Where 'Art for Art's Sake' Went Wrong

By Sadhika on

Dante Alighieri, one of the greatest literary icons of the Western world, said in his Inferno, that Art imitates Nature (Creation), and thus, it is God’s own grandchild. The beauty of this sentiment has been felt repeatedly throughout history, whose great artists have often invoked divine muses before giving shape to their works.  

Indeed, there is something god-like about creativity itself, which may as well be the spark of divinity within man, who is made in God’s image. The creative man strives to emulate the Great Creator of the world himself, and very often the works of art first enter the artist’s imagination in the form of dream and revelation. 

Furthermore, the works of great artists are even said to inspire the creativity of budding artists who witness them, in that a kind of invisible thread seemingly connects the creative aspect of man across the macrocosm, which when tugged at one end would send reverberations pulsing across the whole mesh, that we would feel when we stood before the Sistine Chapel, lets say.

To me, this begs the question: To what extent can the philosophy of "l'art pour l'art" ('art for art's sake') really hold water? I confess, I’m ambivalent on this one.

The phrase ‘art for art’s sake’ arose in the 19th century and affirmed that Art served as its own justification; it served no purpose (moral, didactic or political) and the only aim of art was to be art. This is the landmark moment when Art, the great human creation, nearly destroyed itself! The irony, however, was lost on many.

To give the devil his due, I do feel that the idea of "l'art pour l'art" does have some validity, especially in the world of today, where censorship of creative fields - art, literature, cinema, comedy, you name it - is rampant. The argument that the voice of creativity should be able to speak without restraints that social mores sometimes put upon it - at the risk of toppling the table of ruling values, or offending people’s sensibilities, simply in order to think - does have some credence. 

But the application of this philosophy did not stop at the free expression of artists, unfortunately. A world of free speech allows every kind of idea the right to be voiced, but it does not automatically mean that all ideas are equally valuable. There still exists a hierarchy of ideas. Some ideas are stupid. Some ideas are irrelevant. We recognise their worth or the lack thereof when they are voiced, which makes the right to free expression indispensable. 

Free expression does not mean every idea that is expressed is equally good, it just means that you can voice all your ideas, whatever the quality. This fine distinction is where the idea of art for art’s sake went astray. It tore down the exclusivity of what art actually constituted, dramatically changing its definition. Anything passed as art. Anyone could be an artist. They may as well have called it ‘art for anything’s sake’. Or 'art for nothing's sake'. It would have all been the same.

The question: Is it ‘art for art’s sake’ a desirable outcome? Unsurprisingly, the socialists would say no. But so would Nietzsche. In fact, in Twilight of the Idols, he went so far as to say that ‘l'art pour l'art’ is actually not possible, for art has always encapsulated the core beliefs of humanity, the concentrate of human experience.

“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, 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...Art is the great stimulus to life: how could one understand it as purposeless, as aimless, as l'art pour l'art?”

If the great works of Leonardo da Vinci and Michelangelo have the power to inspire creativity in the generations of artists that follow them, is that not the purpose of Art too? To inspire? To encourage? Or is art to be absolved of that burden? 

And what will be left when that has been achieved? The art of the blank canvas?

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Last Keeper

By Sadhika on
Image
Of late, there has been a feeling settling in my chest like dust in an empty room—soft, silent, and certain. It is the quiet realization that my memories are not permanent things. Not chiseled into stone or sealed up in iron-bound books, but written in pencil, the graphite growing faint with each passing season. I am aware, now more than ever, that what I remember will not be remembered for long. I think of my parents often. I remember my mother in her early sarees —floral, soft, like the curtains of a spring house. As the years passed, her colours dulled. Maybe they matched her age better, or maybe they just matched her mood. I see her now in my mind, young, barefoot and newly married, in a kitchen not yet hers, lifting a spoon to her mother’s lips and asking if the peas were soft enough. What was her scent like?  Turmeric?   Talcum powder? Or those white rajnigandha flowers she loved so much? I don’t remember. I think of my father and the way he used to hum when he shaved, a...
Read more

A Village Denied

By Sadhika on
Image
Co-authored by  Shrankhla and Sadhika on August 28, 2025 Of all the deprivations visited upon modern childhood, none is so grave and yet so little acknowledged as the absence of other people. Those of us who grew up in fuller households know what today’s children are missing. We remember weddings where ten different families would squeeze into one house, sleeping on the floor, with cousins lined up like sardines. We remember giving up one’s own bed to an elderly uncle, and waking up to the sound of aunties and uncles gossiping arguing over tea. In those homes, very little belonged entirely to us. The bed we slept on, the food on our plate, not even our stories. Someone was always listening in, correcting us, mocking us, softening our triumphs with their own, or placing a hand on our shoulders when we faltered. It was infuriating. It was also how we learned that life is not designed for any one person’s comfort—least of all a child’s. Siblings taught us this brutally and tende...
Read more

So begins our undoing

By Sadhika on
In rich aplomb we sit Atop the piles of gold and good That we write to our credit, When the good Lady Fortune’s scales tip And the waves of Chaos come gushing in From directions unventured, To lay waste to our kingdoms. So begins our undoing. Then a shadow confronts us To which, earlier, we became privy Only in brief flashes of thought or dream, And brushed away with impatience. The darkest among us have a still darker self Long lost and buried Beneath the best of us. The old altars lay slighted, Our ideals bear no resemblance  To the names we gave them. We are ruled by Furies aplenty. How do we rebuild our fallen kingdoms Without Divine Guidance? Somewhere along our final descent, We meet the gods we banished. A faint glow (perhaps even imagined)  Beckons across the waste yonder. Do we follow? Or do we give in to the darkness? 
Read more