From: Ed Atkeson <edatkeson-AT-earthlink.net> Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 18:18:23 -0400 To: puptcrit-AT-puptcrit.org Subject: Re: [Puptcrit] Getting Gigs > I think the idea of art that isn't bent to the service of the church, > or commerce or fascism or education -- art standing on it's own, > unalloyed, is a useful one. I think it's even a wonderful (if > impossible) idea. > > That's what I mean by "art for art's sake." Do I have it wrong? I > know these phrases have accepted meanings, and I haven't taken the > course. > Ed, I haven't taken the course either (at least I don't think I have - which course do you mean?), but if "art for art's sake" is, as you say, impossible, then how is the concept useful? It might have been useful, as a cry to action, at some moment in history, but the only use I can recall made of it in our own time is to mislabel, for the purpose of dismissing, other people's perfectly viable aspirations. If, for example, an artist lives in a fascist society and wants to make art that is not in the service of fascism, it is not that she wants to make "art for art's sake" - she just doesn't want to make art for fascism's sake. There is nothing impossible about this - difficult and dangerous, yes, but why impossible? And in our society, there are thousands of people who make art that is not in the service of any of the entities you list - there is nothing impossible about it, for as long as one doesn't aspire to have one's art shown in churches, at rallies, in educational institutions, in art institutions, etc. Do these people make "art for art's sake"? I supect that the majority make it for the sake of *life*, not "art". As for the supposed impossibility, maybe what you mean is that it is impossible to not serve any of these institutions or entities and yet make a living from art. Well, it is probably very difficult, but whether it is *impossible* has to be a heuristic determination, and from some of the things said of this list I gather it is not quite as impossible as you make it sound. --------------------------------------------- Malgosia, I thought that there are many useful but impossible ideas! I meant that art for art's sake is an unattainable ideal. I stuck that in there in case you would have said that there is no way an artpiece can be made without some degree of less than artistic motivation. I think this is true, but that's off my point. I think the idea of art that isn't bent to the service of the church, or commerce or fascism or education -- art standing on it's own, unalloyed, is a useful one. That's what I mean by "art for art's sake." And in my original post I wanted to say that (in my opinion) the art does all those things you mentioned. Joy, perceptions, emotions, understanding, etc. are the everyday transactions of the business of art for art's sake. What I mean by "taking the course" is I haven't studied art or art criticism or philosophy where you learn about this stuff and so I may be mistaken about terms, bear with me. So far I haven't said anything about making a living. I just wanted to discuss this "art for art's sake idea." You surprised me the way you responded to Michael's comment. best, Ed The thought just occurred that GB Shaw and Oscar Wilde were both writing plays at the turn of the century. Wilde with his "art is useless," Shaw grinding an armful of axes, and both so brilliant. _______________________________________________ List address: puptcrit-AT-puptcrit.org Admin interface: http://lists.puptcrit.org/mailman/listinfo/puptcrit Archives: http://www.driftline.org
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005