Is it possible for there to be art for arts sake, or is that a hoax?

1. 55

   ibbarkingmadposted 13 years ago

   Is it possible for there to be art for arts sake, or is that a hoax?
   
   Picasso said "The idea of art for art's sake is a hoax." He basically said that art is done for others to see. Do you agree or disagree and why?

   replyreport
2. 72

   terrektwoposted 13 years ago

   Well I think it can be both, when I write or paint, sculpt, or make music I can get so into what I'm doing and really forget time and my surroundings. I would have to say it's due to personal gratification with what I'm doing it is fulfilling me in a major way. That would be considered art for arts sake, but I would say also that the pride of having someone else admire your work is also gratifying as well.

   replyreport
3. 61

   FloraBreenRobisonposted 13 years ago

   Art can be done for arts sake. There are plenty of people who paint, write poetry, etc. for themselves who have no intention of trying to sell it. The fact that some of these people do not live alone and thus family members can see the artwork doesn't change the fact that the artists doesn't plan on the public seeing it/reading it. However, the meaning behind the term Art for Art's Sake isn't  that you do  or don't want people to see your paintings etc.  It means that you create art with no deeper meaning than to create. In other words, you are not trying to teach people anything, change their  viewpoints on issues, comment on social issues etc. You create  because you feel the need to create. What other people get out of your art, if anything, is up to them, not you. Other artists do indeed create art with a specific purpose in mind.

   replyreport
4. 68

   leroy64posted 13 years ago

   I am not familiar with the quote and what prompted it.  I have run into artists that create because they love to create.  Even that artist interacts with his art by viewing, listening or whatever depending on the medium.  I would venture that it is possible if you can avoid pressure from the people buying your art.  I really don't like to disagree with Picasso.  He was much better at art, than I will ever be.

   replyreport
5. 70

   danielleantoszposted 13 years ago

   That depends upon what you consider "art for art's sake", but overall I would agree.  To me art for art's sake would lack passion and form (IE any recognizable features).  I like art that has a personal meaning to the artist.

   replyreport
6. 62

   whoisbidposted 13 years ago

   If you believe that art is a form of communication (just like writing) then Picasso is probably a wise man and correct.

   replyreport