De Vera, Jasmin J.

2011-50980 Art and Society: The Aesthetics of Committed Art

Art has been a part of human life since its existence. The man's efforts to interact to another, his intent to communicate and his will to survive have led to the production of art. Gotshalk said in his book Art and the Social Order that the first significance of art in the society is in the prosperity of the immediate value in which art is enriched. Art is proportional to the condition of the society and resources available in that historical segment. The current status of today's art depended on how it was formed and viewed from the past. Primitive art reflects the time not only when art was born but also the traces of the primitive life forms in which the subtle society of today was first developed.
[1]

The cave paintings made by the primitive man was supposed to have a purpose even if it's not his intent although the answer for what it might be is beyond our knowledge. Cave paintings were discovered in Spain in 1880 and France in 1895 and 1897. The interpretation of these drawings suggests the belief of the primitive man on magical powers. It is speculated that primitive man believed that drawing an animal figure would make him acquire power over it and would make a triumphant hunting. Other speculations like those of Professor Levy-Brul suggest that the cave paintings took part of some rituals of primitive man like fertility rites. In fact, neither of these hypotheses is significant, it does not matter why the primitive painted these. What important is the mental capability or the thought that ran from the primitive's mind while painting. The images were seen to have the attempt of realism. The process can be
1

De Vera, Jasmin J. 2011-50980 considered to be trial and error. This must suggest that the primitive is not drawing for the sake of enjoyment alone but to achieve something or to be more effective than the other. This may also suggest the existence of a learning place where the techniques of drawings were taught. But the point that Herbert Read made in his book Art and the Society is that the paintings reveals values such as vitality, vividness and emotive power which according to him are aesthetic qualities.

Despite of the firm connection between art and the society, artists from the late nineteenth century tried to seek for what they called "pure art" which deviates art from social issues and from the society itself. The "art for art's sake" was theorized. It conflicts the art that recognizes its social root. First, the "art for art's sake" theory cut the historical and social contributions of art. As previously said art is an important component in tracing history for it is always made for a purpose but "art for art's sake" eliminates any purpose but for art thus, cutting any connection with the past and then, the society. However, in spite of this claim, art, as Arnold Hauser said, is sensitive to social and environmental changes. The evolving styles of art themselves can be situated to history. Secondly, art can never be context-free. Art like all human activities serves a function in human life. It always conveys meaning that can be deciphered and as a result, knowledge is being disseminated.

Artists promoting the art for art sake theory believe that art must be liberated from anything except from aesthetic values, aesthetic in terms of pleasing to the eyes. Theophile Gautier of the Parnassian school is the first to adopt the phrase "art for art's sake". He said that
2

De Vera, Jasmin J. 2011-50980 in order for art to be beautiful it must not serve any other purpose except aesthetic. When an art was given any other interpretation other than the intent of the artist especially compulsory, a damaged art may come as a consequence. Art can be compared to a dish. When a particular dish is subjected to experimentation, given unconventional spices and changes in the process, there is a huge probability that the flavours will conflict each other and the attempt of enhancement will turn to complete modification. French Symbolists, viewed art almost similar to Theophile although they focused on the aesthetic value of the art and the disuniting of art from morals. Baudelaire is known for his art which shows the denial of the nature's supremacy, the goodness of man, the awareness of the complexity of human's individual morals, the sensual and aesthetic pleasures that are free from impurities and the use of urban as his subject matter. Controversial works of his were subjected to critical discussions because of their featured contents such as the role of women, alleged advocacy of "Satanism", his experience of drug-induced states of mind, the figure of the dandy, his stance regarding democracy and its implications for the individual, his response to the spiritual uncertainties of the time, his criticisms of the bourgeois, and his advocacy of modern music and painting. These show Baudelaire's art as an outcast from the society. His art extended beyond what the society can morally accept. [2] Influence of Baudelaire is evident on the works of Mallarme. He is a poet who combines the elements of poetry and other arts. He also engaged in the exploration of forms and content of his poems. According to some poets and translators, his works were among the hardest to translate in English. It is not only because of the complexity of the piece but also because of the arrangement of words. The words were arranged in such a way that the phonetic is valued over the meaning. His approach seems to be intentionally forgetting the
3

De Vera, Jasmin J. 2011-50980 meaning of his work and concern himself with the meters and rhyme. The dilemma comes from the preservation of the piece's meaning without disorienting its the sound aspect .
[3]

The

Goncourt brothers were realist artists that are known for their literary works especially the essays. They insisted that the only purpose of paintings is aesthetic and one should not aspire beyond such as to convey knowledge. The English counterpart of French Symbolists, the Aesthetes or Decadents made "art for art's sake" their statement. [4]

Another concept of pure art is proposed by Edmund Husserl which is called the "phenomenological reduction". It suggests the elimination of historical, cultural and social factors in search for "eternal truth". This method is questioned by Bauman. As previously stated, art is a part of human life which participates in its development ever since and the same goes with art as it is developed simultaneously with human life. If one wishes to eliminate any impurities and extract the fruit juice of art, if possible, one need to deviate it from history and society. But also note that these things explain art. Trying a fruit juice without knowing the fruit itself will give a dead end experience and whatever the conclusion or evaluation on the juice might be is pointless since no further action can be implied. This concept is problematic in a way that art is a subordinating clause which cannot stand alone.

The "art for art's sake movement" was greatly established in the nineteenth century as a protest against "art for money's sake". Industrial revolution reached its major turning point in the nineteenth century. It is the time when everything, moral or physical was given a

marketable value. When the bourgeois system had taken over the Middle Ages, the difference
4

De Vera, Jasmin J. 2011-50980 of the elites from the population of inadequate was more apparent than ever. The battle for survival was intense that almost everything was commercialized and art was no exception. Although before, according to Karl Marx, only the excess of production over consumption was sold until the period for commercialization came and distorts the order in exchanging marketable products. Art had evolved to something which the bourgeois would be interested in. Art was made only for prospective buyers and in consequence, art had lost its sentimental value and connection with the artist. Everyone valued the five-franc piece above anything else. In response to this, artists engaged in aestheticism. "Art for art's sake" then became a

revolutionary tool. The artists create art to oppose what the market demands. Ironically, the artists are unconscious that by using aestheticism in this way, they, themselves void the defined meaning of "art for art's sake". In fact, using "art for art's sake" as a movement to oppose the bourgeois system apparently gives art its purpose. Another point is made by Plekhanov. He said that as the artist use art as a rebellion for liberation, the more he becomes aware of the social status and the more he becomes familiar with the content of his art. However, since the artists are insisting of the independence of art from other aspects such as social and historical, the ideas of contained in their works are limited, it became narrow and bigoted. This ends the potential growth of the French realism in that time.

Plekhanov emphasized the social alienation of an artist as a motivation to shift to the theory of "art for art's sake". In his book Art and Social Life, he mentioned Pushkin as an example of an artist who later adopted the theory of "art for art's sake". Pushkin is a poet in the time of Nicholas I. Before the rule of Nicholas I, the reign of Alexander I, he was living
5

De Vera, Jasmin J. 2011-50980 ideally and did not concern himself with the way the government ran. Unfortunately, Nicholas I took over the land and from this period, Pushkin felt social alienation. Nicholas I removed the aristocratic independence and pulled the high society in the level of the common people. Because of this, Pushkin became rebellious and engaged himself in aestheticism. Pushkin was burdened by obligations and dictatorial authorities who he despised so instead of giving in to what they want, he emerged himself to an art full of complaints about the boredom and vulgarity of the system. It was seen that to close oneself from the society and firmly hold the one's unique belief can serve as a key toward his patronage in the theory of art for art's sake. Also, by believing that the society will not understand anything about one's art makes an artist purely cares for the beauty of his art. However, isolation is not a good term for a man or for an experience. In a period where change is constant and in rapid phase, it is wrong to close one's mind from these modifications. Individualism drives the artist away from reality which in the end producing an art not of aesthetic value but of empty and futile.

In the late nineteenth century, the "art for art's sake" lost its enthusiasm primarily because of William Morris' Arts and Crafts movement, Ruskin and Tolstoy. All of them seek art as a part or with the touch of the common people, of the common life. The concept of art as being cultivated not merely by the artist but by the society in which it is developed is earlier stated. An artist letting himself to perceive the real world, the society where he belongs, and the nature of this society can give him inspiration to be able to compose an art full of forms and meanings. This is maybe a reason why the bourgeois favoured the revitalization of the "art for art's sake. The art which aims to portray social life is more threatening than an art having no
6

De Vera, Jasmin J. 2011-50980 direct reference to the system or the other way around and can be best described with what Ecclesiastes said, "Surely oppression maketh a wise man mad." The fear of oppression and the threat to lose their power to oppress triggered the bourgeois to support "art for art's sake" for it is a way to imprison an artist on his own world and be barbaric about its society. Consequently, aesthetic art becomes out of line when it comes to being a potent instrument for revolutionary change.

Art has also been a boundary used by the dominant class to separate themselves from other classes below them. Their choice to accept aesthetic art rather than social art is to protect their social status. The existence of social art can directly state the existence of classes. Awareness of this could lead to questioning and later trigger opposition and revolution. This strategy is usually observed in colonialism. The dominant country hides and restricts its colonies from learning in fear of establishing awareness and aiming for a more liberated system. Another point to establish about contextual art is its utilitarianism. Art's utilitarianism can be traced back to primitive art. This definition can actually lead to the conclusion that art and everything else that human kind recreates serve the purpose of life enhancement. Whether the art is intentional or unconsciously manifested, it must have a practical use. This is a problem that the bourgeois system encountered in supporting the "art for art's sake". Bourgeois in order to create marketable goods subject themselves to continuous innovation. This innovation leads to utilitarianism of art disproving the theory which they were supposed to support. Such inconsistency had lead to heavy consequences.
7

De Vera, Jasmin J. 2011-50980 As a part of social development, technology can also be associated with art and it is undeniable that those that dominate the society also dominates business world and the access to technology. However, due to competitions, producers use strategies and creative forces to gain favour against their rivals. This is where the significance of art will be seen. But again, the use of art can be conflicting with technology as they both have limitations if combined together. As a result, the product will be an "art for art's sake" which may be aesthetic but lacks features or a form of high technology but is inconvenient to handle and nerd.

Art is always political. It is always related with ideology, whether it agrees to it, opposed it, or explains through it. It may be a realisation that establishing a limit to art is impossible. It is like the existence of two opposite things. You cannot tell that the other exist without having to coexist with its contrast, relative to art, serving a purpose you basically establish for the art may support other purpose or contradict another. Art has always an issue towards a certain issue. Moreover, the limit of the ideology an art covers depends on the level of culture of the society which it belongs. Ideology can be expressed in two ways. One is by explicit avowal and thee other one is by implicit. From the names itself, explicit art directly or clearly state a social point while on the other hand, implicit only suggests issues in which it might concern. But in the end, art can be viewed objectively or subjectively and the meaning depends mostly from the complexity of human analysis.

Professor Collingwood claims in his essay that art is not knowledge, that it is just an imaginative activity that does not assert things and that art is neither factual nor opinionated
8

De Vera, Jasmin J. 2011-50980 but is only glamour which we call beauty. However, as what is pointed out in the previous discussions, art is never context-free hence, enabling it to convey knowledge and disseminate ideas. Art is a super channel of ideas which bridges to various and unlimited ideas. Art can be a representation of history, a summary of the artist himself, an analysis of reality, explanation to other aspects such as economics, politics, philosophy, psychology etc. Aestheticism is the only point where these two points agree and take note that it is considered as a discipline which deals with forms and their correlation with nature of art and reality.

Mao Tse-tung emphasized the role of art and literature in the success of people's struggle against feudalism and imperialism. He noted that the art must be for the common people and must not be restricted to the elites because art is not restricted to higher class but is widely experienced and needed by the masses for their everyday struggle. Also, art should be studied thoroughly and be infused with new content -- done to cope with the innovations of the society. Also, it is necessary to study the connection between politics and art for both have the forces to achieve progress of another. Lastly, the artist should not lose connection with its society because art and its meaning can liberate not only the mind but also the initiative to seek for it. Great moments of art are achieved when liberation and high aesthetic forms are combined. These two elements are dependent on each other to attain exquisite art. The lack of liberation and existence of the high aesthetic forms alone will only be wasted in a lacking art. Without liberation, an art is confined with limits and will not truly satisfy the sensual aspect and

De Vera, Jasmin J. 2011-50980 vice versa. Liberation without the high aesthetic forms will suppress the meaning or the purpose of the art.

The concept of "art for art's sake" is vague, if it exists. The idea is always conflicting philosophically. Art is an important element of the society and history and vice versa. In complete understanding of each, one cannot take away any of the three even if each one is a unique discipline and has relative autonomy since they are always lacking, a jigsaw puzzle which needs every piece to form the whole meaning.

References: [1] Read, Herbert. Art and Society. Faber and Faber Unlimited : 24 Russell Square London W.C., Great Britain.1936 [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Baudelaire [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St%C3%A9phane_Mallarm%C3%A9 [4] http://www.arthistoryunstuffed.com/tag/goncourt-brothers/ [5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decadent_movement [6] Plekhanov, G. V. Art and Social Life.The Camelot Press, Ltd.: London and Southampon, Great Britain. 1953 [7]Gotshalk, D. W. Art and the Social Order. The University of Chicago Press: Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A. 1947

10