "moreover"? an accident? something
in which the artist's instinct had no share? Or is it not the very
presupposition of the artist's ability? Does his basic instinct aim at art, or
rather at the sense of art, at life? at a desirability of life? Art is the great
stimulus to life: how could one understand it as purposeless, as aimless,
as “l'art pour l'art”.
Marxists have argued that art should be politicised for the sake of
transmitting the socialist message. George Sand, a socialist writer, wrote
in 1872 that “art for art sake” was an empty phrase, an idle sentence. She
held that artist had a “duty to find an adequate expression to convey it to
as many souls as possible “, ensuring that their works were accessible
enough to be appreciated.
Walter Benjamin, one of the developers of Marxist hermeneutics,
discusses the slogan in his seminal 1936 essay "the work of art in the age
of mechanical reproduction." He first mentions it in regard to the
reaction within the realm of traditional art to innovations in The Work of
art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction. "L'art pour l'art" slogan as
part of a "theology of art" in bracketing off social aspects.
In the Epilogue to the essay Benjamin discusses the links
between fascism and art. His main example is that of FUTURISM and
the thinking of its mentor Filippo Tommaso Marinetti. One Futurism
slogans of the Futurists was "Fiat ars - pereat mundus" ("Let art be
created, though the world perish"). Provocatively, Benjamin concludes
that as long as fascism expects war "to supply the artistic gratification of
a sense of perception that has been changed by technology," then this is
the "consummation," the realization, of "L'art pour l'art."
Diego Rivera, who in life was a member of the Mexican Communist
Party and "a supporter of the revolutionary cause"[12], claims that the
"art for art's sake" theory would further divide the rich from the poor.
Rivera goes on to say that since one of the characteristics of so called
"pure art" was that it could only be appreciated by a few superior people,
the art movement would strip art from its value as a social tool and
ultimately make art into a currency-like item that would only be
available to the rich.
Former Chinese communist leader Mao Zedong said: "There is in fact
no such thing as art for art's sake, art that stands above classes, art that is
detached from or independent of politics. Proletarian literature and art
are part of the whole proletarian revolutionary cause; they are, as Lenin
said, cogs and wheels in the whole revolutionary machine."
Former Senegal president and head of the socialist party of Senegal
Leopold Senghor and anti colonial writer Achebe have criticised the
slogan, “art for art sake” as being a limited and Eurocentric view on art
and artic creation. In “black African aesthetics”, Senghor argues that “art
is functional” and that “in black Africa, art for art sake does not exist “.
Achebe is more scathing in his collection of essays and criticism entitled
“Morning Yet on Creation Day” where he asserts that “art for art sake”
is just another” piece of deodorised god shit.”
