Option 3: “Art for art’s sake” and social responsibility: are they mutually exclusive?
“Art is made of the stuff of life” (Rublowsky, 1965, pp2)
Art has been an intrinsic element of society since the cave paintings of the prehistoric times. It is arguably essential in the production or evolution of human society; it helps to “formulate human attitudes and conditions human behaviour” “Hence every work of art is an inseparable unity of content and form” (Norton Jr, 1940, pp 325-332). Therefore can it be said that art has ever been created solely for ‘art’s sake’? Although there are examples of ‘art for art’s sake’ in modern art, in movements such as Formalism, Minimalism and even in Abstract Expressionism, it is arguable that art claiming to be ‘art for art’s sake’ is a “mistaken notion” (Norton, Jr, 1940, pp. 325-332). Furthermore it could be argued that he autonomous art for the sake of art and social responsibility are one and the same, one cannot exist without the other, no activity can be “independent, self-contained and exclusive” (Everett, W.G). The main factor in the unlikelihood of “art for art’s sake” existing as a completely separate entity to social responsibility is the context that is placed on the ‘pure’ context less art by the people that view it, and the social context of the time it was made.
The French art critic Théophile Gautier established the theory of “art for art’s sake” in the early Nineteenth century, however it was the critic Clement Greenberg that really began to pioneer the cause. He did this by promoting Formalism and the Avant-Garde during the late thirties. He believed that “It is by virtue of its medium that each art is unique and strictly itself. To restore the identity of an art, the opacity of its medium must be emphasized”(Greenberg “Towards a Newer Laocoon” pp 42). Formalism based on the prioritizing of form and flatness in art leaving “subject matter or content (to become) something to be avoided like a plague” (Greenberg, 1939, pp 531), became one of the key movements associated with ‘art for arts sake’. In denying the content in works of art Formalism “strove to attribute deep ideological meaning to form itself” (Medvedev/Bakhtin, 1990. pp. xviii). Which brings to question whether Formalism is truly ‘art for art’s sake’, or is it however art for the sake of form? The prioritising of medium over content went against the social conventions of the time; the main example being Socialist Realism, which theorised that art should be a reflection of the economic basics of society. In contrast to the ideas of “Art for Art’s Sake” the realist artists saw conception of form as a “decorative accessory lacking any ideological meaning of its own” (Medvedev/Bakhtin, 1990, pp xviii). The idea that art should contribute to society, or that it should communicate current ideas to society, was a common view at the time that arguably still exists today.
The artist David Reed followed similar beliefs to those Greenberg mentions in Avant-Garde and Kitsch in describing the need for art to make the viewer think and to struggle to interpret artwork, claiming, “in my paintings I want the viewer to look from part to part and to struggle to make the parts into a whole” (Reed, 1988). His piece Untitled no. 90 (seen below) is an example of how Reed created art concerned first and foremost with form and material. The medium becomes more visible and in fact the main subject of the piece; lending itself to Greenberg’s thought “it is by virtue of medium that each art is unique and strictly itself. To restore the identity of an art, the opacity of its medium must be emphasised” (Greenberg, Modernist Painting” pp 5-6).
David Reed – Painting no. 90, 1975
Another art movement that focused heavily on the theory of “art for art’s sake” and Greenberg’s ideals of form, surface and media, was the Minimalist movement that emerged during the 1960’s in New York. In studying Greenberg many of the Minimalist artists of the time took his writings on ‘pure art’ and the priority of form literally when creating their work. However Greenberg did not appreciate Minimalism as a movement, calling its necessary engagement with its audience overly “theatrical” and a “novelty”. This may have been because of that interaction between the artwork and its audience, as it placed the work firmly in the context of the space it was it in, drawing attention away from the form itself by making the viewer aware of themselves and the space that they are in. Arguably by changing the way that society views and interacts with artwork, much Minimalistic work become socially responsible. Donald Judd one of the key minimalist artist (although he rejected the label) created artwork that was “direct and concrete, self contained and non-allusive” (Agee, 1968, pp 9). His work during the 1960’s focused on creating three-dimensional pieces with which he experimented with materials, mainly industrial materials, which he described as being “the simple expression of complex thought” such as that shown below. Judd also went as far as to say that “a work needs only to be interesting” (Judd, 1965).
Donald Judd – Untitled, 1969
Although there are several examples of how art can exist for art’s sake there is also evidence that all art is or becomes socially responsible in time. Whether it is political, such as work of artists such as Picasso and the Socialist Realist movement evident in the Soviet Union, predominately during the 1930’s – 1950’s, or if it is socially aware or influenced by society such as Kitsch or Pop Art.
‘The rat of politics always gnaws at the cheese of art.” (Smithson, 1970. pp 900)
These are the thoughts of Robert Smithson who felt that all artists will inevitably be “implicated or devoured” by politics and are therefore inescapably socially responsible. Jo Baer, also in The Artist and Politics: Symposium similarly claims that, both art and politics are “dissimilar, not incompatible. In fact all art is eventually political.”(Baer, 2003, pp 898). The artist Lawrence Weiner believes that all art as it enters culture becomes history regardless of its initial intent. “Art as it becomes useful, even to the extent of entering the culture, becomes for me no longer art but history”. This view of art being politicised by time and historical context is seemingly valid. This can be said as the link between art and politics can be seen throughout history, whether it is a conscious decision made by the artist or not. For instance when viewing the work of Jackson Pollock made in the 1940’s we now, instead of seeing what at the time would have been seen as him experimenting with form and media in the way of abstract expressionism, a sense of an underlying post-war sentiment.
When looking at the work of artists such as Pablo Picasso it is evident that political beliefs and the events happening in the world is key to many artistic practises. For example Picasso’s piece Guernica (seen below) has become one of the most famous pieces of non-propagandist political art works, creating a reminder of the tragedies of war, and bringing attention to the worlds state of affairs. During the mid 1940’s after joining the French Communist Party Picasso began advocating the idea that art should be used to educate society. In an interview for the French Communist Party Newspaper L’Humanite in October 1944, he described drawing and painting as his “weapons” that would enable him to “reach further into an understanding of the world…in order that this understanding might bring us each day an increase in liberation.” (Picasso, 1944) Although he joined the Communist Party Picasso refused to adopt the Socialist Realist style in his work and chose to use the abstract Cubist style that he is now famous for. His style alone when seen without the contents of his work is arguably already socially responsible in that he went against the norm becoming “guilty of having led French painting into the most mortal impasse, into indescribable confusion”(Vlaminck, 2003, pp 630). When questioned about this in an interview during January 1945 he claimed, “I can’t use an ordinary manner just to have the pleasure of being understood,” ironically echoing the Formalist beliefs that form takes precedence over the ease of understanding of the content.
Pablo Picasso – Guernica 1937
While it would seem that much art is made socially responsible by putting into consideration the context of the culture around the work when it was created; by stepping out of politics it can also be said that a lot of work was created solely to adhere to or created from the influence of society. This can be seen for example about the Pop art movement of the late 1950’s. During this time artists such as Andy Warhol and Robert Rauschenberg were creating predominately “vacuous” works “in love with mass culture and all things American.”(Cummings, 26/08/2007). Far from being political (for the most part, Warhol’s Birmingham Race Riot from 1965, for example is one of the exceptions) Pop Art relied heavily on society and consumerism to find its subject matter. Taking inspiration from the consumerist boom of the period, Pop art also “anticipated much of the present spirit of detachment in American art.” In many ways the Pop Art of 50’s and 60’s New York can be compared to the Kitsch art described in Greenberg’s 1939 essay Avant-Garde and Kitsch in which he claims that Kitsch, arguably like Pop art, “draws its lifeblood, so to speak, from this reservoir of accumulated experience.”
One of the most relevant examples of the social responsibility of Pop Art can be seen in the work of the artist Richard Hamilton who created one of the first truly Pop pieces during the late fifties. The piece Just what is it that makes today’s homes so different, so appealing? (See below) brought to attention the shift in economic circumstances in Britain at the time. It created a “consumer fantasy world available (that) promised escape from the drudgery of post-war life in Great Britain” (McCarthy, 2000, pp 6). In creating this piece Hamilton was drawing from popular culture and making a point of the “cultural distinctions” between classes, “He took pre-existing images from their original contexts and transposed them into a new, carefully organised composition.” Pop art in general depicts the “material manifestations of the encroaching twentieth century,” and the realisation of the ‘American Dream”.
Richard Hamilton – Just what is it that makes today’s homes so different, so appealing? 1956
The popular consensus appears to be that the gap between “Art for Art’s Sake” and social responsibility is not that big. William J Norton Jr, in the essay Modern Art and Social Responsibility backs up this thought; in this essay he states that both aesthetics contain the same essential truths that are “not ultimately or mutually exclusive, as the various exponents of the respective theories would have us believe.” He goes on to state that both Modern Art and social responsibility could be realized under the same more liberal aesthetic “without denying the unique value of each.”
“Art for art’s sake” and social responsibility: are they mutually exclusive? It’s hard to say; on the one hand they can be seen as two mutually exclusive, un-relatable aesthetics, however on the other hand is it possible for any art form or piece of art to be completely un-responsible to society in every way? Looking at the ideals of Greenberg’s writings on Formalism, ‘pure’ art, it can be said that ideologically art can in fact be concerned only with itself to the purest extent of the paint on the canvas or the words on a page. However the length of time that it lasts as ‘pure’ art concerned solely with form, is in my opinion fleeting. The social and historical context of an artwork while at the time of creation holding no evident content, such as David Reed’s Brushstrokes paintings, becomes with time a fully contextualized, socially responsible, piece of work. The events surrounding its creation will inevitably be transferred on it; “the rat” will always emerge when it is viewed in the present. As long as art has its place in society it will always be critiqued and reviewed, having meaning placed on it by the people who question what it is, and what it means. “Art for art’s sake,” can also be seen as being a breeding ground for new, unconstrained ideas, in reaction to the art which is being made to adhere to society, which therefore inevitably leads it to being associated with what it stands against, the idea that art should treat content “like a plague” rejecting all social responsibility. The human expression of art itself, regardless of the intent of context, will always be considered responsible to society as it is arguably essential to social production and the evolution of mans knowledge, even if it doesn’t chose to comment on it.
