Art for Art's Sake | Does Art Need Purpose?
Vložit
- čas přidán 22. 06. 2024
- As an art history channel, we are constantly analyzing and criticizing art and asking questions about how we consume art. A couple of weeks ago, I looked at art made by AI, and asked the question is it art? What makes something art? Is it the artistic process? The message the art is trying to convey? Is it the technology or method used?
Today we will take a look at Art for Art’s Sake. Does art need purpose? What is the purpose of art without a purpose?
James Whistler’s 1874 painting “Nocturne in Black and Gold - The Falling Rocket” is a good example of this question. How does the artistic movement of aestheticism differ from didactic art? Or, as Duchamp coined it, Retinal art? When does art need to convey a message? Does it need to convey one at all?
Find out by watching today’s video, and as always let me know what you think in the comments, and join me later today at 4pm EST/1pm PST for today’s CZcams Live.
0:00 Introduction
0:58 James Whistler’s Nocturne in Black and Gold
2:56 Art for Art’s Sake
4:38 Criticism of Art for Art’s Sake
9:42 Conclusion
If you enjoy watching our videos, and would like to support us, check us out on Patreon: / thecanvas
Instagram:
/ thecanvasyo. .
#art #arthistory #JamesWhistler
It doesn’t NEED purpose, it always HAS purpose as the mirror of the artist’s creativity
Art itsself is the purpose in my opinion. Its kinda like saying humans need a purpose. Kant said humanity itsself is the purpose. And I agree.
It doesn't need purpose, but without purpose it has no meaning, and without meaning it loses all reason of value.
That's a great way of putting it!
Some would say then that the creator isn’t the sole purpose of the art. Therefore the beautiful trails of paint of a slithering snake across a canvas of wet paint is art
@@karlhoffmann3029 Why? If someone sees a piece and it brings them joy, what matter the "purpose" of the artist?
It always has one, to express the artist's thought.
It can be mundane, it can be provoking, it can be the very least thing everyone needed in life. But it'll always be attached to what the artist has in mind.
yes. you're right
Not all thoughts are purposeful, meaningful, or artistic. Just because a thought is being expressed does not equate to art.
Does music have a purpose? Why should visual art always be at the service of something? Can it not give joy and enrichment simply through the visual language? I appreciate that you tackle these thorny issues. To me all art, even bad or boring art (that is subjective!) has a purpose, i.e. that of an inner human necessity to create.
Good music does have purpose. Good literature does have purpose. It is within the purpose where you find the meaning. without purpose or meaning it loses all value
@@karlhoffmann3029value is in the eye of the beholder
@@ITcanB If the beholder finds value in single layered and reductive 'art' then the beholder doesn't know what they are talking about
@@karlhoffmann3029 I wouldn't say meaningful forms of art are inherently "good" because it infers that the other is "bad", even if they're not deep. I think the point the commenter is making is that art is held to a much higher standard to mean something compared to music and film which has been adopted by the mainstream. It's not that they shouldn't also be deeper but they're allowed not to be and art should be as well. We're allowed to just have fun, life would be so depressing if every song I played just made me go into existentialism.
Music and visual art have the same purpose, to express the creativity, inner experience, and ideas of the artist or artists. They don't have to always be "thorny issues", they can also be personal experience, emotional depth, joy, funny observations of the world etc. as long as it expresses something meaningful. Music does this through emotional tone, rhythm, cultural association, lyrical themes, complexity/simplicity etc.
Meaning doesn't need to be contrived to justity the art, it's already in there. You just have to find it. Also, it doesn't need to be didactic or moralistic or profound, it speaks about the wide range of human experience, even if experienced "passively."
Therefore there is really no such thing as "art for art's sake" or purposeless art, only those who are too lazy to look and think about what the art is about and for. "Art for art's sake" is also a convenient way to scrub out any "distasteful" meanings so that it can participate openly in the market, without having to brand it a certain way. It is a great capitalist/corporate trick.
The artist can engage in purely formal issues, and be only interested in beauty, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have a purpose or meaning. The art has a life, it lives in a particular timeframe, it speaks to, or represents that timeframe. If the artist ignores the issues of the day and is just concerned with color and shape etc., then ultimately it can stand for that: engaging in pleasure (or surface issues I suppose) in the face of human problems, and that can be the meaning. But I'm willing to bet it's always deeper than that, if we listen to it closely.
well put
No, that is not true at all. Just because someone splatters some paint on a canvas or pushes pixels together on a screen doesn't make it meaningful, purposeful, or artistic. If I don't find meaning in a banana taped to a wall or someone just throwing red paint on a canvas, that doesn't make me lazy, it makes the "artist" a fraud who has used the pretentious atmosphere art creates to trick people into thinking the emperor is wearing clothes when, indeed, he is not.
@@pygmalioninvenus6057 you've already determined that a banana taped on a wall has meaning if you've dismissed it as a fraudulent act. Its meaning doesn't have to be "good" or profound to have meaning. Its place in our culture is determined by your perception of it: ie it has meaning.
Art will always have a purpose if it is made by a human who "wants" to make it. If you are into creating something, you are going to inadvertently pour your own emotions into it. You might not mean to, but the number of times I've looked up from a canvas with tears in my eyes for no reason only to realize that I've been using the colors of a shirt an old friend used to wear, or the color patterns of a dog I used to have. If you are making art because you want to, you always put a part of yourself into it.
I get what you are saying in terms of corporate art or AI image generators. Just blandly churning out images because they are told to.
But actual art that makes the artist happy is already serving a purpose.
Just because you put your emotion into something doesn't make it art. I find this argument to be both exceptionally simple and bizarre.
Being deeply touched - changed - by beauty, is a purpose
"I just think it's neat."
~ Marjorie Simpson.
As someone who really likes abstract landscape, i love the nocturne painting at the first sight. The dots of light against deep black background really makes it a very strong painting; by strong i mean the kind of painting that deeply touch myself. For this alone i think the painting worth something, it moves me and as an artist myself these kind of paintings inspires me to continue create my own paintings.
I want to say a lot more about the topic, but in short i think art has the kind of subjective quality that makes it worth different thing to different people, the same art that's seen worthless to some people, can be worth something to others, and both should be valid. Say for example childrens drawing, it worths nothing to strangers, but to the children's parents it can worth something. So art doesn't need purpose to be valued.
Doesn’t get more sincere than a kid’s painting, right? Their art is full of meaning and message.
We appreciate how informative videos are here. God bless you.
ખૂબજ ઉપયોગી માહિતીનુ વિડિયો, આઘુનિક યુગમાં અદ્યતન ટેકનોલોજી સાથે આભાર સહ ધન્યવાદ...
As painter this has become a favorite come too channel, youtube has replaced television.
I am so glad to be able to support, in a very small way, this channel. Your discussions on art are thought provoking, intelligent, and enjoyable. As to this video; I agree. Art is a conversation - I've always thought this, when looking at a painting or sculpture. What is the artist saying? Or, yes; I understand. Either way; the creation of art is one of the best things we humans do. The desire to create resides, I believe, in nearly everyone. Thanks again, for always giving me something to think about. :)
I had to allow myself the freedom to make art for art's sake in order to find my style and purpose... which, in turn gives purpose to the pieces I made before knowing my purpose. So I'm one who believes there's always a purpose. 😊
i think Nietzsche put it well: purposeless art is impossible. There's always an underlying need for the expression of something. Even if you're making a photographical-like realist painting of a flower, you had the need to represent this flower by your own means. Also i believe there's always a bit of you in whatever art you're making even if you aren't aware of it. It applies to visual arts but also to music or any other art form.
Celtic poet and philosopher John O'Donohue said beauty can give us courage. That's a legitimate purpose for art, IMO.
Love John o Donohue!! Can't agree more!! ❤
Man, thank you for your work, i'm Brazilian and just start watch your videos to learn more english, but then now I really appreciate art because of you (sorry if my English is not good enough)
You’re english is great!
@@smillajensen5099 Thanks, i'm trying kkkk
I think all art has innate meaning (good or bad) as long as it authentically expresses the artist's vision. The process of creating art involves imagination and selection, which results from the artist's experience as a human being. Through art, the artist expresses how he views the world and the human condition, and that alone gives art a purpose for the artist. Once the art is shown to the world other people will engage with it and bring their own life experiences while analyzing it, giving the art new and varied meanings. Purpose and meaning is created through creation and engagement.
Nocturne is so beautiful. How could Ruskin look at that beautiful painting and make such ridiculous comments?
I am as gloriously stunned by The Canvas Channel as I was the first time I saw the Milky Way in a cold Winter’s night sky.
thank you for explaining the story of Nocturne in Black and Gold, it is one of my favourite paintings, i had no idea it ruined him financially
Oh, I love this painting! The sparks on the dark sky and the water are so beautiful
Robert Henri said “…a work of art is a thing done”. And the beauty of it resides in just that. It’s a thing done. The artist cannot decide if it is good/terrible or has any purpose… it stands alone… like a tree, it is what it is until it is judged or made use of, in whatever way, by another.
This comment summed up the whole video, I suppose. Yes, a certain UCLA professor of art once stated on Film Courage, and I'll try to quote, " Most art is bad!" He made references to writing, painting, movies,.. all bad !
One of the best videos I've seen in my life. Thank you for gathering and sharing all the information that you have studied for years. This has been a very thought stirring video for me.
Yes, actually. I advise everybody to read Walter Benjamin's "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Production"
Good read.
Whenever I think "purposeless art" my mind doesn't turn to Whistler. It turns to Thomas Kincaid. To me that's the end result of ars gratia artis, at least under capitalism: ars gratia pecunia in its most craven form.
Thank you for making such incredible videos and for hosting such a diplomatic and informative stream!
To me art is a manifestation of human consciousness. When art seizes to exist is when we could truly say that we are in a perpetual state of oblivion. In that sense, art will always have a purpose because art is a reminder of our humanity, it creates and destroys, it lies and tells the truth, it is at times spiritual and at times absurd.
I think this question is much more simple: if the artist who created the work of art has not only enjoyed the process of creating it, but finds his own value in it, then the work of art has obtained its meaning. Its meaning and purpose is determined by the artist. So, in a sense, whilst we think some make art of art's sake, they are making it also because they find personal meaning in this otherwise meaningless endeavour.
Really thought provoking. I hold simultaneously conflicting views about art for arts sake. I don't think I can answer the question about purpose because the answer is actually very dependent upon the work itself as well as the artist in question; which is maddening.
Nowadays I look forward to riding the bus to work everyday because of your videos , Your work is amazing brother , keep it up
For me, the reason the artist created an artwork in the first place is its meaning, and how well it achieved that goal serves as a metric for what it's worth/how good it is. It is only through analysis and learning about the author that we can discover the metric to judge it by.
Damn! Your videos are so dense! And I think I like it.
This must be one of the best videos I've ever watched.
(Someday maybe, let's examine decorative art and kitsch in relation to that. I think it might shed more light on engagement vs alienation. In my experience, kitsch and Googie environments are oddly soothing, in the way television can sometimes be.)
PS I'm deeply disappointed in John Ruskin, who before his scandalous libel of Whistler had championed Turner against great resistance.
Fantastic video! Thank you.
I find the art for art's sake a very complex topic. It was a conclusion of it's time, but to me it was a necessary one. The representation of the human experience and the message can sometimes be too dominant towards what I think of as the experience of beauty, which is not only for the sake of beauty. Aesthetic experience is an important ability of human mind, it's not only about decorating, but also suggesting and evoking moments, not only the purpose. I don't pretend to deny the importance of the purpose and the value of message, but they dictate too. The artists should create when they know there's a worthy idea to work with, but if they always search for the reason to create, there will no longer be art. I don't find art for the sake of art boring (to me this word cannot even be used in the argument), maybe it doesn't take us anywhere, but the message and the purpose in art only work for a certain group and their belief system.
U needa learn how to write this gave me an aneurysm tryna read it
@@jebronlames2854 If it is hard for you to read it, then don't read it.
I wonder how this applies to story media. Great video!
thanks for the conversation....right on!
Sometimes I want to draw a tree because I'm moved somehow by nature. When I do this, I'm not trying to say anything other than "this interests me, this is beautiful". Technically I'm saying _something_ here, but it's not always a deep message.
Sometimes, I make things that _do_ say something, but that something can't necessarily be expressed in words. If it could be expressed in words, I'd rather write it. My point is that meaning is something less concrete than a label that you can throw at artwork. It's a mysterious thing created in each person, and it's not always explainable.
Well said. Sometimes the message is just… tree. Or red, orange and yellow, moving. Or “my eyes wanted to see this.”
LOVED THE CONCLUSION
Why can't art be self-indulgent and only serve the person creating it? I "make art" and it's all for me, all the time. If I created with some goal in mind to convey or inform something to anyone else it would cheapen my experience with it. It's. Comparable to doing good to the service of your own principle rather than doing good to show goodness to others or to be seen as being good. If a person looks at my work or holds/ touches it in the way of sculpture, and they gain from that experience then fine, but it's not created for the sake of their benefit. This whole mindset of (art must have purpose) is pretentious, and it alienates folks who simply enjoy creating. If someone feels that "doodling" or wistfully slapping paint on canvas is inherently boring or wasteful then that'll be their opinion on another individuals hobby/passion and that's all. Worse still are the creatives that attempt to attach some narrative or greater meaning to something that otherwise is just a bit of fun, it doesn't always have to be grandiose or deep. When I interact with other people who make things for appreciation, recognition, or clout, it just shows some sort of unsureness or self doubt that they need a metaphorical pat on the back for to feel better about themselves. So art just for the hell of it does exist, those artists just don't get noticed because they don't need to be. And (the canvas) isn't ever going to make a video on them because they don't put out or make a big deal about their work to the public.
11:50 The flaw in your final point is that you can't, simply by experiencing a particular artwork, know for certain whether it was designed to be purposeless or not. An artist may well have no purpose behind doing a work and yet you may get something out of it. Creating and experiencing are two different stages and processes.
I love art because it’s just fun to fuck around and find out. Most of it’s gonna suck but I don’t really care because it’s about the process for me.
I actually chose James Whistlers Nocturne piece used as the thumbnail for my IB art Comparative Study, very interesting take
I would propose that even aesthetic art is didactic in a major sense: it is a statement of values and the structure of beauty according to a human eye (the one that made it) and if that beauty resonates with other humans, that is the didactic sense--it communicates a shared value and is culturally generative.
In an online discussion I once came up with a definition of art which fits this discussion quite well:
"There are only two meanings. The one the artist puts into his artwork and the one the viewer sees in it. And both are equally "right", because they're both subjective. Even if the artist has a clear message and intent which he puts into his piece of art, it will never be completely accurately communicated to the viewer. So, what even is art? What is its purpose? I would define it as anything made to create meaning, using a type of medium like music, language, images etc. So if art is made to create meaning, then we could say anything that is made with the intent of being art can be considered art. But when the meaning the artist creates is not the meaning the observers receive, this raises the question what the point in making art even is. And there are mainly two options. Either the artist creates art for himself, taking on both roles, the transmitter and receiver. This is the only way the intended meaning can accurately be transmitted. Or he makes art for its observers, to let them create their own meaning. Any piece of art that is purposefully shared with others will have this effect and therefore was created with this intent. Any artwork which is not meant to be interpreted by anyone is no true art because it holds no meaning and meaning is the essence of art."
For me, art is more than convey the message. It can convey emotion.
ı am a huge fan from turkey and recently ı came across a painting called Bacchanal from Adolphe Yvon, ı got facineted by the astonishing work on it therefor ı wanted to know more about it but ı couldnt find much information on internet. could u make a video about Bacchanal and enlighten us by the magical words of yours, much appreciated, thank you for great contents
The main art I see online is just made because someone wanted to see something that dosent exist yet so yeah art for arts sake is valid
I love to PLAY. With musical instruments, sometimes photographs, thats the purpose, enjoy to play in the moment.
it is in the eye of the beholder, when i make art, it is for me, and it is fine if others dont find meaning in it, when i look at art, it is art or not in my own eyes. art for art's sake is a way of engaging with the world in and of itself. when i go outside and look at a sunset i need not a purpose to adore it, and i dont need a purpose to paint it. i still try to find purpose and meaning in every artwork, and have my own narrative and message in the artwork i make, but i dont think we can classify things as "not art". slippery slope it is.
It’s has a purpose for me, it’s many things depending on my mood, it’s a celebration, a message, mediative, I can just zone out and paint, and if it makes people happy I’m happy, if they don’t like it - they can paint something better themselves. Art is subjective and can take you somewhere it’s a visual story sometimes.
To say that making art without purpose is to ignore historical or social contexts I think is itself avoiding historical and social context. In a vacuum yes if you are making art simply for the sake of making art the meaning behind that art is only its beauty. However we live in a world where the a large portion of people who vilinize "meaningless" or abstract art are not doing so because it lacks meaning but rather because it goes against the meanings they believe art should embody. To make abstract art or art for the sake of art is to question the reasons why art has been made in the past and why certain art today holds value and why others don't. A piece of art that an artist makes with no intent might in itself be meaningless but that artists intent to make art without intent can in my opinion still hold political and social relevance. You might say that counts as artists intent but it's not their intent but rather the role they are forced to fill when placed in comparison with objective views of art. Mark Rothko one of my favorite artists is someone who through a similar lense could be reduced to a person whose work consists of different arrangements of squares and rectangles of various colors. His art has no people, places or events being depicted. But by the very decision to not follow any of those preconceived notions of what art should or can be he in my opinion achieved a level of universal meaning that is felt when in the presence of his works.
It is common for "purposeless art" to be miscosntrood as "anti-itellectual" or just "meaningless" but it simply can't be. Those that claim it is will often lather their arguments in intelectual babble and pretension because they feel, for whatever reason, that they can't admit that the piece(s) in question was/were made because "I felt happy" or "something made me laugh" or "something made me sad". Art is an insight into the world of an individual. Thoughts, emotions, musings, frustrations, tempatations. All of these will weed their way into art in some form or another. So, is that not purpose enough?
What a perfect statement!
An artisan explains his reasoning within his canvas and the brush between his fingers. Most people verbalize it and create drama. Ours is expressed less noise. More eye contact. That's the perfection of being an artist. It takes people off themselves and into another world of expression
I see artworks as more of an isolated moment in time which you can look back on as a snapshot, it does have purpose in that it is given purpose by yourself or the people who see it and it is the intent to create that is the catalyst for this
Hello. thanks for this youtube channel. definitions of art are not uniform and are often vague. that's why I don't even use the term art. I prefer to talk about creation. creating something, whether commercial or very personal, it doesn't matter in what form, it's always about communication. I think it is more effective for understanding any work. I always ask myself what someone is trying to communicate to me. It makes all much more simple.
Yes, it not only must as it necessarily has purpose. It has at least two meanings; that central core out of which the artist who made it and, that of the person who perceives it. Ah, but the author may have been only doodling? Why, but the final form, when the artist stops doodling aimlessly, is a decision that carries responsabilty and meaning-even in denial of it.
Art doesn't need a purpose because art itself is the ultimate purpose of a self aware mind , art for art's sake is a sign that an inteligent being is more than it's needs and desires for simply existing. It is a testament to the fact that a conscious mind has total control over its actions and thus making it the purest form of expression , a testimony to the intelligence and freedom of a mind that created it.
Will you explain further why art for art sake is controversial, who says art has propose and who says art has no propose ?
Art is a reflection of the Artists' purpose. What an Artist chooses to create unleashes their inner purpose.
I suppose it depends on what you consider a purpose. A lot of my art has a purpose only for me… the therapeutic experience of creating the lines and applying the color, forming the shapes and patterns. The creation of a visual ideal. No deep message underlying the curves and colors. It could be dismissed as so much wallpaper and that’s fair… I see artists like Mondrian and Rothko that way. I see Pollock and many “modern artists” (think random displays of found objects or wads of copper wire dangling from the ceiling) as considerably less.
I don’t ask anyone to give my art significance. It isn’t for them if they don’t like it. If someone sees it and likes it, then it is for them. If someone sees a Pollock mess and sees art, it’s art to them no matter how much I hate it. Fact is, the most sincere and heartfelt art is often made with crayons on construction paper by hands that didn’t exist five years ago.
In the end, I guess I wonder whose business it is anyway. The very idea of a bunch of random “authorities” telling everyone else what art is and isn’t. What a load of bollocks. If something lacks value to you, move along and don’t ruin it for everyone who does like it. Let me and my sort make what we want without psyching ourselves out because someone with no superior divine inspiration, with not one iota of expertise more than our own, presumes to dictate what we’re allowed to call art. Butt the hell out.
In return, I won’t block your view of any Jackson Pollock exhibits.
Art for Art's sake is the goal, Art and decoration, industrial design, buildings and furniture are also the goal! Art flows everywear.
Wow, I am impressed. I really am, I haven't considered this much since my Philosophy Degree (I miss those days). I considered arguing with you around the concepts of non-"fine" arts and art therapy, but all these actually have a purpose - albeit different to the supposed ideals of "fine" art.*
*I feel I should clarify this, but you've probably already done it better in one of your many videos. I don't think fine art is that fine anymore...I appreciate modern art, I appreciate all art, but to call it "fine" or "Visual" or whatever extra label we put upon it, well, that isn't even an accurate description of it anymore. Art is. Or is that too Dada or Anti-Dada - hahaha? Ehhh. I thought like I was making sense somewhere in there... probably not though.
Anyway, thank you for your video essays - they really make me think again.
It is like avatar 2 and marvel movies. They look visually impressive. When you watch it first time you are in awe. But thats it. You kinda forgot about them after that. You may remember them by good looking movie thats it. Movies with good stories or a massege makes you think. You remember them because you interacted mentally to it not just visually. They stays with you because you are fascinated with stories or character/s. Retinal art is also an art because it is something that came from the consciousness. Art with purpose make you think, it will make you question. Art's theme may resonate with you, it will stay with you.
The fact that art requires no purpose and the fact that art is the only human construct that has no definition sits uncomfortably with most people. We humans live around purpose. Our religion, our architecture, philosophy, medicine, our science has inherent purpose. The reason that debates about art are so hot is that we can't accept that art can't be defined. We can't accept that our very lives have no inherent purpose. In the first of many acts that reveal that free will is an illusion, we are brought into this world without input, permission, manuals or explanation, and our individual lives have no purpose to the overall workings of the universe that hosts us. We could be comfortable with this fact and hence find purpose in the smaller, mundane things. We can enjoy and appreciate art without requiring the fulfillment of a purpose.
Art serves a purpose to me personally.
It inspires me to think of the elements that compose it. For example:
If I was given (or gave myself) a task to create art without any reference to time whatsoever, the task would prove oxymoronic, as even thinking of timelessness would require thinking of time. Thought influences the product.
(In the same way that thinking of atheism or agnosticism requires thinking of god?)
Is, then, time the only universal language of art?
(it is impossible to look at, listen, think of or otherwise think of or experience art without linking it to a period or a moment)
And in the end the product would, in the eyes of the beholder, locate itself in a certain period.
Parallel:
Math is, according to us humans, the language of the universe. We explain the universe and its origins in math. The great majority of that we see, we can make sense of in math. That doesn't mean that math is indeed necessary for the universe to exist. Math is only a language that we created to understand it. Other civilizations which may exist without our knowledge may explain the universe with another method.
Similarly, time is a human construct, a language and framework to help us understand spiritual and physical aspects of humanity and the universe. Some can explain time in the language of math. Contrary to "time", the universe has been, is and will be there even without us being there to explain it in math.
Can't think of the universe without thinking of math. Can't think of art without thinking of time. Universe exists without "math". "Art", on the other hand, can't exist without "time".
Is time to art what math is to the universe? I'd say yes, but the universe is not a human construct, as is "time", "math", and"art".
very interesting
I'm with Nietzsche. Art may not be overtly didactic/moral/political, but it is never free of politics in so much that every piece of art does not exist in a vaccum, and nor does the artist. This is true not only of fine arts (painting, sculpture, etc) but also music, literature, cinema, photography. Anyone who is creating a piece of art has consciously and unconsciously been influenced by world in which they live, and these influences inform their perceptions and responses, including artistic creations. Culture is always political, art, being part of culture, is this always political. Whether u call it "purpose" or not is a matter of semantics; but it is never "just art" devoid of any context - that is impossible coz no one lives or creates in a vaccum.
I just found it to be interesting 🧐 I love all kinds of works of art even things that’s probably not considered works of art it’s not only visual art literature music puppetry aka theater 🎭 comic book and strip art movies whatever you name it
you should have an interview with jonathan pageau
There is no clear separation between an artwork which appeals to the eye and an artwork which appeals to the mind. Artwork appeals to the eyes, always; but sight, and all of our senses, are the very things which define our imaginations. I find it sort of snobbish when people try and draw this line between retinal art and... any other "kind" of art. It's all retinal, and it's all mental.
Is music all just "art for art's sake" unless it's got lyrics or a subtextual message?
I'd wager not, that aesthetic by itself can deliver a message even if it's not verbal or conscious. Even if the message is just merely "green" or "C minor" there still is a message. Art is never for its own sake, it's for *our* sake. Because we like making it and experiencing it.
The moment we begin speaking about a piece of art, be it music, film, painting or fashion, it is fulfilling a purpose - it is furthering human experience, even if it means 0.000000001%. To me, that is incredible and purposeful. Especially given the fact that we reside in a little bubble we call earth and compared to the sheer size of known existence we amount to nothing, the little contribution seems as big as you or me. Just consider this situation, a guy walks into his garage, sets up his easel, splashes some random colors because he wanted to. The paint dries, it even looks a bit pretty but the guy throws it out of the window because he thinks its meaningless and lacks any purpose. However later that day, a teenager going through a terrible day of bullying and mocking, comes across the painting, is inspired by just how randomly beautiful it looks, goes home and does a repeat of the splashathon. It makes her day, a few years pass and she's now a full time artist. Wouldn't you say the original garage reject art had some purpose? I think the only art that has no purpose is the art that resides in your brain and does to find an outlet. Go out and make whatever makes sense to you.
I think there is a kind of similarity with defining purposeful art and defining what art is in the first place. They can both be different things to different people. A person might consider art to have a purpose when it has a political context. Others might consider all art to be purposeful inherently. And then there is everything in between those two definitions of purposeful art. Some people might think that n artist has a responsibility to make purposeful art in the sense of the art being commentary. I choose to think of it this way; each individual artist chooses what kind of art they want to make and what it's purpose is, whether it is to point a finger at injustice or provide an object that is meant only to exist as something of beauty. No one has the right to tell the artist what their responsibilities are as an artist, or how their art is to be read. But because art is so subjective, and each person brings with them their own context when reading a work of art there can be multiple ways of reading a work of art. An artist can state the purpose of the work and it's intended meaning but they can't stand next to it forever to make sure every person who views it understands what the artist intended. Artists can create a work with an intended purpose, but they can't control how people read it. And I don't think they should try to. Again, it's all about context and previous experiences of the person viewing the art. And that is one of the great things about art, you find in it whatever you can based on your life experiences.
Art doesn't have to "say" anything heavy or be loaded with messaging to be valid or have worth(I don't mean monetary worth), it can just be something beautiful and moving to look at. And in that sense all art is purposeful.
Art is inescapable, it is inherent to life, its need for survival is equivalent to eating food or breathing,...or even experiencing the act of enjoyment itself.
In other words it resides in all aspects of life and experience,.
Next time you dump a log into the toilet, take the time to examine your last few meals and see the intricacies of the lines made from all fibers meshed together in your gut,... and see the resemblance of organic lines made in nature, such as, lightning, roots, beads of water, veins, etc....
...Appreciate the masterpiece of art that you unknowingly created.
Well, yeah. It always has a purpose. It may not be obvious or grand at first glance, but it always has a purpose no matter how insignificant it may seem.
So you're a contemporary Philosopher of Aesthetics, seeking patrons 🙂 The world hasn't changed that much in 2000 years. Good going, and good luck.
I've been thinking about what makes art apart of the culture, unforgettable. Jordan Peterson said great art has a balance between beauty,, truth and aims to represent the highest moral (or god). That great art has layers of meaning and speaks to the divine. Personally, I'm still not decided. I've seen great art that makes a person question something, a moral question or philosophy. It's more a conversational pieace rather than saying this is what you should strive for, giving people a goal.
As long as it’s beautiful ❤
Art can be whatever you want it to be
Or for the satisfaction of your spirit your essence thats why you make art to satisfy ( please) what is within you, that which there is no name for.
Even "l'art pour l'art" is its own set of morals. Claiming "l'art pour l'art" as one's process of creation is ultimately doing art for a purpose and a set of ideals, be them aestheticism or other.
Art seeking itself is priceless, for, it is movement. It is doing or as Giacometti stated: "Art is seeing." Art with a purpose is different than purposeful art. Art with a purpose is utilitarian, art without a purpose is ungovernable. Art for utilitarian purposes is the opposite of liberation - Politics are an insult and morality is snake oil.
"Does Art Need Purpose" Art has a purpose, If an artwork is created and communicates well to a person or audience it fulfills the artist's Purpose The intended which is the need to communicate.
All perception. Ones perspective may make a piece look unfinished, plain, or boring to some. However the artist creating the piece gave the painting purpose. I do there for I am. They paint so they are artists....
Talk about Creativity, i think The Canvas should look up on Henrique Alvim Corrêa's apokalyptic depiction Illustrations and drawings of the war of the worlds book, because it was his only thing he did in his art career and it hasnt got that many appresiation and also he might be an surrealist...maeby. Sorry if this has nothing to do with the video but it would just be an interesting topic to talk about.
"nothing is beautiful unless it is useless" guess that makes me really beautiful then
It's purpose is it's creation! Have you ever seen a painter work out a particular dilemma or witnessed the wonder of the chisel hitting the exact spot with so much precision as to take your breath away. Have you ever seen a dancer mesmerize... A poet captivate? A writer terrorize? Art is... beauty, ugliness, magic, beguiling, awe inspiring, painfull, life fulfilling, suicidal, everything there is! It is in you and beside you, everywhere you look - art stares back. Some natural, some manufactured, some accidental... its is all a wonder.
If I may be candid, I believe clinging onto "art for art's sake" (which will be referred to as 'the quote' in this comment from here onwards) has served as a strawman which allowed the projection of each side's respective biases onto, thus making the impression of profoundness out of pettiness. In other words, I argue focusing too much on the quote is detrimentally divisive to the art community.
If the side for purposeless art hinges their argument on the quote, they are relying on a crutch that is reductive and shallow. There could be more elaboration to the quote itself but instead, it is left as a self-fulfilling thesis on the nature of art. Ironically, the side for purposeful art made a better argument for purposeless art by pointing out that purposeless art features themes of aesthetics.
However, the side for purposeful art, though not saying it directly, would also imply that themes of humanics are greater than themes of aesthetics on the virtue that humanics are deeper and sophisticated. This sort of implication features the heavy-handed pretentiousness that is often stereotyped by and dissuasive to those outside the art community.
Art is whatever you want it to be. It is no science, objective in nature; it is literally it's namesake, that which is subjective. If one sees a piece for it's pretty colors and shapes, so be it. If another sees the same piece for the social, political, and/or metaphysical, so be it. If a piece is all aesthetics and no substance, so be it. If a piece is all substance and no aesthetic, so be it. As for me, I will enjoy fan arts of my seasonal anime waifu as much as I appreciate Francisco Goya's Black Paintings, and no one can tell me otherwise.
Art for art’s sake, as Wilde explained it, is not about aimlessness. In fact, he embraces the opposite. Instead it’s about accepting that those egocentric aims implode against the reality of experiencing an artwork. The image is always artifice. It is always an illusion, no matter how sincere the creator swears it to be. The layer of propaganda is the most surface level of the illusion. The deeper layer is finding the artist in the work, seeing all work as self-portrait, but again, even though this is closer to truth, it is still ultimately fundamentally an illusion. Finally, we have the only actual truth conveyed in the work: what we learn about ourselves. That was what Wilde meant by art for art’s sake - that the artist (despite their moralist desires to manipulate their audience) can ultimately only show the audience one truth: themselves. Wilde put all sorts of his beliefs into The Picture of Dorian Gray, but he never forgot that his audience could only ever get out of his mirror what they put into it.
Art is an artifact of intention
Art made on a deadline, commission....stress and lack of pleasure...
Art made for the joy of exploration and creativity? IS #ArtforArtSake. I take great joy in creating with no thought to selling, just growing, and exploring. I have folks that want to buy them! But I am not thinking about that as I create, it's purely, Art for the sake of Art, it's Art for Art Sake! I make my own encaustic wax. I create, I carve into the wax, I add soft pastels, I burn with shellac...Never in my process am I thinking about making a selling piece, each moment is a moment of art that brings joy to me, the creator. If folks like it? Yeah! If not? So what! I enjoyed the ride, the colors, the beauty of creating...that is Art for Art Sake...
It becomes just decoration or the opposite if its ugly, but if it is "a thing", it can be art ONLY if it is percieved as art, you dont have to be an artist to make it and at the same time artists can make "art" that is no art, if its called art it technicaly has a meaning that it means that its art.
(this is just incoherent talk, i just wanted to blurt it inspesificaly, which can also be art if percieved so .... etc.
This has endless perspectives and views and its just which camp you choose.
My thoughts: The purpose of art is to make something known. It is the simple human drive to be heard by others. By this logic, a scetchbook that no one else sees is not art, it's practice. But the line between those two things is really thin and blurry. "Saturn devouring his son" was not meant to be seen by others, so did it *become* art only after the painter's death? Or is it enough to manifest an idea into physical being, just for the universe itself to witness it?
Do you ever find yourself trying to rationalize art creation? When the world seems to be on the edge of destruction and everywhere and everyone is raging about economic disasters and global catastrophes do you ever question why do i do art and what's the point? could i be doing something else for society? Any comments or video recommendations are welcomed.
No Purpose is a purpose itself
I apeiciate that you pronounce the names in their original language as they would be referred to and not convert everything into English language. So much gets lost in translation. I always think about the countries around the globe to realize that those aren't there real names and that generations die without knowing what Germany or Japan are really called in their original language. Fascinating.
What about neuroaesthetics? Retinal Art can trigger a strong emotional response and affect our well-being, without conversations ensuing from it
There is profound art and there is prolific decoration. They are not the same
I don't think art has no purpose, it always has... Decoration is a purpose, and it doesn't make it less artistic... I think the purpose defined in this video has a lot to do with artists' ego and the need to either react against or get approval from society... If I create for myself, for example (make paintings for my house), I'm still creating, I'm still making art... If I'm constantly sharing it in social media or in galleries, it is still art... So I think this is judging and categorizing a process and decision that is very personal... Of course there is artistic merit in studying and becoming a maestro or a paradigm shifter, but that doesn't mean other people who don't seek that are making things without purpose and should therefore be dismissed, maybe they're doing it without the need for fame (good or bad)... And wheter people like it or not, that is art... Maybe not deep or intelectual, but art anyway...
Aestheticism does not, so far as I have read/understood, contend that art is *purposeless.* It holds that good art is *useless.* But these are not the same thing.
Many proponents of Aestheticism (Whistler & later Beardsley on the visual arts side, and Pater, Wilde, & Swinburne on the literary front) believed art should above all elevate beauty in all its forms: sensual, symbolic, synesthetic, decorative, decadent, etc.
For them, art’s truest value lies not in its usefulness, morality, or even informativeness, but how well it expresses beauty. This is what “art for art’s sake” means.
It is not saying all art is purposeless. It is saying art is valuable because it is socially, morally, politically, & functionally *useless.*
Art realizes itself - and in practicing art, the artist realizes their self; and audiences bring their own values, impressions, & emotions to the piece.
This was a radical departure from the prevailing classical and rationalist approaches as well as the functionalism of the Victorian era.
For example, Oscar Wilde’s distilled philosophy of art is that art’s *meaning* is much less important than art’s *being.*
In “The Critic as Artist,” Wilde writes: “That is what the highest criticism really is, the record of one's own soul. It is more fascinating than history, as it is concerned simply with oneself. It is more delightful than philosophy, as its subject is concrete and not abstract, real and not vague.”
Art’s end, then, in Wilde’s view, is not some historical and/or abstract argument that is as irrelevant as it is colorless. It is, instead, an expression of one’s own sensual & spiritual connection with a work - either as an artist or as a critic.
Art for art sake is really myth? You have good understand about this matter, will teach me with more explanation
Even for the sake of aestheticism it is still a purpose. Art will never lose its purpose.
Art inherently has purpose. Yes. There is truly no such thing as art for art sake. The meaning is inherent.