04/12/2006: "Art for Art's Sake" by Hyacinthe Baron

I tore an article out of my favorite magazine Vanity Fair because it featured a so called artist, whose name I cannot remember because I use a memory system of identifying one thing with another and I cannot put this so called artist into the same category as art.

You probably know who I mean. I think his latest art project is a giant rabbit.

Of course his main subject is himself and how he has managed to prove with a loud and irreverent voice that anyone can call themselves an artist and convince anyone that what they make is art. (There is that word again.)

Oh yes, I believe the fellow's me is Koons. Or it could as well be Basquiat or Kosabi or Keene. Or it could be any number of individuals classified as artists whose names I cannot remember either. There was the creator of the Kewpi doll, the first guy who drew Kilroy Was Here and others I can't remember. There have been attempts to immortalize the art made by graffiti perpetrators.

There are individuals who have made such outlandish creations they defy classification and yet they are referred to as art. There is a fellow who goes around the city creating little tiny clay cities in small cracked spaces in brick buildings. There is a guy who bought all the New York City real estate defined as that infinitesimal space between two plot parcels. There is a guy who fills bathtubs with black ink. (I actually saw this in a museum.)

I once met a very handsome Frenchman who identified himself as an artist of the television world. With his charming accent he convinced me he was indeed a creator of consequence until he showed me photos of his work: A bunch of TV sets piled on top of each other to create a tower.

There is a guy who goes around California piling stones atop each other achieving impossible balances. Great significance can be read into these impossible formations. (Just try it sometime.) They represent all the building ever done by man, the balance and design of the Pyramids of skyscrapers and so on.

There are several major factors that combine to make "art'". None of them involve money. All of them demand some success.

If you decided that ice skating was your passion, but no matter how you tried you discovered you had no ability, and kept falling down, would you continue to pour time effort and money into the pursuit of something you knew you would never succeed at? Or would you declare your skate and flop a new technique and declare it would take over the skating world as the next big development?

Or would you give it up? It wouldn't mean you would deprive yourself of something you enjoy, but you would treat yourself to the opportunity to pursue some other avenue of creative expression.

Take drawing and painting for instance: You would need the following:

The desire to render images drawn from your imagination onto a 2 dimensional surface in order to deceive a viewer that you have created a painting that appears to be 3d.
The will power to try, try and try again until the right technique is yours so you can successfully complete your projects for no reason other than pure self satisfaction.
The willingness to go on in spite of the realization you may never be given the admiration you believe you deserve for your efforts.

In other words the ability and desire to develop a "backbone".

What if you discovered you really couldn't get the hang of using drawing and painting techniques to express yourself? Would you declare you have discovered a new way to draw or paint?

The critics declared Wilhelm DeKooning had done just that when he defaced one of his woman paintings in a drunken rage one night. They even tried, years later when he was suffering from Alzheimers that his output was the work of a genius. It was a good try, but there were no takers.

They tried the same thing when Matisse had reached his cup and suffered from his druthers: the results are hanging in museums all over the world: You have seen them, the dancing cutout figures. I have even read critiques of these works praising the return to childish feelings, the naiveté, the simplicity. Spare me. I agree it must be hard to do cut outs when your hands shake, and you can't see very well.

There was a yogi, Sri Chimoy, who put himself into a trance and produced paintings non-stop for something like forty days, I don't exactly remember. There was a man, and there are those, like the Mormon brothers who swear they saw Joseph bury the silver tablets from the angel, who swear they have seen this artist channel and paint like Matisse and Picasso and so many more.

And shall we really speak of Picasso? In the olden days there were snake oil merchants and some of them got very, very rich indeed and their products are still being sold today.

What about the man who invented Tiger Balm? He is one of the world's richest men and greatest art collectors.

Now that the blog has introduced artists to each other and created an arena in which to discuss what the critics have to say and who it is that is controlling the public view of art, and to vent their distress about the lions they must confront, I am appalled at the amount of complaining and dissatisfaction expressed by so many artists.

I don't recall artist's of my generation complaining, or lamenting our fate. I do recall loving every minute that I could pursue my passion instead of doing something else or being at the beck and call of others.

Being an artist means having the freedom to experiment with different mediums. The penchant of art school students to take this advice literally has led to the production of and the exhibiting of some of the most atrocious pieces of…that dare to even be classified as "art". Sometimes it seems all an artist has to do is choose cryptic titles comprised of lots of long words to leave the viewer mystified while the critics use even more incomprehensible words to describe the significance of what the artist has rendered. Yet looking at the work and really trying to find something to appreciate is difficult in the extreme.

It is like the Emperor's new clothes isn't it? A famous Art Critic raves about a style, an expensive gallery shows the work, a wealthy collector buys it and we are meant to accept that what has just transpired is the vending and marketing of art because horse manure now has another name.

I am looking at a photo of Robert Rauschenberg whose right hand has become a curled distorted claw.

I just read an article about Hockney whose glorifications of adorable young men swimming bare ass naked in sunny California pools set the hearts of Englishmen pounding and made being an appreciator of young men's bottoms acceptable by being classified as art.

I am railing because I see weakness here and if it is true that art is a barometer of the times, then I add a shudder.

If a dress doesn't fit, don't wear it.

If you can't keep an edge going on ice skates, take them off.

If you can't understand what art consists of then don't make or buy anything less than what your heart tells you.

If you fail at art in the privacy of your own studio, have the courage to stop and go on to some other media or creative act that might just work for you. And if you have to leave your art to support it, compartmentalize and save the precious hours for the pursuit of your passion.

Art for art's sake. Immanuelle Kant said it very profoundly and simply.

Encyclopedia Brittanica:

A slogan translated from the French l'art pour l'art, which was coined in the early 19th century by the French philosopher Victor Cousin. The phrase expresses the belief held by many writers and artists, especially those associated with Aestheticism, that art needs no justification, that it need serve no political, didactic, or other end.
A slogan meaning that the beauty of the fine arts is reason enough for pursuing them — that art does not have to serve purposes taken from politics, religion, economics, and so on. Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Edgar Allan Poe, and Oscar Wilde argued for the doctrine of art for art's sake.

 Ars Gratia Artis, the motto of the film company Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM), is a Latin version of "art for art's sake."

Wikipedia:

Art for art's sake

"Art for art's sake" is the usual English rendition of a French slogan, ''l'art pour l'art'', which is credited to Théophile Gautier (1811–1872).

Gautier was not the first to write those words — they appear in the works of Benjamin Constant — but he was the first to adopt them as a slogan. "Art for art's sake" was a bohemian creed in the nineteenth century, a slogan raised in defiance of those who — from John Ruskin to the much later Communist advocates of socialist realism — thought that the value of art was to serve some moral or didactic purpose. Art for art's sake affirmed that art was valuable as art, that artistic pursuits were their own justification, and that art did not need moral justification — and indeed, was allowed to be morally subversive.

The slogan is associated in the history of English art and letters with Walter Pater, and his followers in the Aesthetic Movement, which was self-consciously in rebellion against Victorian moralism.

The Latin version of the slogan, "ars gratia artis", is used as a slogan by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, and appears in the oval around the roaring head of Leo the Lion in their motion picture logo.

It is well to remember that "art for art's sake" is a European construct and a product of the industrial revolution. For example, in many cultures, image-making is a religious practice. Before photography, but after the rise of a middle class in Europe, art was not only "decorative," it was the way that people documented what things looked like.

So what did Kant have to do with this?

If philosophy is considered an art, and writing essays and blogging is made to order for philosophers, why aren't more artists blogging and commenting? Is silence an indictment of failed attempts at art? Or a lack of appreciation of the state of art?

Replies: 20 Comments

on Wednesday, April 26th, Matt said

Koons is not my cup of tea either, but it seems he's others.

Hyacinthe writes:

"If you can't understand what art consists of then don't make or buy anything less than what your heart tells you."
Not everyone needs to understand and it's possible there is nothing to understand! Maybe that's the point sometimes. As has been pointed out countless times: art is subjective. Hence, what one sees as art is art to that person. As for the heart, well...

And she continues:

"If you fail at art in the privacy of your own studio, have the courage to stop and go on to some other media or creative act that might just work for you. And if you have to leave your art to support it, compartmentalize and save the precious hours for the pursuit of your passion."

This is rather an absurd statement coming from an artist.

on Tuesday, April 25th, Mark Brockman said

hoodi sc'oot. I agree with you but not compleatly. Much "art fame" is based on money and personalities, (the more eccentric the artist the more creative he/she must be???) as is music and writting and acting. If you want big bucks from art better get a pulicist. But for those of us in the trenches, those of us who truely believe in our art and work hard at it daily, do so for self satisfaction. If we get paid for it on occasion, or more then on occasion, so much the better. but the day that I need outsiders to put worth on my paintings by buying it, then I will quit painting. The creation of art is self serving, if others like what you do that is wonderful, nothing better then to touch some one. But the real reason for creating is and should be for ones self.

on Monday, April 24th, hyacinthebaron said

Hi will get back to all of you soon as the comment to the blogs is available again.

on Monday, April 24th, hoodi sc'oot said

Remember people-what drives the creation of art in our world is $$$$! Don't be surprised when art is popularized more by personalities than the profound creative process. Is this not the bare substance of insanity?

on Friday, April 21st, help@absolutearts.com">Janet said

test

on Thursday, April 20th, patrick said

The day of the old fashioned easel painter will always be today. There are probably more easel painters per capita today-at least in the united states-then at any other time in history. Art supplies are so readily available that everyone with an urge to create will do so at minimal cost, especially in this age of Walmartization. Art will continue to happen randomly though. It is precisely at those moments when we bring all our mental resources to bear that art fails us the most. Art is our westernized Zen. Art is and will always be a physical record of our culture at that moment of its creation. Yes, the digital image may well fade, or be lost in great quantities during a failure of the machine or the blast of a bomb, but as mentioned elsewhere on the blog, its truest impact will be on the person who holds the surviving image in the minds eye. That holder will manifest this impact when the time is right, and we should all sit around dumbly and wait. Sounds a little bit like the stories we hear of sleeper cells waiting to contribute their bit to the next human disaster. Was Hitler the Father of Modern Art or just its greatest champion? He certainly made good use of the cult of personality, and quickly deduced the worthlessness of the object of Art in the age of mechanical reproduction, by abandoning his own feeble attempts at object-making in favor of some things less tangible but with greater abilities to impact civilization. Hate. Contempt. Pride. Prejudice. How can we criticize object makers today even as we ridicule politicians we dislike, even as we create 'art' that is both objective and politic- without becoming hypocrites. I didn't like Koons back when I was in school because his imagery was fluff, banal, empty. But that is apparently what he wanted, and that is what he achieved. Chihuly, the great glass artist, likely rarely has a direct hand in his creations, yet he is celebrated. The reality is that if he where to enter the studio in solitude today, he would find his physical skills a bit rusty, because that is their nature. Should we judge his worth based on an object made in the next five minutes, or on the body of work he has orchestrated over his lifetime. Hitler may have never personally pulled the trigger on a jew or a homosexual or a gypsy or anyone else his machine destroyed, but he is still credited with the holocaust, and Koons stands beside him an accomplished virtuouso of what it is he does. Art has always had a sexual subtext, by the way. Why no criticism of Michelangelo and his masculine women, or the historic objectification of women seen in almost every painting outside of religious art? How is Hockney any worse? It would seem, based on his success, that gay men are an underserved constituency of the arts. Artists serve their patrons, after all, at their patrons pleasure. And in the end, art for art's sake occurs when the artist has everything already, or nothing to lose. Everything else is part of the patronage system, less formal than during the Rennaissance, but still essentially intact. All our objects are in the end just a type of currency, with no universal gold standard.

on Wednesday, April 19th, John Powell said

I have been through your blog Baron and have one
question."DOES ART DEFINES ITSELF?"

on Tuesday, April 18th, Mark Brockman said

Envious, aligning with critics, lack of talent, exuse for failure????? Seems Hyacinthe missed the point. Her blogs are often full of what she rails against, she exhibits what she accuses others of practicing. The meaning of words, as art, is in the eye of the beholder. Judgments should be made ONLY by the creator. No artist, no person is better or more talented then the next, so no other has the right, unless the artist alows it, to judge what is art and what is not art.

on Saturday, April 15th, Hyacinthe said

Thanks to all who have understood the intention of this essay to provoke an interest in dialoging and overcome apathy. Ah but it is exactly the mean spirited and envious who espouse what the critics propagate. They do this as a defense against their own lack of talent as an excuse for their own failures and to align themselves with a group, the critics et al, they believe to be the power group.
Andrew rails against the NEA because there are values he believes in that are being ignored. I am railing against an art establishment that has, in effect, created a disenfranchised group comprised of artists who fulfill the meaning of the term and who bring beauteous interpretation of the world into being.
I personally do not care what anyone says or thinks, I know in my spirit that making and looking at art is a reaction that stems from my gut. Art is a symphony that sets my heart singing, that engenders a feeling of Knowing, that results in a transportation to another level of being, a knowledge a/priori in the words of Joseph Campbell, an appreciation of the wonders of human nature, of emotions and visions and creativity. Art brings all this about through the viewing of images successfully rendered so as to reveal certain truths and lead to feelings of love experienced because of the artist's skills.
Anything else is simply something else.
Anyone who is small minded enough to misinterpret the intention of this essay has certainly missed the ship for in their case it sailed and is obviouly beyond their reach.

on Friday, April 14th, Mark Brockman said

Here we go again! Must be nice to be the only artist in the world Hyacinthe. There is a lot of "art" out there that I dislike, and I even question if it is art or not. But not being the smartest person in the world like Hyacinthe :) I don't trouble myself to make those judgements. I'd rather be painting then judging anyway.
No moaning and complaining in your generation of artists Hyacinthe? Read some Modern Art History, lots of moaning, read art history, lots more moaning. Why, in fact, you are moaning now, leaste it sounds like moaning.
A bathtub full of black ink may not be art one can hang on a wall, it may not be lasting, I call it "an art of an idea," is it crap? Probably but hey, if you can show it and people will look at it, go for it. "Judge not least you be judged."
If "art" is what we like, then I must say, Hyacinthe, I don't think you are an artist. Yes you have sold a lot of paintings for a long, long, long time, but so have many other "non- artists artists." But then I don't want to judge you. You paint what you like, you think you are good at it and some others may agree. Cool! But don't judge others. Besides why not spend more time making your "art" and less complaining about others "art"? Or maybe, just maybe you are upset at there fame? I know you say you are famous, but to tell the truth I never heard of you till I read your blog here. And I read about art, a lot.
Understand Hyacinthe, I am not tring to be mean here, at least no meaner then you :) but just being honest is all.
Take care every one and create.

on Friday, April 14th, Gary Lester said

Bravo Hyacinthe!
It's about time somebody respected in the artist community stated the obvious.
How refreshing to hear common sense proclaimed outright without the shade of patronization inhibiting the the plain and simple truth!
Damn! What a breath of fresh air!
With all do respect to some of the other opinions I could not disagree enough with one or two of them. To say that "likes and dislikes are besides the point" and that
"the need must be taken into account" is the same as declaring every person who ever picked up a brush a painter and anyone who folded plain paper into a paper airplane a designer or engineer. In my opinion it is precisely that attitude that has caused the loss of credibility for art in general and the artist by association.
Here's how Webster's New World Second Edition defines the word ART... 1 human creativity 2 skill 3 any specific skill or it's application 4 any craft or it's principals 5 creative work such as painting or sculpture 8 a branch of learning.
It goes further to describe the version usually used in plural that seems to confuse people as to the real definition of art by including the plural ... LIBERAL ARTS 9 cunning 10 sly trick; wile.
Art used to be something created with skill and application of craft in accordance with principals and with skill.
When that definition is applied it seems to me we as human beings also accord beauty and a decided positive quality to what is art.
Creations lacking the fullfillment of definition should be called something else entirely. You pick the words
which might be mediocrity, sick, contrived, dispossessed impression or depiction, angst, or just plain scribbling on a piece of paper.
For me art is beautiful and well orchestrated! Art is articulation of method and represents it's medium in a distinguished fashion.
Artist is what we should call someone else and how others should describe us very often before we use it to define ourselves.
Good luck!

on Friday, April 14th, heather said

art for art's sake is the FOUNDATION of modern art. a true artist creates for the self and doesn't really care what the "vanity fair" crowd or their readers thinks. i have the highest respect for all artists, no matter what their work says to me. your arrogance is quite unappealing.

on Friday, April 14th, joe fusaro said

Hyacinthe, I used to be quite annoyed with Koons' approach to his craft. A few months ago, I read a piece by Arthur Danto in his most recent book, Unnatural Wonders, and it changed my perception. I urge you to read it. While I wouldn't care to own a piece by Koons (I'd much prefer contemporary artists such as Kiki Smith, Ann Hamilton, and Tara Donovan, for example), I can definitely now appreciate the ideas behind his seemingly simple constructions. And by the way.... they're not so simple.

on Friday, April 14th, Kelly Borsheim said

I first heard of Jeff Koons in the early 1990s regarding a copyright infringement case (which he lost, but also won). I admit that I do not know much about "his" work. What I have gathered is that he does not do it himself. I guess he is an idea man. As a sculptor and occasional painter, all I can say is that "I don't get it." For me, it is not so much what his work looks like (since I have probably only seen fewer than 10 pieces), it is that he appears to have no hand in it. Not a sculptor's sculptor, if you will. I am enchanted by the process I go through to execute an idea. I need my hands on it.

I am not big on what I think of as "Entertainment Art". It has its place and it can be fun. Maybe I am just too introverted to be that much fun. On the other hand, I wonder why artists seem to be simultaneously our own best friends (for we understand each other on one level), as well as our worst enemies. Do we spend too much time beating each other up?

on Thursday, April 13th, Hari said

the essay "Art for Art's Sake" by Hyacinthe Baronin is a provoking essay. indeed the point is very old, now we can beliieve that "Art for Artist's sake", as commercial(Art)Galleeries uses the installation art/Large sacle Art as a tool of sensation, accordingly art buyers will get familiar to the gallery/Artist so they sell other art. there is one important factor that News/media people always after sensational news, they never consider the relevence or genuinity. we have to agree that to get attention one should shout as loud as possible, there is no need to have Raga or Tala(Rythm) Just loud shouting is enough. as the world is becoming so smaller with Internet, everybody is in competetion spree. we read Baronin toar out the essay from her favorite magajine, that shows her anger on such Articles.
and many visual Artists can not show their anger in public essays, they keep supressing their anger and may express in their artworks, as their success is dependent.

on Thursday, April 13th, elaniii@yahoo.com">Andrew said

It's good to get people riled, really the only way to have the truth come to the surface and watch the masks fall. And the art is what's left after the artist dies, making it more important than the artist, Michael, even if the source can certainly produce more if given water and fertilizer instead of being left to stand dry and wither when there's a drought. Here's an emphatic "NO!!!" to what you said, Gabriella...The photographic documentation of Christo and Jean Claude will last forever, especially conserved digitally, and similar work by young unknowns will not, even if they digitalize, because they won't do that part as well or as extensively. Hyacinthe, I'd love to add the dictionary definition of art to all this, be it Webster's or Oxford's, or any other, because that definition has been stretched to accomodate lesser accomplishments. Art is a pair of toooo tight jeans. You have got people talking! Good for you.

on Thursday, April 13th, jose freitas cruz said

I�ll be the devil�s advocate. I think your critique on all the artists you mention, for the reasons you mention, is misplaced Hyacinthe. I am not particularly drawn to any of them either but by engaging in an attack based on likes and dislikes we run the risk of missing the point. Whether we like it or not those names you mention are churning out artistic manifestations or did so in the past. We can argue that they lack the depth we yearn to see in art but that, in turn, only says something about ourselves and our capacity to see the LIGHT those artists saw and wanted to bring forth.

The point of Art in my opinion is the transmission of LIGHT. Not light, merely in the common sense � the one that enhances forms, colours our lives, and helps create �pretty� pictures - but in the sense of the expanding energy of the universe: Light in the sense of inspiration � and inspiration in the sense of desiring to transmit something we have come to see or know and now wish to share with others. That is what we artists do, I believe, even if I don�t personally enjoy some the manifestations.

Likes and dislikes are beside the point. It is the NEED that should be taken into account. Art is needed to reveal the expanding Universe as we advance and the seed of new things becomes available in the minds of Man. What one artist succeeds in revealing and triggering in a certain group may only be accomplished for another group by a different type of impression � a different artist, a different work of art. The important factors are the need � the appetite � and the impression that satisfies the need � satiates the hunger. Thus fed, we advance.

We hunger for different things. What is missing inside each one of us varies. What feeds A may not satisfy B and will leave C completely indifferent and at a loss to understand what all the fuss was about.

Another aspect is that we may not come into contact with certain impressions. It does not necessarily follow, however, that their manifestation was pointless simply because we didn�t get to see it. It is wrong to believe that a work of Art needs to take form for eternity to be appreciated with time � and in time, by all. This follows from a mistaken view that what we do and the traces it leaves will be here in material form forever. How long is forever?

What really matters is the imprint � the food, the Light � we pass on to others, and the spark we trigger within them, however few, because they will carry it further. I never got to see the Reichstag or the Pont Neuf but I feel certain that if I had it would have done something to me, it would have set me thinking and doing. That is what Art does.

I�ll agree with you on one thing though, the machine might not be catering to a healthy diet in the supermarkets (in the opinion of many readers, myself included), but we�ve discussed ways to deal with that in previous blogs: there are still some local markets to be found.

on Wednesday, April 12th, koons said

what an arse

on Wednesday, April 12th, gabriella said

Great post, Hyacynthe! It's good to have someone push the buttons and prod for a response.
It is interesting to contemplate what commemorative or artistic/religious structures may be left over from our present civilization. We do live in a truly disposing society. Take Christo and Jeanne Claude's temporary "Gates" in Central Park in New York, or the floating pink island, or the wrapped Pont Neuf and Reichstag, or the Running Fence. They were massively scaled projects using great quantities of money and materiel, and even human labour, but what is ultimately left of them for posterity is photographic documentation, which we all know will not have a long shelf life. Many young artists make installations, that once pulled down languish in abandoned warehouses or are junked.
Much of what passes for easel painting is purely decorative and doesn't provide for long term engagement, and at best is used as a medium of trade and exchange.
i can agree with Mike Fornadley reasoning for why he is drawn to Expressionist work. If we can't live for and with meaning, what in xp&#@3 are we existing for?

on Wednesday, April 12th, Michael Fornadley said

Right about your statement about the lack of responses from other artists who use this site. Appears to be the same people who comment on this forum. Apathy is a big issue in our society and is reflected in the arts also, have dealt with getting things done by rallying the masses in a union shop. Basically what happens you end up out in the front line with others yelling from the trenches "We're with you brother!"

Hyacinthe's blog fits well with Andrew's both consider the artist being more important than the art. Personality realms in all fields, consider the salaries of top CEO's and these mutiplying corporate boards, what makes them that valued to demand those types of salaries. Alot of this conceptional work is more in how the artist manages resources and people rather than the end product of the art itself, again sort of forming a worship of people who get things done (authority figure/star)

Afraid that just through observation that in america that this kind of authority is getting more arrogant. Not quite comparing it to Nazi germany but some of the same mindset is involved, the official art that is accepted as having merit and thus received the perks. Got to be careful to what "party" you join, it is one of the reasons that I respond so well to the German expressionist movement, is the backlash that Hitler used against the artists that went that direction.

Maybe the day of the old fashion easel painter is long passed, there appears to be a prejudice on a scale level, the larger the project the more the cost means better art. Question is never asked on why it is being made and what does it mean, people see the art in how the artist GETS IT DONE. Maybe the artist is just reflecting the standards of taste out there, the continuing dumbing down of our society.

Good post by the way, call them like you see them, need more discussing like this even if we are off base.

Art Blogs - Artblogs - Art Weblogs - absolutearts.com - wwar.com

04/12/2006: "Art for Art's Sake" by Hyacinthe Baron