Talk:Art for art's sake

Before Photography...?

I object to the current last statement in the article, "Before photography, but after the rise of a middle class in Europe, art was not only "decorative" but the only way that people documented what objects looked like". This statement is crude and simplistic and is the product of a pedestrian view of the history of art and of art theory. It also does nothing to elucidate the complex relationship between didactic and purely aesthetic responses to pre-photography art, a more comprehensive discussion of which the article "art for art's sake" would benefit.

if no one can persuade me otherwise, I will change the last statement to something a little more reasonable. --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.107.100.201 (talk • contribs) 14:43, September 26, 2006 (UTC).

Log in, sign your posts and edits, and give the article the nuanced edit it deserves! --Wetman 08:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

That whole paragraph reeks of anti-Europeanism. Aestheticism is not white-centric. -216.145.255.2 21:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

When a thinker has expressed a statement of basic truth, it can be easily dismissed by judging it to be "crude and simplistic and … the product of a pedestrian view."96.248.101.32 (talk) 03:49, 12 December 2017 (UTC)Major Heinrich Strasser

Origin of the phrase

The origin of 'art for art's sake' in 19th century thought seems to come from the philosopher Victor Cousin, or at least he's the earliest identifiable source. He published books in the 1830s-40s, themselves based on lectures from before 1820, where he talked about the role of different pursuits like philosophy and art, and stated that "philosophy must be for philosophy's sake, and art must be for art's sake". (in french "art pour l'art"). Gautier was undoubtedly influenced by Cousin, since Cousin was the most prestigious French philosopher and had completely reshaped the curriculum of universities. Of course, the phrase may have earlier origins, before the 19th century, which I don't know about, but he is most probably responsible for its importance in 19th century French thought. I'll edit the article as soon as I can find the place in his book where he makes that statement, so I can quote it.

Image copyright problem with Image:MGM Logo.jpg

The image Image:MGM Logo.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --10:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Situationist International

From what I understand, the Situationist take on art was exactly the opposite, that good art should create situations of authentic life and that merely contemplating the spectacle is not art. I'd have to do much more in depth reading to get a Wikipedia-standard section on it though. If anyone wants to pitch in or give me tips, feel free. ᗞᗴᖇᑭᗅᒪᗴᖇᎢ (talk) 05:26, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

incomprehensible sentence

What in God's name does this sentence mean: "Friedrich Nietzsche claimed that there is 'no art for art's sake', arguing that the artist still expresses them being through it"? 98.115.255.240 (talk) 09:17, 5 February 2023 (UTC)