Sky
29th December 2007, 01:27
Art for arts sake is a term designating a number of aesthetic concepts that affirm artistic creation to be an end in and of itself, independent of politics and social requirements.
Formalist trends were apparent in 19th century academicism, but formalism was manifested most consitently in such trends of 20th century bourgeois art as cubism, cubo-futurism, dadism, abstract art, pop art, anti-theater, and the teather of the absurd. Formalism has thus proven to be one of the manifestations of the crisis in the bourgeois consciousness.
Plekhanov has shown that the inclination toward art for arts sake originates among artists and individuals who are keenly interested in artistic creation, but who are hopelessly at odds with the social milieu. Conceptions of art for arts sake, under differing circumstances, vary in their social and ideological roots and in their objective implications. Chernyshevsky wrote that art for arts sake, although obsolete in his day, had made sense at a time when it had to be shown that a poet ought not write magnificent odes, ought not distort reality to gratify various sententious pronouncements, arbitrary and insincere as they are.
In Russia during the middle of the 19th century the slogan art for arts sake was pitted polemically against the natural school, or Gogolian trend. In other words, it was against realism in art. Art for arts sake was criticized by the Russian revolutionary democrats, who advanced the principle of arts civic service, and later by Plekhanov and Marxist literary critics. Marxism, identifying the social roots of different variants of art for arts sake, exposes the concrete historical implications of the opposition of these variants to both social action and class struggle.
The very nature of socialist realism and similar trends in foreign art dictates that they are organically incompatible with any manifestations of pure art, because pure art takes no interest in the effort to achieve social progress and communism. Marxist-Leninist aesthetics is categorically and implacably opposed to antisocial tendencies in art, be they the products of so-called mass art or of formalism and art for arts sake. Marxist-Leninist aesthetics has shown that the formalist neglect of content undermines the social usefulness of art and arts ability to participate in the social struggle and in education. Formalism has a destructive effect on the aesthetic values of art itself.
Formalist trends were apparent in 19th century academicism, but formalism was manifested most consitently in such trends of 20th century bourgeois art as cubism, cubo-futurism, dadism, abstract art, pop art, anti-theater, and the teather of the absurd. Formalism has thus proven to be one of the manifestations of the crisis in the bourgeois consciousness.
Plekhanov has shown that the inclination toward art for arts sake originates among artists and individuals who are keenly interested in artistic creation, but who are hopelessly at odds with the social milieu. Conceptions of art for arts sake, under differing circumstances, vary in their social and ideological roots and in their objective implications. Chernyshevsky wrote that art for arts sake, although obsolete in his day, had made sense at a time when it had to be shown that a poet ought not write magnificent odes, ought not distort reality to gratify various sententious pronouncements, arbitrary and insincere as they are.
In Russia during the middle of the 19th century the slogan art for arts sake was pitted polemically against the natural school, or Gogolian trend. In other words, it was against realism in art. Art for arts sake was criticized by the Russian revolutionary democrats, who advanced the principle of arts civic service, and later by Plekhanov and Marxist literary critics. Marxism, identifying the social roots of different variants of art for arts sake, exposes the concrete historical implications of the opposition of these variants to both social action and class struggle.
The very nature of socialist realism and similar trends in foreign art dictates that they are organically incompatible with any manifestations of pure art, because pure art takes no interest in the effort to achieve social progress and communism. Marxist-Leninist aesthetics is categorically and implacably opposed to antisocial tendencies in art, be they the products of so-called mass art or of formalism and art for arts sake. Marxist-Leninist aesthetics has shown that the formalist neglect of content undermines the social usefulness of art and arts ability to participate in the social struggle and in education. Formalism has a destructive effect on the aesthetic values of art itself.