File puptcrit/puptcrit.0709, message 171


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

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005