Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Source: The Art World, Vol. 2, No. 2 (May, 1917), pp. 98-102
Published by:
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25587887 .
Accessed: 28/01/2015 23:20
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
http://www.jstor.org
IELDIT
RIALS
ART
FOR
ITS FALLACY
W
ART'S
AND
SAKE
VICIOUSNESS
98
May
1917
THE
ART WORLD
on anything
not the right to express his opinion
Here we have the abyss of the empti
whatsoever."
ness of the art-for-art's-sake
theory plainly stated.
of this
is the result of the promulgation
What
of mere beauty
A pursuit
false aesthetic theory?
of form in all the arts by those who are unintelli
theory
gent enough to swallow this high-sounding
and who develop a supreme con
without
thinking
or social
above all moral
tempt for the quality,
should go
or thought which
value, of the contents
into a great work of art.
The mere beauty of form in a work of art, as
has only
If a woman
is a poison.
in a woman,
or lofty purpose,
character
beauty and no moral
The same is
she is nothing more than a parasite.
it
how beautiful
true of a work of art, no matter
in spirit,
it is at least also beautiful
is; unless
it is only an aesthetic
chaste and clean in character,
poison.
the slogan "art for art's sake" is modern
While
of Greece
is as old as the decadence
the thing
to the
As
to this listen
and the Renaissance.
"It is thus that history
French critic Brunetiere:
art is left to itself and seeks
when
proves-that
rapidly into a
its law only in itself, it degenerates
Then
to arouse our sensuality.
mass of artifices
we dernand no more of art, it cares for no more
than to please, and at any price and by all means;
it is
or a guide
from a mentor
and, literally,
is the
That
into a species of procuress.
changed
I think of our
fits it when
only name which
of Duclos
the romances
Century with
Eighteenth
and Crebillon, Jr., and of Laclos; with the sculpture
and Fra
of Boucher
of Clodion and the painting
of so many of
gonard and the libertine engravings
furore
with
that neurotic
of the "little masters";
not only the poems of Parny but
which dishonors
finally
Let
us
those
of Andre
Chenier.
even
so highly,
they praise
that which
it-all
recognize
all this art in all its forms has scarcely been any
than a perpetual
thing less during half a century
to debauchery.
excitation
operates
form
of empty
"But
the seduction
insidious
subtle and more
in a more
sometimes
or
by the artists
to comprehend
difficult
fashion
effects are all the
the public, and the disastrous
of art
the principle
in corrupting
greater because
it; for when
of respecting
We have the appearance
impor
form an exaggerated
to mere
we attribute
there follows what
importance,
tance, or a unique
of
of the decadence
in speaking
an Italian critic,
to the contents.'
Italian art, called 'the indifference
there with
it arrives
When art arrives
there-and
its end in itself or in the
seeks
fatal ease-it
I repeat again,
of 'pure beauty,'-then,
realization
are lost but the society
not only art and morality
an idol.
also which has made of mere artistry
this feeling of the 'beautiful,'
"Penetrated
with
The
in crime.
Italy went so far as to find beauty
con
done, boldly
a crime well
respected
Italian
as
avowed
audaciously
executed,
ceived, cleverly
they
to those that
merits
analogous
possessing
It was
in works of art. How was that?
applauded
the
in disassociating
the inseparable,
by separating
the entire merit
form from its contents,
in carrying
99
it repenteth
and
earth,
the Lord
it grieved
that he had
him at his
heart."
the Lord
I will
7:
"And
Verse
said,
destroy
from
the face, of the
I have
whom
man,
created,
and beast,
and the creeping
both man,
thing,
earth;
me
that
for it repenteth
and the fowls of the air;
them."
I have made
and
smote the nations
And the Cosmic Volition
set them by the ears in a war, of which history
The beggarly,
brag
does not show an example.
will
"art-for-art-sakist"
Bohemian
pooh
gardly,
pooh this. But the wise know.
American
laymen, leaders
Will the common-sense
of thought and of action, take this lesson to heart
and heed it?
100
then
thought,
then religious,
decorative
symbolic
thought,
but always
ethical,
then social thought,
of shaping the life of
ideas and sentiments--capable
This was
never
denied until
those acted upon.
cen
moral abyss of the nineteenth
about 1860-the
lack of faith in even a cosmic
tury-when
through
volition man had fallen to the lowest depths through
even
that would
dishonor
a deadening
pessimism
find the roots of
Mephisto,
and in which we will
this European war.
idea and senti
Therefore
to separate
thought,
from form, and say with
that self-advertiser
ment
that "ideas are the pest of great
George Moore
in
poetry,"
and to insist that form and artistry
divorced
only when
art are supremely
respectable
of
from ideas, is to insult all the men of genius
the past whose art was made great and sublime, not
by form alone, not by ideas alone, but by the close
union of both.
form
ideas from
in
This
attempt
to divorce
to divorce
art is on a parallel with
the attempts
in a painting-to
say that
color from drawing
can
be
to drawing-which
is superior
color
and their
traced back to Delacroix
and Baudelaire
at the height
of the romantic move
supporters
for
in France, men who were
over-hungry
ment
the
started
in art.
These men
something
NEW
divorce
ideas from
two streams
of tendency-to
of
color at the expense
form and to apotheosize
in
have
tendencies
which
finally ended
drawing,
and
ideas and the insane drawing
the immoral
color of the ultra "modernistic"
incomprehensible
art party, whose art is no longer sane but a nega
tion of all that great art of the past, to conserve
which we build costly palaces.
to say that color is more
It is childish
important
or drawing more
impor
in a picture
than drawing
and world-famous
In the great
tant than color.
the
live-we
which
will
figures
paintings-in
drawing
always find a close union of both wonderful
And a work
of art falls
color.
and magnificent
in the ratio of
in the scale of technical greatness
or color or both.
its falling short either in drawing
is contrary
to
To take any other point of view
May 1917
we
talk of art we
do not mean
When
only
or a lady's fan or a
decorative
art, like wall-paper
mean
art involving
Chinese
expressive
carpet-we
art that ideas
To say in expressive
living figures.
is stupid; to say that form alone
alone are important
is idiotic.
It is only when both are
is important
that we have truly
fine and harmoniously
wedded
that to deny it seems
fine art.
This
is so obvious
like insanity.
We repeat: art for art's sake, as a thing, is not
The Greeks
had it in the period
new.
of their
social degeneracy
when Pauson was busy painting
kitchen
herbs, barber
shops, pigs, etc., for which
The
he was called Rhyparographer-"Dirt-Painter."
the death of Raphael
after
Italians
had it when
the
art began to decline and Julio Romano painted
in the Palace at Mantua.
absurd giants
And France
in the lowest degeneracy
of France,
had it when
the Nineteenth
his
Century, Gautier wrote
during
verses.
silly little thoughtless
their mastery
over form and technique-their
"ar
tistry" which
no one ever denied
them-but
they
say that any other kind of art is "literary
punk."
But
the "literary"
quality
of any work
of art
depends not upon the subject, but the way
it is
handled.
For while
"The Last Judgment"
of the
primitive
Orcagna
at Pisa
is "literary"
the "Last
Judgment"
by Michelangelo
in the Sistine Chapel is
"plastic."
art for art's sake is vicious because
SECOND,
its
followers claim that no matter
how immoral a sub
ject may be they have a right to handle it-provided
they act merely
as reporters, merely
describing
the
subject without
expressing
any opinion of approval
or disapproval
of the action portrayed
in the sub
ject and interpreted
by themselves.
to this theory it was perfectly
According
proper
for Baudelaire
to write his "Charogne"
and other
loathsome poems and for Huysman
to "descend into
the gutter,
there to analyse
the various
stratifica
tions of filth" as Huneker
says; "for Rops to etch
things
that the French
Government
will not let
the public see in its great library without
a special
permit"
and for Manet
to paint
his
lecherous
"Olympia," his "Dandy Watching
Nana Dressing"
and his "Lunch on the Grass."
In a recent conversation
in a newspaper,
here
in New York, over Manet's
"Lunch on the Grass,"
one critic
in defending
Manet
contributed
this:
"Manet's
as a great painter
reputation
and land
mark
in history
calls for no defense of him."
(He
was not attacked
as a "Painter,"
even though his
reputation
as a mere
painter
is now declining.)
But the critic continues:
"With his morals
likewise
we should have little to do.* * * If a few of Manet's
pictures
offended
the ephemeral
morality
of the
middle
classes
of this date,
let us not forget
to
give honor where honor is not only due, but cannot
be withheld."
Here we find the art for art's sake theory in full
bloom.
Never mind
about the social poison
in a
so long as its form-its
work
ping
artistry-its
ponging of paint-its
of brush-work
shuttle-cocking
is as clever as clever billiard playing!
Another
critic said:
"As the aesthetic value of a
work depends solely upon form, using the word
in
its broadest
sense, to cover outline,
arrangement,
color, etc., and this form is the basis of emotional
in the work of art, what
pleasure
reason
earthly
is there for bringing
in the story of the picture
and the reasons which
lead to its painting,
in a
criticism
If it gives
thereof?
emotional
pleasure
without
any relation
to the subject,
it is a waste
of breath
to consider
its licentiousness
or the de
cadent attitude
of the painter.
It is probably
true
that the erotic
stimulus
is the most
for
potent
in certain men.
good work
Should
their work be
on that account?"
condemned
Here we have frankly
stated
the crass physical
Hedonism
that rendered Alexandria
the moral cess
pool of history!
Another
one rushed
in where
morally
oblique
"A picture
angels fear to tread, saying:
could be
no more
immoral than a piece of wall-paper,
being
as wall-paper
a decoration.
is merely
A painting
common-sense.
May 1917
massing.* **
attitude
towards art which
has already made
of
America
the laughing-stock
of the art world."
This
is the common reply of the morally
obtuse
in the
world of art, but it is untrue.
America
is not the "laughing-stock
of the art
world" neither
in America
nor Europe.
It is the
"laughing-stock"
only of the corrupt and degraded
portion of the world of art, of those who are doing
so much
to ruin that beautiful
world.
"American
prudery
in art" always had the active support of
all the decent
people
in the world
of art, and
Americans
can afford to smile at all those degen
erates who laugh at them for not following
them
in their indifference
to the moral
and aesthetically
ugly, and can regard their railing as grotesque
as
of the degraded
fox in La Fon
is the contempt
taine's delicious
fable who, because he had lost his
tail, railed at his fellow foxes for keeping
theirs,
he had been pitied
by whom
for his ridiculous
degradation.
We are on record as publicly
a love
preaching
for the nude in art, saying
that the human body
of the creator;
is the masterpiece
but we refuse
to sanction that any artist has a moral or aesthetic
in the world of art by
right to defile the Temple
a licentious
work.
have
creating
We
only
the
highest praise for such nudes as are idealized and
devoid
of erotic
and we
could
suggestiveness,
give examples of such which would offend nobody.
What
is exasperating
is that these protagonists
of immoral art have the Machiavellian
insolence
of the tailless
a virile
fox aforesaid
to ridicule
common-sense
artist who
refuses
to follow
them
into the gutter.
As to the whole art for art's sake theory Swin
burne said:
"We refuse
to admit that art of the
highest
kind may
not ally itself with moral
or
religious passion, with
the aesthetics or politics
of
a nation or an age"; and George Sand said: "Talent
Art for art's sake is a vain word.
imposes duties.
Art for the truth, art for the good, art for the
is the religion
beautiful-that
that I seek."
But the worst
condemnation
of it is by Victor
Hugo, who coined the phrase:
"Art for Art."
In
his wonderful
book on Shakespeare
he tells this
story:
"We have
just now recalled a saying
become
famous:
'Art for art.'
Let us, once for all, explain
ourselves on this question.
"If faith can be placed
in an affirmation
very
general
and very
often
repeated
(we believe
these words:
'Art for art,' would have
honestly)
been written
by the author of this book himself.
Written?
Never!
You may
read from the first to
the last line all that we have published;
you will
not find these words.
It is the opposite which
is
written
throughout
our works,
and, we insist on it,
in our entire
life.
"As for these words
in themselves,
how far are
they real? Here
is the fact, which
several of our
contemporaries
remember as well as we do:
"One day, thirty-five
years ago, in a discussion
critics
between
and poets on Voltaire's
tragedies,
the author of this book threw out this suggestion:
101
Whistler.
As a result the devotees of this cult have failed
to produce one great work of art like such truly
as really are Titian's
sake works
art for art's
and Profane
"Sacred
"Spin
Love," Velasquez's
And instead of paint
ners" and Ingres's "Source."
as Whistler
did
ing at least refined things-such
even though they are empty of lofty contents-they
of "pure
even
the pursuit
sacrificed
gradually
beauty," and art for art's sake became increasingly
in art is the
coarse, ugly, stupid and vulgar, which
the Holy Ghost.
sin against
in the overtolerant
No reasonable man
to-day,
his trivial
to Van Mieris
world,
painting
objects
nor to Teniers
his "Tap
"Fish Sellers,"
painting
a charming piece
Rooms," nor to Morland producing
a sty with a pink-skinned
of color by painting
pig
as they are to parade their
in it-painted
principally
technical skill-so
long as their works are morally
clean.
On the contrary we rather welcome
them,
"Dirt
did call Pauson
even though
the Greeks
the same things, but
for doing exactly
Painter"
ideal of his time
to the highest Greek
contrary
and
the representation
only of Gods and Heroes
their history.
the decent
citizens* of the cultured
But what
insolence of those
world do object to is the cynical
as
of Art
for Art's
Sake who
ridicule
partisans
them
such artists
as, unlike
duffers"
"literary
than
to do more
selves, are both able and willing
and "Dirt
"Dirt Sculptors"
the "Dirt-Painters,"
'This tragedy is not a tragedy. It is not men who Writers," and who aim to produce truly great and
live, it is sentences which speak in it! Rather a enduring works which no combine of charlatan art
hundred times 'Art forArt!' " This remark turned dealers, critics and artists can juggle with-in
the
(doubtless involuntarily) from its true sense to commercial auction rooms of Europe-by a cam
102
paign
of cunning
and insincere
boosting
in the
press,
backed up by the capital
of more
or less
dishonest
speculators
in the world of art.
The truth
is the world
is too full of neurosis
and inconsequence
too much
admiration
of mere
flip and cleverness
and as a final consequence
too
much ego-mania.
And we agree with Ruskin:
May 1917
INDEPENDENCE
IN ART AND THE
""SALON DES
INDEPENDANTS"
IN PARIS AND NEW
YORK
lW T HEN Mme. Roland at the foot of the guillo
tine cried
"Oh, Liberty,
what
crimes
are
committed
in thy name!"
she uttered a pro
found
truth applicable
both
to the political
and
artistic worlds.
at the birth of Modern
When,
art, through
the
rebellion in 1804 of Baron Gros, Gericault
and others
against
the "tyranny"
of David
and the classic
school, certain
artists
launched the cry-"Liberty
in Art!" which
became
the slogan of the romantic
IE~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
TI-TE "MASTERPIECE"
OF TI-IE Ass
"BORONALl"
APPLAUDED
(See
page
PERSUASION
105)
their works
had been
raised such a row because
more
thrown out as unfit for even exhibition-and
they so yearned
unfit for ribbons and medals which
III, then feeling his throne shaky,
for. Napoleon
ordered
the Fine Arts
these
rioters,
to placate
to give them at least a place in which
Department
and in the same
their works,
they could exhibit
This has
housed the official Salon.
building which
been known since as the "Salon of the Refused."
Salons
the last one of these independent
It was
artists
until a certain number of other disgruntled
seceded
and
the official
Salon,
rebelled
against
the system of
organized
a new one, and abolished