/lit/ - Literature

It's like a physicist saying "do you agree stuff is what it is?"

Kind of need more detail to tease out what exactly is meant by "art for art's sake"

No but I don't totally discount "art" that is labeled like that. I just take it at face value, do I like it, if so then I'm fine with it existing. If not, I couldn't care less

Friedrich Nietzsche claimed that there is no art for art’s sake. He asked: "…what does all art do? does it not praise? glorify? select? highlight? By doing 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?”

>>8720829
>this influential work that probably influenced what I DO like, I couldn't care less

>>8720835
He mistakes the initial spark, the actual creative process, and the results...

L'art pour l'art is not needing a reason to create art, if not for the result itself.

"For its own sake" is the only philosophically justifiable reason to do anything.

>>8720863
I think you misunderstood, I don't care whether or not the creator made it for "art" sake.

Yes.

Me on the left

>>8720869
>muh reductionism

>>8720822
I kinda miss the old MGM cinemas.

>>8720918
ironic now because they shill jews and SJW culture

>>8720822
what about fart for fart's sake?

Absolutely, although I would be even more comfortable replacing "art" with "poetry," understood in the broadest sense as a state of mind--that is, any state of mind with a sophisticated emotive structure to it. In fact, as it turns out everything is for the sake of art, or poetry as I would prefer. I associate this with another commonplace about poetry: Auden's "poetry makes nothing happen / It survives." Poetry makes nothing happen, yet we immediately perceive that it is valuable. Therefore it is an end in itself. And for the sake of poetic consistency, I refuse pluralism on these matters: therefore poetry is the only ultimate end. For poetry, broadly considered, is the only thing allows one to approach the state of the Aristotelian God, always perfectly contemplating one's perfect self in an eternal instant.

No, I don't agree with it. I also don't agree with the claim that art can still be great regardless of how much thought or nuance was put into it. Art that was good by accident usually is not good art.

This >>8720835
L'art pour l'art is the artist's ivory tower

The idea that it's the only way to make art is wrong, because plenty of great art has been made for other reasons, but plenty of art for art's sake is also great, so whatever. I only care how good the art is.

i agree so much that I define life by it

>>8720978

Well, so much the better. The "world," by and large, does not deserve the artist; certain recent events are only one small proof of this. It is also perfectly apparent that Nietzsche did not understand the catchphrase, great aphorist as he was. What is meant is that good art has a perfect aim, which is at every point itself.

>>8720981

Indeed. Tolstoy was a great artist. But, when the perceptive observer encounters his art, he must do it for the art's sake, even though Tolstoy himself was incapable of such a thing.

>>8720938
Underrated post

>>8720985
we have our highest dignity in our significance as works of art – for it is only as an aesthetic phenomenon that existence and the world are eternally justified.

>>8720992
>What is meant is that good art has a perfect aim, which is at every point itself.

Has anyone in this thread defined the word 'art' yet?

>>8720822
Personally, I think that the only kind of art that's valid is art that was made "for art's sake"

>>8720822
Yeah, when there's so many other sakes to choose from, I'll have to disagree. Any sake would be more appropriate than this, honestly, just think of the children. What a bullshit.

>>8721076

I can. It is that which causes the state of mind of poetry, which is a state of mind with a complex emotive structure, and allows the perceptive observer to come ever closer to the state of the Aristotelian God.

>>8720822
I write for those without a voice. I write for those who don't have the privelige to speak. I write to liberate those enslaved. I write to save the world. I write for God and the Godless. I write to get laid. I write because its pretty. I write for money. I write to impress others. I write to write. I write to fight. I write to be liked. I write because how else would I survive? I write to feed my family. I write because I'm selfish. I write for women who can't. I write to live out my inner most fantasies. I write to escape. I write to hate. I hate to write. I write because viagra doesn't work anymore. I write because my professor told me I was good at it. I write because I'm ready to take the next step. I write to oppose the corporation, to stand apart from the madness. I write because I'm bored. I write because my husband doesn't show me affection anymore. I write because hitting my wife isn't worth the jail time. I write to honor those who came before me. I write to tell the universe to fuck off. I write because I have autism. I write because I'm a genius. I write because I'm right. I'm right because I write. I write because I love the girl down the street. I write to get karma on reddit. I write to get a (You). I write to be recognized. I write because the pain of hiding is too much. I write to hide myself from myself. I write when I'm naked. I write to condemn. I write to judge. I write equalize. I write to fuck. I write for whites. I write for blacks. I write for my big black heart. I write to exercise. I write because I have no friends. I write to impress my friends. I write to impress YouTube. I teach writing because I don't know what else to do. I write because what else is there to do? I write to cringe. Fuck off OP

>>8721239
We're talking about art here, not you

Yes, I'm aware it's copypasta.

>>8721231
So art is subjective according to that criteria? Anything and nothing is art if anything gives you that state of mind or nothing does?

>>8720822
Lel why is it bullshit? What other reason do you have to create art other than the fact that its creation justfies itself? Beauty justifies itself; i do not need to explain architecture to you for you to find it beautiful, it simply is. The same goes for art and poetry, whats beautiful about fails to be put into words. The best prose escapes explanation for why it has lasted 100s of years of tradition other than the fact that it contains something which perpetuates itself.
>>8720960
nicely said

>>8721324

Well clearly it is not absolutely subjective, as it must actually give you the state of mind. And I guess I should restrict it slightly: it must be an act of man that produces such a state of mind. But yes, beyond that it may be any activity, and needn't be restricted to a canvas, page, or concert stage. And poetry, in its broadest sense (for one also has poetry as a mode of language and, still more narrowly, as poetic language that is broken up into lines) is that which causes such a state of mind absolutely, be it a creation of Man, Nature, or God (though I take the third possibility to be redundant, as poetry is the only thing I might be willing to deem as God).

>>8720835

So his thought was that, art should have some purpose behind its creation, besides creation for creations sake?

supposedly there is an entire section of philosophy dedicated to aesthetics. So Nietche would not have liked decorations of any kind, like wall paper or shower curtain with a design on it, or to hang a realistic painting of a landscape..

what are some examples of art for arts sake? I am having trouble thinking of the meaning of such.

>>8721350
So I can get that feeling observing the result of a baby poop on a canvas, but not that feeling listening to Beethoven 5th symphony

So to me the former is great art, and the latter not art at all

>>8721330
Why do pseuds always point to this book? The book is cringe as fuck

Wilde's moral didactism is appalling and this book is the complete opposite of art for arts sake, in fact it opposes against it

>>8720992
>art's aim is art
>What is art?
>potentially anything and everything

Pack it in boys

>>8721368

It doesn't quite work that way, as of course one must train up one's sensibility. If one does so, one will find that certain works of art will prove to have even more difficult, even fuller sorts of emotive structures, and that those are truly the greater. But if you can approach the Aristotelian God by contemplating feces smeared on a canvas, then we must consider that art, most certainly.

>>8720822
Anyone who tries to create art "for art's sake" 99% of the time ends up making something shitty, so I don't agree with it.

Art for its own sake is better than fashionable-politics art. Or art to offend. Or art to glorify oneself.

>>8720822
Nothing is 'for' anything, all is BECAUSE of something.

>>8721360

Well presumably art for aesthetic's sake is a reason.

If you're creating a painting because you want a pretty thing to hang on your wall, that's art for decoration's sake.