short essay art for art's sake

Art for Art’s Sake – The Meaning of Art for its Own Sake

What is the meaning of art for art’s sake? Creating art for the sake of art refers to making “true” art that is not based on any practical function or tied to any specific social values. This concept has permeated several movements and styles, leaving a significant mark on the world of art through the years. Below, we explore all there is to know about the concept of art for the sake of art!

Table of Contents

• 1 The Meaning of Art for Art’s Sake
• 2.1 Important Figures
• 3 Critics of Art for Art’s Sake
• 4.1 The Aesthetic Movement
• 4.2 The Decadent Movement
• 4.3 Tonalism
• 5 Art for Art’s Sake’s Effect on Art History
• 6 The Later Developments of Art for Art’s Sake
• 7.1 Impact on Art Mediums and Art Theory
• 8.1 What Is the Meaning of Art for Art’s Sake?
• 8.2 Is Art for the Sake of Art Still Relevant Today?

The Meaning of Art for Art’s Sake

Art for the sake of art is the belief held by certain artists that art has intrinsic worth irrespective of any political, social, or ethical relevance. They believe that art should be assessed only on its own merits: whether it is aesthetically pleasing or not, and capable of creating a sense of awe in the observer through its formal features. 

This idea became a rallying cry across 19th-century France and Britain, partially in response to the suffocating moralism that characterized much academic art and broader culture, with writer Oscar Wilde arguably its most prominent defender. Although the expression has seldom been employed since the early 20th century, its impact and legacy can be observed in a number of 20th-century ideas about art’s autonomy, particularly in different kinds of formalism.

The Origins of the Concept of Art for the Sake of Art

This concept can be traced back to the European Romantic movement , notably in Germany and England, when artists and intellectuals started advocating for the idea that art should be appreciated for its intrinsic characteristics rather than for any external or utilitarian role. Prior to this change, art was often considered a way of communicating certain political, religious, or moral ideas, or as a kind of social commentary. Artists were required to follow particular rules and regulations, and their artwork was judged based on its ability to represent certain concepts or ideals. 

As the Romantic movement gained traction, however, there was a rising desire for artistic freedom that would break away from these restraints and enable art to exist and be enjoyed solely for its visual and emotional impact.

Important Figures

One of the significant individuals involved with the formation of the notion of art for the sake of art was Immanuel Kant, the German philosopher. Kant asserted in his important book The Critique of Judgment (1790) that the ultimate goal of art was to offer an enjoyable experience independent of any utilitarian or moral concerns. He stressed the autonomous nature of aesthetic judgments, implying that the significance and value of art lay in its ability to elicit pleasure in the observer.

Another significant individual who believed in art for art’s sake was Samuel Taylor Coleridge, a critic, and poet from England. He asserted that the essential goal of art was to provoke and communicate emotions, arguing that art should be independent of any external aim or message. Coleridge’s opinions, like those of other Romantic writers like John Keats and William Wordsworth, contributed to the emerging movement that valued art for its own inherent merits. In the 19th century, the idea of art for art’s sake continued to expand and gain popularity, notably through the works of French figures such as Charles Baudelaire, Walter Pater, and Théophile Gautier.

In his prologue to the book of poems Émaux et Camées (1852), Gautier famously wrote, “Art for art’s sake”, demonstrating how popular the idea had grown.

Being artistically inclined, according to Pater, is “to shine constantly with a hard, gem-like fire, and to preserve this ecstasy, is an accomplishment in life”. As one historian put it, “Such a heightened, if excessive, ideal of art sought a new kind of critique that would meet, and even exceed, the power of the impressions that a work of art stirred in the responsive audience, and the aesthetic critic answered with passionate poems of his own. Proper Victorians considered such a vision of art and criticism to be sinful and irreligious. They were horrified by what they considered to be debauchery”.

Critics of Art for Art’s Sake

Many artists and intellectuals have challenged the notion that art should be evaluated purely on a set of discrete aesthetic or formal standards from the start. Academic artists disagreed with the Art for Art’s Sake movement because they argued that it lacked the moral significance that the Academy’s preferred classical topics provided. Certain aspects of this perspective are expressed in Ruskin’s critique of Whistler’s artwork. Art for art’s sake was derided by the new avant-garde movements in the arts, similar to how traditionalists condemned it, despite both movements being on the extreme opposite sides of the art spectrum.

In 1854, Gustave Courbet, the founder of Realism, widely regarded as the first modern art movement , intentionally made a distinction between his aesthetic philosophy and art for art’s sake and rejected the academy’s standards, portraying them as two opposing sides of essentially the same coin: “I was the sole judge of my artwork. In order to gain my intellectual independence, I had been practicing painting, not creating art for the sake of creating art”. Courbet’s perspective mirrored that of numerous other forward-thinking artists who believed, as author George Sand said in 1872, that “art for art’s sake is a meaningless term. That is the faith I seek: art for truth’s sake, art created for the sake of the beautiful and the good”.  

Avant-Garde and Modernism art movements became more closely associated with the advancement of alternative political, social, and ethical values, rather than just a hedonistic disdain of academic and Victorian standards.

Art Movements Associated with Art for Art’s Sake

Benjamin Constant, the Swiss writer, is considered to have first used the term “art for art’s sake” in a diary entry from 1804. The concept was popularized among authors, largely thanks to Théophile Gautier, the novelist from France. James Abbott McNeill Whistler , the renowned artist from the States is often considered the forefather of the idea of art for art’s sake in the visual arts. Whistler’s stance that visual art should not be used for representing a certain theme led him to equate it to the abstract sphere of music. Whistler contributed to the development of both the Aesthetic movement and Tonalism by highlighting the significance of art for the sake of art.

The Aesthetic Movement

The Aesthetic movement had begun to emerge by 1860, based in the United Kingdom, and focused on the essential principles of art for art’s sake. The movement came to be associated with depictions of feminine beauty juxtaposed against the decadent nature of the classical world, as represented by the works of painters such as Lawrence Alma-Tadema and Albert Joseph Moore, who were influenced by Whistler’s pioneering work and Gautier’s critique. Aestheticism also intersected with the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood’s worldview, which included Edward Burne-Jones, Dante Gabriel Rossetti , and William Morris.

These artists became consumed by the “Cult of Beauty”, a concept significantly related to the principles of art for the sake of art that suggested that the formal force of the art piece was more important than anything else.

Yet, many Pre-Raphaelites, like Morris, were also involved in utopian politics, driven by an idealized view of medieval social institutions. This indicates that the concepts of art for art’s sake influenced a wider variety of artistic ideologies than is often assumed. Walter Pater rose to prominence as a strong proponent of Aestheticism. He remarked in his works that art comes to one offering openly to provide nothing but the finest qualities to one’s passing moments, merely for the sake of these moments.

In doing so, Pater broadened the idea to describe the sort of experience that someone looking at it should have from a certain artwork, instead of simply applying it to the intentions of the artist. Aubrey Beardsley, an illustrator, was also influential in the development of the Aestheticism movement. Beardsley’s editorship, drawings, and critical commentary in The Yellow Book , a literary journal published from 1894 to 1897, all had an impact on the formation of formalistic and Decadent tendencies around the turn of the century in Britain.

The Decadent Movement

Emerging in the 1880s, the Decadent movement flourished alongside the Aesthetic movement and shared its origins in the mid-19th century, with Beardsley playing an important role in both movements. The Decadent movement, though, was mostly associated with France, particularly with the artwork of Félicien Rops, a Belgian artist who lived in France. Rops was a contemporary of Charles Baudelaire, who proudly called himself a “decadent” in 1857, and the phrase grew to be associated with a rejection of 19th-century puritanism, dreariness, and sentimentality. Art for art’s sake, as defined by the Decadent movement, was an apparent rejection or mocking of the philosophies and societal positions for which art would have been expected to represent. The Decadents focused on the sexual, disturbing, and scandalous. 

Beardsley’s illustrations in The Yellow Book were reported in the press to be laden with concealed erotic references, demonstrating his rejection of Victorian moralism.

Tonalism, which was mostly practiced in North America, had nothing to do with the scandal-seeking decadent nature of Beardsley and his contemporaries. The Tonalists, however, established a style that was equally dedicated to the concept of art for the sake of art, with their misty and glowing atmospheric landscapes. The Tonalism movement’s emphasis on delicate patterning, balanced design, and otherworldliness arose directly from the Aesthetic movement and the works and creative philosophies of art for the sake of art championed by its most prominent advocate, James McNeil Whistler.

He focused on mood and ambiance while experimenting with a simpler, almost abstract world in terms of color tonality. Tonalism, according to some art critics, was a collection of trends that began to converge about 1870, and was not really a unified movement. It stayed an unnamed style until the mid-1890s. Tonalism became a significant influence in American art, particularly in the work of North American artists Albert Pinkham Ryder and George Inness, in addition to Edward Steichen, the photographer.

Art for Art’s Sake’s Effect on Art History

Pater and Gautier’s intense critique affected not just the evaluation of contemporary artwork, but also of the classical and Renaissance artwork that preceded it. Rejecting the story-telling technique and ethical subject matter of classical history art, as illustrated by Raphael and celebrated by conventional academies, these two critics reexamined the works of artists like Botticelli. 

Furthermore, according to Rochelle Gurstein, “while numerous authors associated with the Art for the Sake of Art movement in England and France paid enthusiastic respect to the artwork, Pater and Gautier have become most recognized for launching it on its current path to what is now inelegantly referred to as iconicity”.

Gautier emphasized the peculiar, almost magical allure that the Mona Lisa possesses for even the greatest skeptics. Pater dubbed the Mona Lisa “the emblem of the modern idea”, in a poetic statement that continues to shape our understanding of what the painting signifies. In fact, no one – from Bernard Berenson to Oscar Wilde – could speak of the painting without referring to Pater’s illuminated words, which many of them had committed to memory.

The Later Developments of Art for Art’s Sake

Following the controversy of Oscar Wilde’s trial, conviction, and incarceration in 1895 for homosexuality, the Aesthetic movement came to an end. Oscar Wilde’s fall from public grace largely discredited the Aesthetic Movement in the eyes of the people in general, but many of its concepts and forms persisted into the 20th century. With the demise of the Aesthetic movement, the expression “art for art’s sake” fell out of favor, yet it remained prominent in other countries. Léon Bakst, Sergei Diaghilev, and Alexandre Benois launched the periodical Mir Iskusstva in St. Petersburg in 1899. The journal was affiliated with the World of Art movement, which was founded the previous year by a group of young painters in St. Petersburg.

The organization, which promoted art for the sake of art and creative independence, undoubtedly had its biggest influence through the founding of the pioneering Ballets Russes, which Diaghilev formed in 1907 and managed until 1927.

The concept of art for the sake of art had a significant, if sometimes counterintuitive, impact on avant-garde art . The avant-garde was not merely a rejection of art for the sake of art, but also in many senses a continuation of it. Many prominent 20th-century painters ignored it or derided it. Pablo Picasso declared that art for the sake of art was a deception, whereas Wassily Kandinsky argued that art for the sake of art refers to the disregard of underlying meanings, which is the life of colors, and the waste of artistic power.

Despite this, the idea was often greeted with ambiguity. To a certain extent, Kandinsky understood the idea, defining it as an inner reaction against materialism, against the requirement that everything must have a utilitarian function. Clement Greenberg, a famous art critic who advocated Abstract Expressionism after WWII, based his notions of media specificity and formalism on the foundations of art for art’s sake. As he established his idea of media specificity, Greenberg broadened the concept of art’s autonomy. According to historian Paul Bürger, the theory of art for the sake of art was an important factor in the emergence of avant-garde and modernist artworks.

He considered art autonomy to be a characteristic of bourgeois society. Pater’s style foreshadowed modernism. His impact lasted well into the 20th century, especially among notable critics and authors. Many literary critics were interested in Pater’s perspective as a predecessor to current theories of deconstruction during the postmodernism era. Aestheticism and modern deconstruction, according to scholars, developed comparable kinds of philosophical knowledge through the act of self-questioning, as well as internal critique and the disruption of hegemonic beliefs.

The Influence of Art for Art’s Sake in the Modern Era

The concept of appreciating art for its inherent characteristics was fundamental in the development of many movements in the 19th and 20th centuries. Notable art movements such as Symbolism, Impressionism, Post-Impressionism , and Abstract Expressionism, welcomed the concept of art as a vehicle of personal expression and concentrated on examining the formal components of art. These movements stressed the importance of subjective interpretation and experimentation with new creative approaches to the aesthetic experience. It has additionally promoted the concepts of artistic independence and individuality in art.

Modern artists are free to follow their creative visions without any regard for external expectations or obligations.

This artistic liberation has resulted in the exploration of new concepts and materials and an erosion of established aesthetic limitations. The emphasis on aesthetic experience has become a major feature of modern art evaluation. Audiences are invited to interact with art on a far more personal level, examining their intellectual and emotional reactions. As a result, instead of depending on predetermined interpretations or messages, there is now an increased focus on the individual’s perception and experience of art.

Impact on Art Mediums and Art Theory

The idea of appreciating art for the sake of art has inspired artists to experiment with and push beyond the limits of their artistic mediums. As a result, new types of art such as installation art, performance art, video art, and digital art have emerged and flourished. These mediums typically value aesthetic enjoyment and exploration far more than the need for any practical purpose or social commentary.

This idea has spawned various theoretical debates regarding the nature and meaning of art.

It has prompted discussions regarding the importance of aesthetics, artistic autonomy, the connection between art and the society in which it was created, and the significance of artistic expression. The discourse around contemporary art has been fundamentally shaped by these conversations, and it still influences the way we make and critique art today.

Many British, French, and American authors, painters, and supporters of the Aesthetic movement, like Walter Pater, embraced the idea of art for the sake of art. It was seen as a vehement rejection of Victorian-era moralism, as well as the practice of art serving the official religion or state since the Counter-Reformation of the 16th century. The Impressionist movement and contemporary art movement were able to express themselves freely as a result of this change in direction. This idea arose in opposition to those who believed that the intrinsic value of art depended on having some moral objective. The idea of art for the sake of art is still relevant in today’s debates over censorship, as well as the nature of art in general.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the meaning of art for art’s sake.

For much of art history, artworks were produced to serve a specific function in society. They tended to be produced to communicate certain religious and political ideals. The concept of art for the sake of art, however, revolves around the idea that art should first and foremost be created and appreciated for the sheer aesthetic pleasures of art. Many notable French and English authors embraced the idea that art required no justification, that it was not required to fulfill any specific purpose, and that the aesthetic appeal of the fine arts was more than enough reason for exploring them.

Is Art for the Sake of Art Still Relevant Today?

This concept changed the way people both produced and enjoyed art. Today, artists are able to create works that are not required to meet any specific criteria or advocate any specific idea. They can produce art for the pleasure of producing art, and it can be appreciated merely for its intrinsic aesthetic qualities. This is a huge departure from the time when artists were forced to produce work to fulfill commissions from the state or religious institutes. This effectively changed art from a means of spreading propaganda to an expression of the artist’s inner world. 

Isabella studied at the University of Cape Town in South Africa and graduated with a Bachelor of Arts majoring in English Literature & Language and Psychology. Throughout her undergraduate years, she took Art History as an additional subject and absolutely loved it. Building on from her art history knowledge that began in high school, art has always been a particular area of fascination for her. From learning about artworks previously unknown to her, or sharpening her existing understanding of specific works, the ability to continue learning within this interesting sphere excites her greatly.

Her focal points of interest in art history encompass profiling specific artists and art movements, as it is these areas where she is able to really dig deep into the rich narrative of the art world. Additionally, she particularly enjoys exploring the different artistic styles of the 20 th century, as well as the important impact that female artists have had on the development of art history.

Learn more about Isabella Meyer and the Art in Context Team .

Cite this Article

Isabella, Meyer, “Art for Art’s Sake – The Meaning of Art for its Own Sake.” Art in Context. July 10, 2023. URL: https://artincontext.org/art-for-arts-sake/

Meyer, I. (2023, 10 July). Art for Art’s Sake – The Meaning of Art for its Own Sake. Art in Context. https://artincontext.org/art-for-arts-sake/

Meyer, Isabella. “Art for Art’s Sake – The Meaning of Art for its Own Sake.” Art in Context , July 10, 2023. https://artincontext.org/art-for-arts-sake/ .

Similar Posts

1990s Art – A Vibrant and Eclectic Decade

Mesopotamian Art – Exploring the Architecture and Art of Mesopotamia

Psychedelic Art – An Exploration of the Psychedelic Aesthetic in Art

Hispanic Art – Looking at Famous Hispanic Painters and Their Artworks

Notan – Exploring Notan Designs and Notan Art Examples

Pre-Raphaelite Art – A History of the Pre-Raphaelitism Art Period

Leave a reply cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

The Most Famous Artists and Artworks

Discover the most famous artists, paintings, sculptors…in all of history! 

MOST FAMOUS ARTISTS AND ARTWORKS

Discover the most famous artists, paintings, sculptors!

We use cookies to enhance our website for you. Proceed if you agree to this policy or learn more about it.

• Essay Database >
• Essay Examples >
• Essays Topics >
• Essay on History

Example Of Art For Arts Sake By E M Forster Essay

Type of paper: Essay

Topic: History , Human , World Civilization , World , Civilization , Society , Politics , Art

Words: 1000

Published: 12/06/2019

ORDER PAPER LIKE THIS

In this essay Forster explores the importance of art and its status relative to science, society and politics, essentially he is exploring aesthetics, and does so in a style that is erudite but at times witty, self-deprecating and wry. The original date of publication 1951, in a volume entitled Two Cheers for Democracy is importnat and this paper will explore the importance of that context later. The essay reproduces the words of a speech Forster delivered in Cambridge, Massachusetts on November 22nd 1949, as some references in the text make clear. Forster’s essay is a passionate but logical argument aboiut eh primacy of art, written at a time of enormous leaps in scientific knowledge and at a historical moment when human civilization itself seemed threatened. Forster begins by stating bluntly “I believe in art for art’s sake” (207). He then goes on to the stereotypical image of the artist towards the end of the nineteenth century – “sixty years ago,” flamboyantly dressed “in an embroidered dressing gown” or “a blue velvet suit or a kimono” (207). This witty denigration on Forster’s part is deliberate and is meant to distance his argument from the public image of the writer a solitary, slightly eccentric and effete aesthete, concerned only with experience. He may even be referring to Oscar Wilde who did dress outlandishly and who also advocated “art for art’s sake.” Forster, however, goes on to clarify that a belief in “art for art’s sake” does not necessarily imply that you believe that art is the only thing that matters in human society. He states directly: “Art for art’s sake does not mens that only art matters” (208). He concedes that we live “in a complex world, full of conflicting claims.” In other words, Forster accepts that the artist lives in a world where society needs plumbers, train drivers and scientists; the artist cannot be cocooned from the social realities of the time he/she lives in. The next stage of his essay seeks to define what it is about art that makes it so important human society and in human culture. He uses examples form drama (Macbeth) and art (Seurat’s painting La Grande Jatte) to argue that what makes art unique in the field of human accomplishments is that a work of art “is a self-contained entity, with a life of its own imposed upon it by its creator. It has internal order” (208). And it is this “order” imposed y a human creator that makes art unique, Forster argues, and what gives human beings aesthetic pleasure. Forster then proceeds to discuss what he means by “order” and concludes that in the broad sweep of human history periods and places where “order” existed were few and far between, Forster demonstrates his grasp of human cultural history by deliberately taking an all-encompassing view of human development, referring to ancient Athens, Renaissance Italy, eighteenth century France – arguing that such moments are especially propitious for the artists. However, he moves on to criticize the rate of scientific change and argues that it is not conducive to producing the conditions in which great art is produced; nor does it create order. On the contrary it produces disorder and confusion, such is the rate of change. Scientist might counter that the Periodic Table of the Elements or Newton’s Laws of Planetary Motion are examples of order in the area of scientific knowledge. However, these examples do not have “internal order” which Forster has already identified as the characteristic of works of art. Newton’s explication of our solar system and the precise maps of astronomers come from without: human beings have merely observed them and recorded what they have discovered – they are not responsible for creating that order, but merely seeing it.

Controversially, Forster observes that all that is left of ancient Greece is not the powerful commercial empire that dominated the Mediterranean before the Romans, but the glories of Greek tragedy (he mentions Antigone specifically); James I of England was a poor king, but Macbeth, written while he was king and partly as a tribute to him, survives. Forster is encouraging his readers to step back from our obsession with the day-to-day machinations of politics and statecraft to see and understand that, ultimately, while empires rise and fall, it is art that gives value, lasting value to human civilization. He also asserts, in the face f what we might call the democratization of art, that the creative artist should attempt to be “matey” or popular, for to do so risks those qualities which make him or her an artist. An obsession with popularity will prevent the artist from “the making of something out of words or sounds or paint or clay or marble or steel or film which has internal harmony and presents order to a permanently disarranged planet” (210). Society disintegrating is envisaged towards the end of the essay and Forster seemingly makes the grand claim that if it does, then the only thing that will be worth preserving for posterity are works of art. To recall his earlier point – society needs plumbers, but succeeding generations will not remember us for the advanced design of our shower systems. Thus, Forster concludes, art and the artist make a unique and uniquely valuable contribution to human civilization which is far more important ultimately than the contributions made by science – no matter how much those scientific advances improve the quality of our daily lives. My introduction stared that the context of when this essay was published was vital and it is with this that I want to end. Forster is writing at the start of the nuclear age and at the start of the Cold war. His remarks on the relative lack of importance of politics are meant to be a provocative reminder of what really matters, and his vision of a society destroyed is a response to Hiroshima and Nagasaki – and also explains his passion for art because what else will survive?

Works Cited

Forster, E. M. Selected Essays. 1980. London: Penguin. Print

Cite this page

Share with friends using:

Removal Request

Finished papers: 2296

This paper is created by writer with

ID 280485281

If you want your paper to be:

Well-researched, fact-checked, and accurate

Original, fresh, based on current data

Eloquently written and immaculately formatted

275 words = 1 page double-spaced

Get your papers done by pros!

Other Pages

Surgical infection term paper examples, the effectiveness of pharmacotherapeutics and behavioral interventions research paper examples, sample creative writing on observation description, example of essay on cyber security, good course work on blake mouton managerial grid, operations decision research paper examples, good example of essay on politics of food commodity chain analysis, statistics db creative writing example, free politics trades and treaties in international management context essay example, example of essay on organizational development of cop21, sociology essay examples 9, example of text 1 the poetics of horror more than meets the eye by dennis l white essay, emerging adulthood essays, pathophysiology essays, neuropsychological essays, geoffrey essays, rrna essays, keynesian economics essays, keegan essays, arlie essays, bellamy essays, cornelius essays, beringer essays, flying saucer essays, roswell new mexico essays, coffins essays, morgue essays, amherst essays, spectator essays, emil essays, extremities essays, backflow essays, child and adolescent psychiatry essays, self blame essays, tutors essays, clumsiness essays, sensorimotor essays, negotiating college essays, challenging college essays, missing college essays, continuing college essays.

Password recovery email has been sent to [email protected]

Use your new password to log in

You are not register!

By clicking Register, you agree to our Terms of Service and that you have read our Privacy Policy .

Now you can download documents directly to your device!

Check your email! An email with your password has already been sent to you! Now you can download documents directly to your device.

or Use the QR code to Save this Paper to Your Phone

The sample is NOT original!

Short on a deadline?

Don't waste time. Get help with 11% off using code - GETWOWED

No, thanks! I'm fine with missing my deadline

Literary Theory and Criticism

Home › Literature › Walter Pater and Aestheticism

Walter Pater and Aestheticism

By NASRULLAH MAMBROL on November 14, 2017 • ( 1 )

Walter Pater (1839–1894) is best known for his phrase “art for art’s sake.” In his insistence on artistic autonomy, on aesthetic experience as opposed to aesthetic object, and on experience in general as an ever vanishing flux, he is a precursor of modern views of both life and art. His subjectivist and “impressionistic” criticism, once attacked by the likes of Eliot and Pound , who called for a return to a depersonalized classical objectivity, is now regarded with renewed interest; not only did it influence figures such as Oscar Wilde but it is now also seen as anticipating several strains of modern theory, including those which derive from Nietzsche and Derrida , as well as certain elements of reader-response theory.

Educated at Oxford, Pater visited Italy in 1865 and was deeply affected by the Renaissance paintings he saw in Florence and elsewhere. His experience eventually inspired his The Renaissance: Studies in Art and Poetry (1873). His other works included Marius the Epicurean (1885), Imaginary Portraits (1887), and Plato and Platonism (1893). Pater’s work belongs to an era of what is called “decadence,” marked by a resigned withdrawal from social and political concerns, disillusionment with the consolations available in religion, and a rejection of the philistine and mechanical world which was the legacy of mainstream bourgeois thought and practice, in favor of an exaltation of art and of experience. Needless to say, the views of Pater , Wilde , and other aesthetes and impressionists brought them into conflict not only with the builders of systems and the defenders of religion or morality, but also with those Victorian writers who saw art and literature as having a high moral purpose and civilizing function. In the preface to his The Renaissance: Studies in Art and Poetry , Pater rejects as useless any attempt to define “beauty in the abstract.” While on the surface Pater claims to accept Matthew Arnold’s imperative that the function of true criticism is to “see the object as in itself it really is,” he redefines this formula in a subjective way: to see the object as it really is, he says, “is to know one’s own impression as it really is, to discriminate it, to realize it distinctly” (viii). The kinds of questions we should ask are: “What is this song or picture . . . to me ? What effect does it really produce on me?” The answers to these questions are the “original facts” which must be confronted by the critic (viii).

Pater’s views of aesthetic experience are rooted in his account of experience in general. In the conclusion to Studies he observes that modern thought tends to view all things as in constant flux. Our physical life is a “perpetual motion” of ever changing combinations of elements and forces. This is even more true of our mental life, of the world of thought and feeling. At first sight, he says, “experience seems to bury us under a flood of external objects . . . But when reflexion begins to play on those objects they are dissipated under its influence . . . the whole scope of observation is dwarfed into the narrow chamber of the individual mind” (234–235). Hence the world which seemed overwhelming, which seemed solid and external and of boundless scope, is actually encompassed within the circle of our impressions, our experience (235). Not only does the whole world reduce itself to our impressions, but these impressions themselves are ever vanishing and in “perpetual flight” (236). Given the brevity of our life, we must “be for ever curiously testing new opinions and courting new impressions, never acquiescing in a facile orthodoxy, of Comte , or of Hegel, or of our own.” For Pater, experience must be undertaken for its own sake: “Not the fruit of experience, but experience itself, is the end . . . To burn always with this hard, gem-like flame, to maintain this ecstasy, is success in life” (236–237). Such intense experience is furnished foremost by “the poetic passion, the desire of beauty, the love of art for its own sake” (239).

We have here reached a point in Western culture where experience is dirempted and abstracted from any kind of constraint whatsoever, even from its consensual overlap with that of other individuals. Hegel would have regarded such experience as an abstract category, not even possible; but Pater expresses a desperate attempt to redeem experience from the weight of centuries of oppression and coercion and molding into various socially acceptable forms. He effectively aestheticizes experience, equating the fullness of experience with beauty, in an attempt to extricate the category of experience from the burdens invested in it by bourgeois thought. Experience is no longer a reliable source of knowledge or a basis of scientific inquiry; it is not a realm which constrains the operations of reason; nor is it a realm under the strict surveillance of morality or of religious institutions. It is raised from the mereness of means to the exaltation of end, a celebration of purposelessness, a celebration of indirection, of relativism and randomness.

Share this:

Categories: Literature

Tags: Aestheticism , art for art’s sake , Auguste Comte , decadence era , Ezra Pound , Imaginary Portraits , impressionistic criticism , Literary Criticism , Literary Theory , Marius the Epicurean , Oscar Wilde , Plato and Platonism , Poetry , Symbolism , The Renaissance: Studies in Art and Poetry , TS Eliot , Walter Pater

Related Articles

• The Naturalism of Émile Zola – Literary Theory and Criticism Notes

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

• Increase Font Size

15 Art for Art’s Sake

Dr. Valiur Rehman

This module defines and characterizes the decadent literary movement and the critical school called Art for Art’s Sake or Aestheticism. It includes a brief literature review, etymology, genesis, and practitioners of Art for Art’s Sake along with their distinct principles and critical reception before 1960 and after.

Introduction

Art for Art’s Sake is a slogan of the literary movement Aestheticism developed in the Decadent period. The opening verse lines of John Keats’s Endymion , “A thing of beauty is a joy for ever / Its loveliness increases / it will never / Pass into nothingness” epitomize the principles represented through the slogan. Keats, therefore, is regarded as progenitor of Aestheticism.

The major pronouncement of Literature produced under the impact of Art for Art’s Sake is that Literature reveals the power of beauty and taste before its readers and audiences. Art for Art’s Sake is the trans-creation of l’art pour l’art , which has expounded the tenets of the Aestheticism. Thus, Art for Art’s Sake and Aestheticism has similar salient features as literary movements. Literally, Aestheticism is concerned with ‘a set of principles, the nature, and appreciation of beauty’ (COED 11th Edition). There are authors and artists who consciously have elevated the art to a position of supreme importance and to an autonomous sphere. Such artists or authors are the Aesthetes. They believe that the art has no social function. They attempt to separate artistry from life-description. The works of Théophile Gautier (1811-72) and his followers in France; the works of Edgar Allan Poe (1809-1849) and his followers in the America; and the works of Walter Horatio Pater (1839-1894) and his followers in England expounded the Art for Art’s Sake as the literary movement.

J. E. Spingarn’s essay “Art for Art’s Sake: A Query” (1907) reports that the term Art for Art’s Sake is found in Thackeray’s letter written in 1839: “Please God we shall begin, ere long, to love art for art’s sake” ( Chapter From Some Memoirs 1895). However, the literary historians think that the outset of Art for Art’s Sake is firstly observed in Victor Cousin’s series of lectures  delivered in 1818, which was published later, entitled Lectures on the True, the Beautiful, and the Good (1854). Cousin mentions in the lecture:

We must have religion for religion’s sake, morality for morality’s sake, as with art for art’s sake . . . the beautiful cannot be the way to what is useful, or to what is good, or to what is holy; it leads only to itself. (Quoted in Stephen Davies et al. Companion to Aesthetics 129)

Dorothy Richardson (1873-1957), in an essay “Saintsbury and Art for Art’s Sake in England” (1944) justifies Saintsbury as the follower of the Art for Art’s Sake and the English aesthetic critic. In this essay she epitomizes the objective of Art for Art’s Sake by illustrating one of Saintsbury’s statements (1895): “The whole end, aim, and object of literature … as of all art … is beauty” (Richardson). Albert Guérard in the essay “Art for Art’s Sake” has also defined it in terms of signifying Literature as the paramount object of beauty:

Art for Art’s Sake means Art Dominant, Life for the Sake of Art, life subordinated to the service of beauty, a pilgrimage to the Land of Esthetic Promise…Art for Art’s Sake is best revealed, not in the impalpably inane, but in clashes with reality. The evangel of Beauty refuses to submit to Science, Business, Morality, the three idols of the modern world.

Frank Kermode in Romantic Image (1957) discusses Yeats’ poem “Sailing to Byzantium” in terms of Baudelaire’s concept of artificial paradise and has defined Art for Art’s Sake as the act of self-forgotten artist. Kermode clarifies it saying:

The paradise in which labour and beauty are one, where beauty is self-begotten and costs nothing, is the artificial paradise of a poet deeply disturbed by the cost in labour … The  artist himself may be imagined, therefore, a change-less thing of beauty, purged of shapelessness and commonness induced by labour, himself a self-begotten and self- delighting marble or bronze.

R. V. Johnson in Aestheticism (1969) has studied the aestheticism in three different applications:

• “as a view of art,” which applies for the core principle of the literary movement Art for Art’s Sake. It expresses that the art does not produce the effect of other reasons but of its own; and that the artistry makes an object a thing of beauty. Therefore, it is not the content or the subject matter but the art that sublimates a work of art. From this perspective, perhaps, Wilde in his “The Decay of Lying” (1889) has declared that lying is the proper aim of art. ( The Artist as Critic 320)
• “as a practical tendency in literature” which applies on principle that the writer is an artist and he is not a propagandist. He is not a reporter of the lives. Frank Kermode also agrees: “Art for art’s sake is a derisory sentiment, yet questions of the morality of the work will usually be answered in terms of its perfection, not of its ‘message’.” (Kermode 195) In fact, this principle was a reaction stood against artistry for the bourgeois hedonism.
• “as a view of life” for which Johnson has used “contemplative aestheticism” which refers to the art of treating the artist’s experience to represent life through elevated spirit of art that produces the aesthetic enjoyment (p 12). The artist or the writer must have the capacity to beautify his or her experience in such a manner that an experience of light incident can influence the mind of the audience. Poe’s poem, “The Bells” posthumously published in 1849 is a fine example of onomatopoetic artistry. A diacope, or repetition and reverberation of a word “bell” evoke sentiments in the reader.

Development of Art for Art’s Sake  

Art for Art’s Sake has its classical root in Alexandrian men of letters; its philosophical root in Alexander Gottlieb Baumgarten’s concept of ‘aesthetics’; and its expansion in Kantian philosophy of beauty and taste. The eclectic philosopher of France, Victor Cousin was the first one to introduce l’art pour l’art to literature. The French symbolist poet and critic Charles Baudelaire (1821-1867) as an aesthete influenced Walter Pater whom Oscar Wilde (1854-1900) had followed throughout his life and brought out the Aesthetic movement by advocating literature across the dichotomy of good and evil. The notorious words of Walter Pater, “The office of the poet is not that of a moralist” (Pater 1986, 427) echoed in the works of Oscar Wilde. Megan Becker-Leckrone in Julian Wolfreys’s edited book, Modern British and Irish Criticism and Theory writes in this regards, “Like Pater’s, Wilde’s concept of aesthetic autonomy belongs to and raises the stakes of this intellectual current. If art does not primarily ‘copy’ life or nature, then what does it do? Wilde’s provocative response to this question at once severs and reverses this mimetic relationship, proposing instead that ‘Life imitates Art’” (2006, 18). Thus, Walter Pater typified the Art for Art’s Sake as literary movement called Aestheticism in England while Oscar Wilde strengthened it and culminated in it.

Aesthetics is an umbrella term. It has many facets, and multicolored rib tips like aesthetics of action, aesthetics of imitation, aesthetics of imagination, aesthetics of taste, aesthetics of existence and violence etc. etc. For example, Plato’s theory of ‘imitation’ and his paradigm of the cave explore the aesthetics of the composition of Truth. Aristotle’s theory of ‘imitation’ and ‘action’ explore the aesthetics of the catharsis. Plotinus’s theory of esoteric wisdom explores the aesthetics of insulatory description of beauty, and power of the beauty to elevate man from his  state of thought to the contemplation of the universe. Thus, Aesthetics as discipline, which studies the nature and appreciation of beauty, may have many dimensions to appreciate the artistic beauty whereas Aesthetic (word without /s/) is used for the literary movement emerged in the Decadent period. Aesthetic movement sublimated art as pure reason and beauty of human existence. The works, written under the impact of the Decadent literary movement, have exemplified the elements of Art for Art’s Sake.

The ideal of Art for Art’s Sake is observed in the work of four of the ablest Alexandrian men of letters who worked as librarians of the famous ancient library—Library of Alexandria, founded by Ptolemy I, the king of Egypt in 3rd BC – Zenodotus, Eratosthenes, Aristophanes of Byzantium, and Aristarchus. “All four approached literary texts as aesthetic experiences to be enjoyed; they show little interest in moralizing or allegorizing, and their one concern was with the integrity of the text.” (Kennedy 205) Nevertheless, Aesthetics could not be popularized as a discipline or a school of thought, nor could even develop the believe: ‘art lives for herself’.

The German philosopher Alexander Gottlieb Baumgarten, in his dissertation “Philosophical Considerations of Some Matters Pertaining to the Poem” (1714-68) introduced the term aesthetics in 1835 to mean “a science of how things are to be known by means of the senses.” Four years later, Baumgarten had extrapolated that definition in Metaphysica adding the “logic of the lower cognitive faculty, the philosophy of the graces and the muses, lower gnoseology, the art of thinking beautifully, the art of the analog of reason.” Another decade later, Baumgarten delivered some lectures on aesthetics in Frankfurt in 1742. His Aesthetica (1750- 58), a monumental fragment, contains these lectures. It was the first treatise published under the  title of the new subject. He combined his two previous definitions to form his final definition of the subject: “Aesthetics (the theory of the liberal arts, lower gnoseology, the art of thinking beautifully, the art of the analog of reason) is the science of sensitive cognition” He would appreciated ‘form’ as an important element of the beautiful work of art.

Since the Art for Art’s Sake is primarily concerned with taste and beauty, Emanuel Kant’s Critique for Judgment (1790) has its philosophic root. Kant revived A.G. Baumgarten’s term ‘aesthetics’ and experienced art as a sufficient entity of the universe. He considered aesthetics as the realm of disinterested pleasure. It pleases for its own sake. The source of pleasure is the taste of beauty. Victor Cousin elucidated Kant referentially and applied his philosophy of Taste and Beauty as an approach to understanding the art. Theophile Gautier (1811-72) wrote a ‘Preface’ to his novel Mademoiselle du Maupin (1836), formulated the classic expression of one extreme pole in the debate declaring the categorical independence of l’art pour l’art , or the art for art’s sake. Art, in Gautier’s view, is wholly opposed to utility and life.

The American poet Edger Allen Poe’s “The Poetic Principle” (1850) argues for the role and the power of beauty in the composition of the poetry:

I would define, in brief, the Poetry of words as The Rhythmical Creation of Beauty. Its sole arbiter is Taste. With the Intellect or with the Conscience, it has only collateral relations. Unless incidentally, it has no concern whatever either with Duty or with Truth.

… pleasure which is at once the most pure, the most elevating, and the most intense, is derived, I maintain, from the contemplation of the Beautiful. In the contemplation of Beauty we alone find it possible to attain that pleasurable elevation, or excitement, of the  soul, which we recognize as the Poetic Sentiment, and which is so easily distinguished from Truth, which is the satisfaction of the Reason, or from Passion, which is the excitement of the heart (“The Poetic Principle”)

This definition of poetry implies poetic autonomy –the poetry does not have any concern with things other than beauty and ‘taste of beauty” which function to elevate reader’s consciousness. The German philosopher Schopenhauer, the French Gautier and American Poe influenced Charles-Pierre Baudelaire’s anti-idealist vision of art and poetry. Baudelaire encouraged symbolist movements. He wrote about the ugliest subjects in the most beautiful manner. He as an aesthetician emphasised on two things: poetic automaton and imagination. But his theory of imagination, unlike Romanticists, refers to the creative faculty of the individual which capacitates him to grasp everything as ‘hieroglyphic’( Paris Spleen & La Fanfarlo, 2008, xxvi). Romantics worshipped nature for her nurseling and nourishing power. The Nature is an inspiring force for the poets of romantic imagination whereas Baudelaire as aesthete looks at Nature as a ‘pitiless enchantress’:

And now the depth of the sky troubles me; its limpidity exasperates me. The indifference of the sea, the immutability of the scene repulses me . . . Oh, must one either suffer eternally, or eternally flee the beautiful? Nature, you pitiless enchantress, you always victorious rival, leave me alone! Stop arousing my desires and my pride! The study of the beautiful is a duel, one that ends with the artist crying out in terror before being vanquished. (“The Artist’s Confiteor” in Paris Spleen & La Fanfarlo 7)

In his “Salon” (1859), he states that “imagination is the queen of truth … affects all the other faculties; it rouses them, it sends them into combat … It is analysis, it is synthesis … It is imagination that has taught man the moral meaning of color, of outline, of sound, and of perfume.” Baudelaire thinks Poe as a true poet who believed that poetry should have no object in view other than itself. He had firm faith that a man of imagination can beautifully write about the ugliest of human life. In his words:

The whole visible universe is but a storehouse of images and signs to which imagination will give a relative place and value; it is a sort of food which the imagination must digest and transform. All the powers of the human soul must be subordinated to the imagination, which commandeers them all at one and the same time.

Baudelaire’s The Flowers of Evil (1857) became the subject of a trial for obscenity in the same year for including some lesbian poems. He never takes care of subjects – high or low, as Shelley and Arnold has instructed to choose the “best thought” expressed with “high seriousness.” The French Symbolism remained an aesthetic movement caused by a reaction against romanticism, realism, and naturalism. Baudelaire, unlike Parnassian poets of France, followed Gautier for his emphasis on independent art as the highest form of human faculty:

It was to be an art not of mimesis but of expression, an art akin to music, that highest of all the arts according to Schopenhauer, and they reiterated Edgar Allan Poe’s statement, quoted by Baudelaire, that “it is in music perhaps that the soul most nearly attains … the creation of supernal beauty”.

Walton Litz et al remind us: “Gautier’s discussion would prompt the more probing reflections of Baudelaire in his celebrated essays on ‘The Poetic Principle’ (1850) and ‘New Notes on Edgar Poe’ (1859), and the work of both authors would migrate across the English Channel to reappear in complex ways in the works of Ruskin, Pater, Swinburne, and Wilde.”

The English Aestheticism

We  have  discussed  A.  G.  Baumgarten’s  coinage  of  ‘aesthetics’  in  the  18th   century  and its subsequent exposition in Kant’s Critique of Judgment as the result of disinterested perception. When writers of the age of doubt i.e. Victorian era tended to signify the religious cause for the life upholding against geological hypotheses, Darwinism, destructive action of science, and material revolution; when Spencer’s idea of social reality, and Huxley’s disposition of relationship between science and society, an anti-realist and anti-bourgeois disposition was also taking place in the form of two literary movements: the Pre-Raphaelite and Aestheticism. The Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood was formed in 1848 in England for signifying the moralized and serious art of the Middle Ages. The Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood had ambition to reinvent the advent of the Renaissance artist Raphael and before Raphael while Aesthetic writers followed  the Parnassian poets of France inspired by Théophile Gautier and Leconte de Lisle (1818–1894), and adopted an ethic of “art for art’s sake”, and Baudelaire who was influenced by Gautier and Edgar Allan Poe’s theories of poetic composition. Since Aestheticism developed in 1889-90, it was a decadent event in the history of English literature and criticism. Its doctrines were reverberated through the aesthetics of Kant, many of the Romantics, the French Parnassians, the Pre-Raphaelites, the symbolists, the decadents, and the critical programs of the twentieth-century formalists, yet remained unique and known for its singular characteristic i.e. the work of art has no  other  function  than  to  be  a  work  of  art.  Aestheticians  of  Decadence  denied  the social,  religious, cathartic and moral function of art. They seem very experimental in approaches to opting subjects for artistic representation. Their dispositions maybe enumerated as:

• expression of artificial eroticism and sexual perversion.
• an intense self-consciousness of authorship,
• development of a restless curiosity in research and innovative approaches to experience
• subtilising refinement upon refinement
• a spiritual and moral perversity to the quest for a purity of experience and sensation.
• a disembodied voice, upholding the voice of a human soul
• a self-conscious experimental reflection of a perceived breakdown in social and cultural unity

Scottish essayist, historian and social critic, Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881) and John Ruskin (1819-1900) English writer, art critic, and reformer, were among intellectuals of the Victorian period. Both praised beauty and its power to change the contemporary mindset. From this point of view, they are aestheticians as critics have conceded it. However, their inclination was to observe art in relation to its unavoidable function i.e. to moralize. Carlyle’s philosophical satire, Sartor Resartus (The Tailor Retailored), first published between 1833 and 1834 in Fraser’s Magazine, seems autobiographical, but it affirms his spiritual idealism. He, in the guise of a “philosophy of clothes,” comments on the hollowness of materialism. His On Heroes, Hero- Worship, and the Heroic in History (1841) exemplifies Carlyle’s thought about the power of art and literature.

John Ruskin is popular literary figure for his monumental studies of architecture and its social and historical significance. His The Seven Lamps of Architecture (1849), its sequel, The Stones of  Venice (1851) , and the first volume of Modern Painters (1843-60) carried on the theme of relationship between art and morality . His idea of “Pathetic Fallacy,” pronounces the power of artist who can incarnate the sensation of living being in the non-living thing. The “Pathetic Fallacy” exemplifies one of the ethics of Art for Art’s Sake, yet Ruskin has maintained that art is nothing without its moral function.

Aestheticism of decadent period, as we have discussed earlier in this essay, advocates for the art minus its classical functions: to moralize, to reflect society, to imitate life, to propagate the truth etc. Walter Pater and his disciple Oscar Wilde brought forth this idea to the British culture of letters.

The English essayist and critic Walter Pater (1839-1894) developed British Aesthetic. He treats art for its pleasurable effects on reader. He explains that art should never be didactic , hortatory, religious, political, and practical. He introduced the French decadents, aesthetes, and symbolists to the English society. He followed Gautier and Baudelaire for their emphasis on the perfection of art and its self-sufficiency. For Pater, a word may include everything of which poetry is born. A unit of sound may present the whole meaning. A.C. Bradley in “Poetry for Poetry’s Sake” says, “What is the gist of Pater’s teaching about style, if it is not that in the end the one virtue of style is truth or adequacy; that the word, phrase, sentence, should express perfectly the writer’s perception, feeling, image, or thought.”

Pater concludes Studies in the History of the Renaissance (1873) saying that art gives pleasure for its own sake. He declares, “art comes to you professing frankly to give nothing but the highest quality to your moments as they pass, and simply for those moments’ sake.’ His novel Marius the Epicurean (1885) is about the “sensations and ideas” of a young 2nd-century Roman  confronting Christianity. His Appreciations: with an Essay on Style (1889) is the exposition of the Romantic works of William Wordsworth, Samuel Coleridge, and Charles Lamb. His autobiographical The Child in the House (1894) contains sketches of Pater’s early years. In all these works, Pater has shown his interest for knowing the power of artistry. He appreciated Wordsworthian imagination and its power to sketch the abstract.

Walter Pater influenced his younger contemporary Irish-born writer Oscar Wilde. Wilde professes that art is far more than a mere imitation of nature. “A Truth in Art,” he remarks in “The Truth of Masks” (1891), “is that whose contradictory is also true”. In “The Decay of Lying” he declares that ‘art never expresses anything but art itself…” and that “the telling of beautiful untrue things is the proper aim of Art.” His fiction The Picture of Dorian Gray (1890) presents the theme that the artistry is beyond the dichotomies like good and bad. It exists beyond the art and morality; ethics and aesthetics. In preface to this fiction Wilde upheld, “All art is  quite useless.” Homosexual Wilde’s most influential tragedy Salome presents bizarre desire and its repulsion. It rests on hermaphroditic notions. Wilde’s lover Lord Alfred Douglas translated Salome , originally written in French, later into English in 1894. It alludes to the Bible account of the death of John the Baptist and to Flaubert’s story Herodias . The play was produced in 1931 in England. The striking unethical and unsocial theme of death and orgasm approves Pater’s anti- idealist dictum that art knows nothing but art itself. Beardsley’s penchant for drawing hermaphrodite figures caused particular offence. (Bermúdez and Sebastian 127) This book represents the poetics of painting for “not the thing but the effect it produces” (Mallarmé. Correspondance, 1862–1871 , 1959; 137)

Wilde as Art for Art’s Sake critic defines criticism in terms of creativity akin to the creativity of an artist. Criticism, for Wilde, is itself an art. His book Intentions (1891) a collection of critical essays, justifies him as a critic. These essays, entitled “The Decay of Lying”, “The Critic as Artist”, “Pen, Pencil and Poison”, “The Truth of Masks”, “Portrait of Mr. W. H.” and “The Soul of Man” represent his philosophy of works of art. In these essays, he seems to defend art as a  free phenomenon and its handler, the artist as a free individual. As he thinks that “the true critic is unfair, insincere, and not rational …” and that, “… the highest criticism is that which reveals in the work of Art what the artist had not put there’. Such criticism ‘treats the work of art simply as a starting point for a new creation”. Criticism is ‘the purest form of personal expression”. Thus, Wilde thinks about criticism as restorer of beauty, taste, culture and that which an artist forgets to create in his creation.

James Abbott McNeill Whistler (1834-1903), American painter and etcher, followed Japanese  art styles, made technical innovations, and championed modern art. Many regard him as preeminent among etchers. His freelancing style of etching was not based on ideas of the society, problems of the politics or the nation but on the paramount vision of artistry. He had power to turn the classic into the avant-guard. He was an experimental user of erotic visual imageries. Aubrey Beardsley (1872-1898) is not familiar as a literary writer but an English visual artist. He was a fin-de-siècle sensitive young man associated with the Aestheticism. In his short life span (his productive career spanned only six years, died of TB at 25), Beardsley won fame for his epicene drawings. He was inspired of 19th century Aestheticians of France, Japanese printmakers and the pre-Raphaelite painters. His illustrations of erotic fantasy aroused a great controversy.  He was the art editor of a periodical The Yellow Book (1894-1895) and of The Savoy (1896);  both of these publications envisage his works. He illustrated well known aestheticians of the world: editions of Sir Thomas Malory’s Morte d’Arthur (1469-1470; 1893-1894); Oscar Wilde’s Salomé (1894); The Works of Edgar Allan Poe (1894-1895); Aristophanes’s Lysistrata (411 BC; 1896); and Ben Jonson’s Volpone (1606; 1898). His posthumously published Under the Hill (1904) contains the designed posters, wrote fiction, and poetry. They are remarkable for experimental visual art detached from moral purposes.

Arthur William Symons (1865-1945), the English literary critic and poet, was born in Wales and educated privately. Frank Kermode called him “sinister figure, a successful but dispassionate womanizer, and a secret homosexual” ( Forms of Attention 7). As an aesthete Symons defines the job of the artist, “The artist who is above all things an artist cultivates a little choice corner of himself with elaborate care; he brings miraculous flowers to growth there, but the rest of the garden is but mown grass or tangled bushes” ( Symbolist Movements 65) . Symons’s essay “The Decadent Movement in Art and Literature” published in Harpers Monthly Magazine in November 1893 characterizes the decadent style as a vision of tortured syntax, preciosity and linguistic experimentation for its own sake. He was a great admirer of the French symbolist poets, and he expounded their ideas in The Symbolist Movement in Literature (1899) and Charles Baudelaire (1920). In his poems collected in Days and Nights (1889) and Silhouettes (1892), he has practiced the subjective, emotional symbolist style. His The Romantic Movement in English Poetry (1909), Studies in the Elizabethan Drama (1920), and the autobiographical Confessions (1930) established him as critic of the decadent period. These critical stances rest on his idea of imperceptible capacities of the creative authors. In The Symbolist Movement in Literature (1899), he praised the abnormal experimentation of the poets (esp. of symbolists). His experimental  images and artistry shown in London Nights met with a torrent of abuse. Symons characterizes the Decadent sensibility in relation to the aim of aestheticism:

It is typical of a civilisation grown over-luxurious, over-inquiring, too languid for the relief of action, too uncertain for any emphasis in opinion or in conduct. It reflects all the moods, all the manners of a sophisticated society; its very artificiality is a way of being true to nature; simplicity, sanity, proportion – the classic qualities – how much do we possess them in our life, our surroundings, that we should look to find them in our literature – so evidently the literature of a decadence. (Quoted in “The Concept of Decadence” Art and Morality 118)

Symons praised the madness of Gerard de Nerval, a pseudonym of G. Labrunie (1808-55), as the visionary character of creative artists. He says, “we owe to the fortunate accident of madness one of the foundations of what may be called the practical aesthetics of Symbolism.” (50) Symons appreciated Villiers for the unpopularity of his work. He thinks that he “has no pathos… his mind is too abstract to contain pity, and it is in his lack of pity that he seems to put himself outside humanity.” He described Rimbound’s unique quality for ‘his mind was not the mind of the artist but of the man of action. He was a dreamer, but all his dreams were discoveries. He is a man with “the spilt wisdom of the drunkard.”

Critical Reception of “Art for Art’s Sake” or Aestheticism

The writers and artists who believe in the morality, fanaticism, responsibility of authors as social activists, propagandist, and as men of social values, they will never appreciate the doctrines of Art for Art’s Sake. The reason is that it emphasizes on the significance of the power of artistry manifested in Art; and that it inspires the artist to make a trivial thing the elevated. Art for Art’s Sake teaches the artist how to make the heinous or the repulsive desire the attractive, how to  manifest the bizarre or immoral things which seems devastative to human life in the most beautiful manner. It opposes to all instrumentalist theories of art. For example, Henry James condemns Gautier’s preface and criticized Baudelaire calling him a mere sensationalist. In “Gustave Flaubert,” he disapproved the principles of “art for art” for its detachment from morality and the responsibility of an artist i.e. to expose the inner or outer reality of human life. Its creed seemed to him to exhibit “a most injurious disbelief in the illimitable alchemy of art.” 

Thomas Stearns Eliot suggests, in “Experiment in Criticism” (1929), to read the English classics from instrumentalist points of view, and to assess the greatness of the art in literature. He epitomizes Art for Art’s Sake:

If you read carefully the famous epilogue in Pater’s Studies in the Renaissance you will see that ‘art for art’s sake’ means nothing less than art as a substitute for everything else, and as a purveyor of emotions and sensations which belong to life rather than to art … I think we should return again and again to the critical writings of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, to remind ourselves of that simple truth that literature is primarily literature, a means of refined and intellectual pleasure.

One year later, in “Arnold and Pater” (1930) collected in Selected Essays (1932; 1951-2) Eliot justifies ‘Art for Art’s Sake’ as an offspring of the moral visions and literary culture of Arnold, Carlyle and Ruskin. He discards the charges made against Pater’s Renaissance and defied to concede Pater’s connection with the discourse of his contemporary Art for Art’s Sake. He also thinks about ‘art for art’s sake’ as failure practice because it is fruitless for the audience.

The theory (if it can be called a theory) of ‘art for art’s sake’ is still valid in so far as it can be taken as an exhortation to the artist to stick to rules job; it never was and never can be valid for the spectator, reader or auditor.

Saintsbury praised the courage to artifice the new subject in the most beautiful manner. He says in 1895 “The whole end, aim, and object of literature … as of all art … is beauty.” (Richardson, Saintsbury and Art for Art’s Sake in England)

Art for Art’s Sake After 1960  

Michel Foucault, referentially, denies art for art’s sake thought. He talks of ‘aesthetics of existence’ ‘stylistics of existence’; metaphysics of the study of ‘existence as beautiful form’ is overshadowed by the history of subjectivity and the history of metaphysics and history of ideas devised to give ‘form to things, substances, colors, lights, sounds, and words.’ In other words, Foucault anticipates that aesthetics of art lies in describing the beauty of existence. He says, “This aesthetics of existence is an historical object which should not be neglected in favor of metaphysics of the soul or an aesthetics of things and words”

Edward W. Said has defined art and literature in terms of representation of the epochs, periods, and intellectual resistance. He appreciates Joyce’s Stephen as an artist for he has “resistant intellectual consciousness.” He equates the artist’s performance with intellectual performance. Artist, for him, is an intellectual being who advances ‘human freedom and knowledge.’ He condemned Flaubert’s The Sentimental Education for the artist’s “critique of intellectuals” and explained Deane’s unique idea about the nature of Dedalus. Said says, “Neither the protagonists of Dickens, nor Thackeray, nor Austen, nor Hardy, nor even George Eliot are young  men and women whose major concern is the life of the mind in society, whereas for young Dedalus “thinking is a mode of experiencing the world.” For him, the function of the artist is to develop “a resistant intellectual consciousness” (Said 16) in the reader. The artist should also develop “a resistant intellectual consciousness … before he can become the artist.” (Said 16) His thought of “a resistant intellectual consciousness” in artist witnesses what he further says:

After all, many novelists, painters, and poets, like Manzoni, Picasso, or Neruda, have embodied the historical experience of their people in aesthetic works, which in turn become recognized as great masterpieces. For the intellectual the task, I believe , is explicitly to universalize the crisis, to give greater human scope to what a particular race or nation suffered, to associate that experience with the sufferings of others.

Emmanuel Levinas in “Reality and its Shadow” deplores aesthetics of Art for Art’s Sake rudely. “The formula is false inasmuch as it situates art above reality and recognizes no master for it, and it is immoral inasmuch as it liberates the artist from his duties as a man and assures him of a pretentious and facile nobility… Art does not know a particular type of reality; it contrasts with knowledge.’

Jean-Francois Lyotard’s essay “An Answer to the Question: What is the Postmodern?” characterizes the aesthetics in terms of the postmodernism. For him, the social system is not representable; it does not capacitate to anyone or any source to envision itself at all. It is a challenge for art, and art takes stand against this challenge. For Lyotard, Art is potential to demonstrate world that is a discontinuous, and that is made of failure system. The job of an artist is to demonstrate this failure system. He deploys aesthetics style in defining postmodernism. Lyotard is a great admirer of Kant and Kantian tradition of the theory of sublime and beauty. For him, the formulation of the sublime is potential to present “the existence of something  unpresentable.” Postmodernism explains the threads of recurring images of the modernism that represents the failure of its attempt to present the human mind and society as they are. For this failure, postmodernism had to come in action to cope with challenges of which Modernism remained an unfinished project. This is one of the reasons for the postmodernist art seems unrepresentable. It is matter to note that the Aesthetes were also experiencing the unpresentable human society and life. Baudelaire and his followers have already illustrated the idea that everything is hieroglyphic. Lyotard differentiates the modernist and postmodernist art based on his reading of Proust and Joyce. The attributes he gives to postmodernist art are identical to the artistry of writers belonging to Art for Art’s Sake or Aestheticism. The postmodern art inquiries into new presentations – not to take pleasure in them, but to better produce the feeling that there is something unpresentable.” 

A famous illustrator of books for children Sarah Garland (2008) defends and asserts that ‘far from being a de-humanized, aestheticism here offers a complex knot of human concerns. It offers an interrogation of the values and responsibilities of subjectivity, the place of desire, objects, and appearances in the most intimate levels of consciousness, and a nexus of dilemmas about class, power, taste, and interpretation’ (2008: 205)

• Baudelaire, Charles. Paris Spleen & La Fanfarlo . Hackett. 2008. Xxvi.
• Beardsley, Monroe C., Aesthetics: Problems in the Philosophy of Criticism . New York: Harcourt Brace. 1958. Print.
• Bradley, A. C., “Poetry for Poetry’s Sake.” Oxford Lectures on Poetry . London: Macmillan, 3–36. 1909. Print.
• Bermúdez, José Luis and Sebastian Gardner, Art and Morality (2003) Routledge, 2005. 127. Print.
• Davies, Stephen et al. (1992) Companion to Aesthetics . Blackwell. 2009. Print. Eliot, T.S. Selected Essay . London: Faber & Faber. 1919. Print.
• —        “Experiment in Criticism” The Bookman ed. Seward Collins. Vol. LXX. November 1929. No. 3. Pp. 226-27
• Ellman, Richard. Oscar Wilde . Harmondsworth: Penguin. 1987. Print.
• Forster, E. M. “Art for Art’s Sake.” Two Cheers for Democracy . New York: Harcourt Brace & World, 88–95. 1951. Print.
• Foucault, M. The Courage of the Truth (2008). Ed. by Frédéric Gros. Trans. Graham Burchell. Palgrave 2011. UK.
• Garland, Sarah. “ “This temptation to be undone …” Sontag, Barthes, and the Uses of Style” ”. Art and Life in Aestheticism: De-Humanizing or Re-Humanizing Art . Ed. Kelly Comfort. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan Ltd. 2008. Print.

Notes of an Aesthete

Art for Art’s Sake in the New Century

A french history of the concept, nietzsche’s stance, and artists of the paleolithic.

For as long as it has been articulated, the concept of “art for art’s sake” has been dismissed as degenerate and trivial. But is it obsolete? Ask the question of artists today and the response will most likely be equivocal; ask it within an arts institution and the answer will almost certainly be “Yes: dead and gone.”

That we are living through a period in which the mainstream attitude toward the arts is stridently utilitarian is undeniable. An artwork’s social, political, or moral function is seen to be its essence. The expectation that artworks instruct, that they generate audiences with commitments and produce results for the present, is widely operative. Critics bestow the words “relevant” and “urgent” on books, films, and exhibitions as the highest praise. One might consider the postponing of painter Philip Guston’s retrospective in 2020 by four world-class museums, on the basis of the artist’s own political beliefs not being made explicit enough in the show, as emblematic of the time. Earlier that year, chastised by a swath of the poetry community for being “unfit to respond to the crises of our times” (crises including the “genocide against Black people”), the Poetry Foundation solemnly apologized for its “institutional silence,” pushed out its president and board chairman, announced a five-step process to addressing its “debts to Black poets,” and pledged to redirect funds to a host of social justice efforts. Writers and artists today seeking private funding would be wise to frame their work as attending to issues such as inequality, incarceration, repair, activism, and the violence of U.S. imperialism, judging by those who were named 2021 MacArthur Foundation fellows. 

The current priorities of arts institutions are signaled in part by their recent hires and the statements that accompany them. Leading art school RISD has selected for its new president the diversity, equity, and inclusion head of Boston University for her “deep commitment to leading change”: “Art, education, and equity and justice are the three foundational focuses of my life,” she said in the announcement. The Serpentine Gallery’s new director of curatorial affairs has pointed to the role of museums in “today’s imperative to attend to the most vulnerable and disenfranchised in society while dismantling white supremacy.” Two newly hired deputy directors at the Brooklyn Museum will further the institution’s “social-change efforts” and “develop a sustained, multiyear strategy to engage audiences around issues . . . including mass criminalization and climate change.” The museum also has a new president, who stated her commitments upon her appointment: “From a very young age I dreamed of leading a cultural institution, not only for my love of the arts but for the power of the arts to enact social change.” Curator of the 2023 Liverpool Biennial has been chosen on the basis of her “longstanding curatorial concerns around care and repair.” A recent profile in ARTnews of Elizabeth Alexander, head of the Mellon Foundation, says she has been “transforming . . . the nation’s largest funder of the arts and humanities, since she became president in 2018, by [in Alexander’s words] ‘doing all the work, every penny, through a social justice lens.’”

Our utilitarian era, as “change”-oriented as it is, must be historicized. Little about the imperatives newly governing the contemporary art and book worlds is new. The utilitarians are not so inventive. Throughout the 20th century in the democratic West, art movements driven by political and social messaging in pursuit of change have enjoyed widespread popularity among the public and, sooner or later, institutional backing. What was considered valuable about individual artworks was their ability to diagnose, address, and even remedy social ills. Leftist muralists and printmakers of the thirties and feminist performance artists of the seventies have their places in the history of art. Possibly what distinguishes the status of art today is the seeming rush by institutions to align themselves with the change-demanders. But even this phenomenon—whether driven by market forces, the sincere ethical commitments of provosts and executives, or something else—is far from historically unique. The Fireside poets (Longfellow, Bryant, Holmes, and Whittier) are near equivalents to the popular political poets of today, when one looks beyond their race and gender. Both then and now, these are poets acclaimed by institutions; their faces grace magazines; they teach at private universities. These are poems of the classroom—topical, moral, frequently (in the old and new definitions of the term) abolitionist.

How best to elucidate our time, to make clear the values that are obsolete and those that are alive? Which values should we claim and promote? Art for art’s sake appears to be a thoroughly neglected concept, bordering on the taboo. Yet the history of l’art pour l’art in France is not only fascinating but notably instructive. The origins and usage of the term by artists, critics, and intellectuals from the 1810s through to the 1860s are specific to the period. But the concept itself, I posit, is not historical or antiquated but has eternal life. We are subjects of our time: Consciousness, the self, social relations are all conditioned. We require concepts for understanding ourselves and the world—including the world of art—that are particular to now, whenever now is. The contours of art for art’s sake can and should be redrawn for the present. Engaging with the various adoptions and repudiations of l’art pour l’art in 19th-century France can help us in doing so.

Lovers of art in this century: There is every reason for you to espouse art for art’s sake.

Coming upon a reference to how Charles Baudelaire or Arthur Rimbaud spoke disparagingly of l’art pour l’art will naturally colour a person’s feelings about the term. After all, these are two of our most aesthetically important modern poets in the art form’s genealogy, whose writings were consequential not only for the generations of French writers that followed them but also for international Modernism in the 20th century. Were Baudelaire and Rimbaud wrong ? A better question is, What exactly were they criticizing?

We must go back to before either was born. Artists associated with the Romantic movement in France dominated for the first five decades of the 19th century. (Any discussion of artistic movements or groups, rather than discussion of individual artists’ projects, can obscure more than it reveals. However, throughout the 19th century French artists, especially writers, often overtly associated themselves with various groups, so some generalizations are worth making.) Romanticism in music, painting, sculpture, and literature arose during the period of social turmoil following the French Revolution and in reaction to the previous era of Neoclassicism in the arts. Romantic artists shunned the Enlightenment ideals of reason and order; many of them glorified nature. More stringent definitions are not especially helpful, but it’s fair to say that by midcentury, literary Romanticism’s abandonment of fixed forms was coupled with an embrace of personal, emotional, and politically or morally minded subject matters. With the fall of the Bourbon Restoration in 1830 and the unrest it precipitated, some Romantic writers doubled down on their commitment to serving society: George Sand championed “proletarian” literature; poet Alphonse de Lamartine entered politics and helped found the Second Republic; Victor Hugo wrote novels, poems, and plays in defense of the poor and oppressed.

Amid this era of social Romanticism, the concept of l’art pour l’art takes off. The most ardent broadcaster of the term is Théophile Gautier—on the one hand a Romantic and anticlassical writer, on the other a public opposer of utilitarianism in art, who declares in the preface to an 1835 novel, “All that is useful is ugly.” L’art pour l’art has been circulating among French litterateurs for a couple of decades, since émigré writers Madame de Staël and Benjamin Constant returned to France from Germany, bringing with them news from the German literary and philosophical scenes, including news about the latest aesthetic theories. A professor and one of de Staël’s readers, Victor Cousin visited some of those German thinkers, pored over an eclectic mix of philosophical works, and from 1818 started lecturing to huge audiences back in Paris on aesthetics and espousing l’art pour l’art : “We must have . . . art for art’s sake,” he told audiences at the Sorbonne. “The beautiful cannot be the way to what is useful, or to what is good, or to what is holy; it leads only to itself.”

By 1860 a new generation of writers—tired of Romantic lyric poetry’s preoccupation with emotional subjectivity, tired of sentimentality, and tired of the demand that literature serve society—come to align themselves with Gautier. The group calls itself le Parnasse , the Parnassians (after Mount Parnassus, home of the Muses in Greek mythology). Aesthetically, the Parnassians turn back to Neoclassicism; they embrace the strict old metrical forms over the lax prosody of Romantic verse. They write impersonal poems, precise as clear-cut gems, on the subject of beautiful things. And like Gautier, they present themselves as endorsers of art for art’s sake.

We come to see it is the Parnassians whom Baudelaire and Rimbaud disparage. In the Parnassian usage, the l’art pour l’art slogan has come to mean, on the one hand, an elevation of formal technique over content and, on the other, emotional vacancy. Neither Baudelaire nor Rimbaud has given his life over to poetry only to treat the art form as an arena for demonstrating skill. It is no mystery why both poets, committed as they are to the imagination, to the ecstasies and torments of the spirit, resist; why Baudelaire calls the art-for-art’s-sake school “sterile” and a “puerile utopia”; why Rimbaud can submit poems to the Parnassians at age fifteen and rail against them a year later in his lettres du voyant . To Rimbaud, the failure of contemporary verse is clear: “We require new ideas and forms of our poets.” Shunning the l’art pour l’art movement, in this period in France, is in no way equivalent to denying the autonomy of art.

Ah— but Baudelaire never insists on the separation of art from its social context, and Rimbaud is inspired by the Paris Commune, scholars will retort. This assertion confuses social criticism, rebellion against sexual mores, support for revolting workers, and attacks on bourgeois values with promotion of a political agenda. Neither poet in his literary works ever had anything close to an activist agenda. But such scholars also would have us think of both men as politico-aesthetic theorists first and poets second.

Deep in their ideologies, academics have long tried to explain away art for art’s sake in the period as a mistaken concept. Some, beholden to the more enervating strains of Marxist critique, have argued l’art pour l’art can be understood as market-driven, as though art is no different from journalism or factory parts. Still others have written off the Parnassian and Symbolist movements as forebears of Surrealism in their shunning of “real life”—in favour, presumably, of some other, fake sort of life. If this critique sounds resolutely utilitarian, that’s because it is. Today’s academics will tend to argue that art for art’s sake is nonviable because they are desperate to see their own work as socially responsible.

What both Baudelaire and Rimbaud do insist is that artists can take on anything as their subject matter. Today’s aesthete—the nonutilitarian lover of art—knows the significance of this imperative, without which Modernism will never go on to happen. No subject is off-limits to Baudelaire and Rimbaud! Their paying attention to marginalized figures does not make them political poets.   

Baudelaire:

A crowd of people think that the goal of poetry is a kind of lesson, that it must fortify the conscience, perfect social mores, and ultimately demonstrate in some way or another its utility. Poetry, provided that one is willing to descend into oneself, interrogate one’s soul, recall one’s memories of enthusiasm, has no other goal than Itself. . . . I don’t mean that poetry doesn’t ennoble our mores—let me be understood—or that its final result is not to elevate humankind above the level of vulgar interests; that would be an evident absurdity. I mean that if the poet pursues a moral goal, it diminishes his poetic power; and it would not be imprudent to bet that his work will be bad. (“Théophile Gautier” in L’Artiste , 1859)

L’art pour l’art is free of the Parnassian baggage for other artists. As an expression of belief in the autonomy of art, and a refusal to value art on the basis of its political, religious, or moral utility, the concept appeals to stylistically diverse writers and painters. (Asserting his commitment to social justice, Hugo in 1864 makes the rather insipid statement, “Art for art’s sake can be beautiful, but art for progress is more beautiful.”) In the visual arts, the concept is adopted particularly by those who oppose the new Realist movement, itself a turn away from Romanticism. Novelist Émile Zola, writing in 1866, invokes art for art’s sake in celebration of Édouard Manet, who is helping usher in Impressionism, the great development in painting after Realism: “One must not judge him as a moralist or as a writer; one must judge him as a painter. . . . He knows neither how to sing nor how to philosophize. He knows how to paint, and that’s it.” No moralizing veil overlays Manet’s images, which are not allegorical or drawn from history. Manet paints scenes from his social environment, but not as a documentarian. He cares about the image, the experience of beholding the image, and the paint.

A close friend of Manet’s, poet Stéphane Mallarmé comes to be closely associated with le symbolisme , France’s late 19th-century Symbolist movement. In 1891 Mallarmé will describe Symbolism’s departure from other poetic modes: The Parnassians disappoint because their poems “lack mystery; they steal from readers’ minds the delicious joy of believing that they create.” With Mallarmé, the “art for art’s sake” concept becomes articulated in the ideal of “pure” art, l’oeuvre pure . For him there are two types of language—that of “elementary discourse,” which is descriptive, utilitarian, and brute; and that of poetry, “which is primarily dream and song” and is essential.

“But this ‘art for art’s sake’ business did not spontaneously begin with the French,” philosophically minded critics will insist. In tracing the concept’s history, we are not helped by those thinkers who construe every noteworthy idea from 1800 onward as a bastardization of something first expressed by Immanuel Kant. Exactly how many paintings did he see in Königsberg before forming his theory of aesthetic judgment? In their visits to Germany, de Staël, Constant, and Cousin had become acquainted with aspects of Kant’s aesthetic theories, as well as those of philosophers Schiller and Schelling. This fact aside, it does not follow that any culture’s or individual’s appreciation of art necessarily owes much at all to these thinkers. Try as the art lover might, she will find Kant’s writings of little help when developing her own aesthetic sensibility. In the first place, Kant proposes in his 1790 Critique of Judgment an analysis of aesthetic judgment that is concerned not with art but instead with beauty. But we go on. For Kant, aesthetic judgments are unlike other judgments—say, about what things one likes or about what is morally good—in that aesthetic judgments are “disinterested,” meaning they are “merely contemplative” and “indifferent to the existence of the object.” The kind of pleasure one takes in beautiful things depends on the harmonious play of one’s imagination and understanding. And while beautiful things do not serve any presupposed purpose—that is, they do not serve as means to any ends—still they have the quality of “formal purposiveness.”

Why are not aesthetes drawn to unifying theories of art? you may wonder. Building on his assertion that beauty is “purposive without a purpose,” Kant goes on to relate how beautiful things are, indeed, “purposive in reference to the moral feeling .” So while it’s true that one’s aesthetic judgments are disinterested, so too is it true that engaging with art makes one grow as a moral and social being. From there, Kant goes on to argue in his closing passages for the binding together of beauty and ethics. For the individual, art —he tells us— civilizes . This dubious idea is totally alive among artists and audiences today. We hear it expressed by those novelists and filmmakers who will plainly state that their intention is to improve and educate their readers and viewers.

I hope a short, two-part retort will suffice. For Kant the faculties involved in aesthetic judgment are imagination and understanding—and not, specifically, the faculty of cognition. Whereas for the aesthete, or really anyone capable of being affected by an artwork, responding to art involves a whole range of attentivenesses, all working in combination: the spiritual, emotional, psychological, sensual, and intellectual.

Second, the person who cares about art, who has no doubt that experiences of art have made her life more worthwhile, in an instinctual way understands aesthetics not as a series of principles she holds but as an activity she carries out. It is by aesthetics that she lives her life. In comparison to her are those who don’t care about art, whose lives have not been enriched by artworks, and for whom aesthetics might at best be something of a philosophical posture.

Regrettably, writing in the early 20th century, Walter Benjamin misrepresented the Baudelairean figure, the modern flâneur, as one alienated by modern life. Sociologists from midcentury to the present have similarly argued that art for art’s sake reflects the alienation of the artist in bourgeois society. Baudelaire, however, wrote of the modern artist in no such way. His flâneur is explicitly not a dandy—not indifferent, not an idle wanderer— but “ruled by an insatiable passion.” His is more accurately a Nietzschean figure, a passionate lover of life.

Nietzsche himself, writing in 1888, took issue with the idea of l’art pour l’art , and in the process advanced what might be considered a different but related concept, what we might term “art for life’s sake.” In Nietzsche’s words:

The struggle against purpose in art is always a struggle against the moralizing tendency in art, against the subordination of art to morality.  L’art pour l’art means: “the devil take morality!” — But this very hostility betrays that moral prejudice is still dominant. When one has excluded from art the purpose of moral preaching and human improvement it by no means follows that art is completely purposeless, goalless, meaningless. . . . Art is the great stimulus to life: how could it be thought purposeless, aimless, l’art pour l’art ? ( Twilight of the Idols )

I adore the vigour of Nietzsche’s statement—again, what might be expressed as “art for life’s sake.” I struggle to challenge or correct it. That art is the great stimulus to life, its great validator—that the appreciation of art gives purpose and value to life—is a tenet absolutely held by art lovers.

It is not my project here to offer a full definition of “life” in Nietzsche’s terms. Certainly Nietzsche was concerned with how we live, how our minds and days are shaped for and by us.  For the aesthete’s purposes, “life” in “art for life’s sake” need not be abstract but can instead refer to the finite and brief life of the individual art lover. For her, deriving meaning from artworks involves hours upon hours of attention and the slow cultivation of taste, art-historical knowledge, and an aesthetic sensibility.

And yet: What “art for life’s sake” does not encapsulate is, for the aesthete, the singularly important fact of art’s autonomy. Art—for the art lover, and intrinsic to her appreciation of artworks—has its own life, an inorganic vitality. The life of art is entwined with but separable from the life of humankind. Art’s genealogy, stretching back through the centuries and millennia, is alive at every point, along every line of descendance. Older art does not “live on” in what succeeds it, but lives ; its insights are obtainable always. Unlike individuals and institutions, species and social systems, great art never dies, dissolves, or goes extinct. Long after the artist and his way of being in the world are gone, great art remains.

Ultimately, the aesthete appreciates great artworks not only because of what they do for her but because of what they are, and what they have made—or will make—possible for the future of their artistic medium. Recognition of this fact makes the “art for art’s sake” formulation necessarily true for the present.

Finally, I do have a small disagreement with Nietzsche on the purported “hostility” of l’art pour l’art . The inaccuracy of this claim—that the concept betrays itself as a reaction against “moral prejudice . . . still dominant”—is easier to see from the vantage point of the early 21st century, and can be shown by reflecting, briefly, on the deep history of art.

Simply stated, for those artists who believe in the autonomy of art, their creations do not need or seek any external justification. The “art for art’s sake” expression is, in one language or another, most likely a few centuries old. But the foundational concept under consideration—that of appreciating or making art for its own sake—is every bit as old as the first artworks, which is to say, far older than society and its groupings, certainly older than the self (a later invention). A simple desire courses through the blood of our species: to make , to make things other than tools , and not just because particular problems need to be solved but because it is in our nature to make . Possibly all hominins shared with us this drive.

Neanderthals, we’re learning , made some of the oldest known cave paintings. A zigzag pattern scratched with a shark tooth into a mussel shell around five hundred thousand years ago, which experts disagree on whether to consider the earliest example of art, was made by someone of the homo erectus species, an ancestor to Neanderthals and us both. As long as three million years ago, our prehuman ancestors were collecting stones, minerals, shells, and fossils for their visual and tactile qualities, for their weight, colours, and shapes. Early humans, unfulfilled by nature’s pleasing objects, later began working nature’s products through sculpture and marking for nonutilitarian purposes. Cupules, indentations made in rock by pecking, would evolve from the first artists’ gestures into abstract forms, then on to the earliest figurative engravings . Incidental marks found on animal bones became the basis of carved geometric patterns.

The archaeological record shows how gradually across the planet, over hundreds of millennia, artistic phenomena emerged, withdrew, spread, and developed. By the Upper Paleolithic, humans were creating figurative art objects and cave paintings, works often of overwhelming majesty and naturalism that demonstrate irrefutably the refinement of those artists. What symbolic or mystical significance art held for Paleolithic people can only be guessed at, but we do know that their spiritual concerns were independent of their need for survival.

From early in the life of the species, the human imagination, our spirit, has found expression in aesthetic and symbolic gestures. Because of this deep history of ours, the “art for art’s sake” concept always will be best understood not as reactive—in rejecting this or that political, social, or moral dictate—but as active : generative, innate, spirit-affirming . It is the original value system of art.

Ready for more?

Oscar Wilde on Art for Art's Sake

George p. landow.

[ Victorian Web Home —> Authors —> Aesthetes and Decadents —> Oscar Wilde —> Liteary relations ]

Wilde continues: “It is superbly sterile, and the note of its pleasure is its sterility.” Wilde, as in so much of his writing, here follows John Ruskin , who argued against both didactic art and the commonplace eighteenth-century theory that beauty in art and nature derive from utility. Wilde characteristically continues by asserting that “if the contemplation of a work of art is followed by activity of any kind, the work is either of a very second-rate order, or the spectator has failed to realise the complete artistic impression” (478). Again, one can see that Wilde does not want to function as propaganda or indoctrination, but given that, according to him, art creates a mood, it cannot be sterile, superbly or otherwise.

The sloganeering continues when Wilde adds in his second and last paragraph that “A work of art is useless as a flower is useless. A flower blossoms for its own joy. We gain a moment of joy by looking at it. That is all that is to be said about our relations to flowers. Of course man may sell the flower, and so make it useful to him, but this has nothing to do with the flower. It is not part of its essence. It is accidental, It is a misuse. All this is very obscure. But the subject is a long one” (478-79). Yes, it is, but Wilde here doesn't manage to rise above naive sentimentalism, for flowers do not blossom for their “own joy” — the very notion lapses into what Ruskin called the Pathetic (that is, emotional) Fallacy . In fact, flowers exist in a complex network of relations with their environment that includes other organisms. Throughout their history flowering plants entered into complex symbiotic relationships with insects. Later in their history, millions of years after they first evolved, they engaged human beings who worked hard to cultivate and develop flowers for their beauty. By ignoring these complex relationships, which provide the context of floral beauty, Wilde reveals the essential superficiality of the notion of art for art's sake.

Wilde of course does not really believe in Art for Art's Sake, something he makes in his richer works from “The Decay of Lying” to De Profundis .

Related material

• Aesthetes, Decadents, and the Idea of Art for Art's Sake

Bibliography

Wilde, Oscar. The Complete Letters . Ed. Merlin Holland and Rupert Hart-Davis. London: Fourth Estate, 2000.

Last modified 18 November 2017

• Subscriber Services
• For Authors
• Publications
• Archaeology
• Art & Architecture
• Bilingual dictionaries
• Classical studies
• Encyclopedias
• English Dictionaries and Thesauri
• Language reference
• Linguistics
• Media studies
• Medicine and health
• Names studies
• Performing arts
• Science and technology
• Social sciences
• Society and culture
• Overview Pages
• Subject Reference
• English Dictionaries
• Bilingual Dictionaries

Recently viewed (0)

• Save Search

Edited by: Dinah Birch  and Katy Hooper

• Find at OUP.com
• Google Preview
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Related Content

In this work.

• Pater, Walter Horatio (1839–94)
• Aesthetic movement
• Wilde, Oscar (1854–1900)
• Dowson, Ernest (1867–1900)
• Johnson, Lionel Pigot (1867–1902)
• Symons, Arthur William (1865–1945)
• Swinburne, Algernon Charles (1837–1909)
• Abbreviations
• Publishing Information
• General Links for this Work
• Contributors
• Poets Laureate
• Children's Laureates
• Literary Awards

art for art's sake  

A phrase associated with the aesthetic doctrine that art is self‐sufficient and need serve no moral or political purpose. The phrase ... ...

Access to the complete content on Oxford Reference requires a subscription or purchase. Public users are able to search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter without a subscription.

Please subscribe or login to access full text content.

If you have purchased a print title that contains an access token, please see the token for information about how to register your code.

For questions on access or troubleshooting, please check our FAQs , and if you can''t find the answer there, please contact us .

• Oxford University Press

PRINTED FROM OXFORD REFERENCE (www.oxfordreference.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2023. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single entry from a reference work in OR for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice ).

date: 15 April 2024

• Cookie Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility
• [66.249.64.20|185.148.24.167]
• 185.148.24.167

Character limit 500 /500

Art For Art’s Sake: The Philosophy of Creating Art Beyond Practical Purpose

• Art History Timeline
• Renaissance
• Renaissance Humanism
• Northern Renaissance
• High Renaissance
• Early Renaissance
• Neoclassicism
• Romanticism
• Art Nouveau
• Kinetic Art
• Post-Impressionism
• Primitivism
• Abstract Expressionism
• Avant-Garde
• Conceptual Art
• Constructivism
• Expressionism
• Harlem Renaissance
• Magical Realism
• Suprematism
• Contemporary Art
• Installation Art
• Photorealism
• British Pop Art
• Performance Art

Art for art’s sake is a philosophy that champions creative expression as its own reward.

It’s a pure approach, where the value of art is not tied to any moral, political, or utilitarian function.

We’ll jump into this aesthetic doctrine that emerged as a rebellious whisper in the 19th century and has since become a defining mantra for many artists.

In our journey, we’ll explore how this concept has influenced various art forms, from painting and sculpture to literature and music, and why it remains a compelling argument in today’s art world.

Stay with us as we uncover the essence of creating beauty just for the sake of beauty.

The Philosophy Of Art For Art’s Sake

Our deep jump into the philosophy of Art for Art’s Sake reveals a rich tapestry of ideals centered on purity in creative expression.

At its core, this philosophy champions the idea that the intrinsic value of art should be separated from any didactic, moral, or functional duties.

It’s an invitation to view art as its own entity, free from the constraints of societal obligations and utilitarian demands.

Interestingly, this concept isn’t confined to a single form or era; it permeates across multiple disciplines, from the luscious oil paintings of the Renaissance to the rebellious street art of the modern cityscape.

• Key ideals in Art for Art’s Sake: * Art’s intrinsic value separate from moral or functional roles * Creative freedom without societal constraints * Recognition of art as an autonomous entity.

Our exploration of art would be incomplete without acknowledging the profound influence of this philosophy on various art movements.

From Impressionism to Dadaism, artists have been propelled by the desire to create works that stand alone, without the need for justifications or explanations.

It promises a sanctuary where beauty can flourish without an agenda, allowing each creation to exist solely for our amusement and wonder.

In the current landscape, the ongoing relevance of Art for Art’s Sake is undeniable.

Even as the digital era ushers in new forms of art with avant-garde techniques, the foundational quest for beauty remains untainted.

It’s a reminder that Even though the evolving mediums and methods, the essence of art persists – an evergreen homage to aesthetics that need no purpose other than to simply be.

Influences On Various Art Forms

In dissecting the expansive reach of the “art for art’s sake” philosophy, we’ve witnessed its profound influence on a multitude of art forms.

In visual arts, it propelled the creation of movements like Impressionism and Abstract Expressionism , where artists like Claude Monet and Jackson Pollock revolutionized artistic expression.

These movements prioritized aesthetic value and emotional resonance over narrative or moral messages, showcasing the pure essence of color and form.

In literature, figures such as Oscar Wilde and Edgar Allan Poe became icons for embracing this philosophy, crafting works that explored the beauty of language and provocative storytelling.

Their masterpieces, like The Picture of Dorian Gray and The Raven , serve as prime examples of how language and structure can be manipulated to deliver an experience that exists solely for its own sake.

Within the realm of film, we find directors such as Federico Fellini and Jean – Luc Godard , whose films exemplify the idea that a cinematic piece should captivate with visual splendor, innovative techniques, and unique narratives.

Films like La Dolce Vita and Breathless defy traditional storytelling, emphasizing mood, character, and the director’s personal style over explicit plots or character motivations.

• Visual Arts – Fostered movements like Impressionism – Emphasized aesthetics and emotional impact,
• Literature – Celebrated beauty and structure in the narrative – Created enduring and evocative masterpieces,
• Cinema – Pioneered innovative cinematic techniques – Focused on mood, style, and directorial vision.

The persistent exploration of the “art for art’s sake” credo has also made its mark on modern digital art and the evolving field of video game design, where the sensorial magnitude and interactivity forge an unparalleled immersive experience.

Titles like Journey and digital installations by teamLab immerse audiences in worlds crafted purely for sensory wonder, untethered by the constraints of conventional storytelling or practical function.

Through these various mediums, the core tenet of “art for art’s sake” cascades like a reverberating echo— it’s not merely a historical concept but a living, breathing force in contemporary creative endeavors.

It affirms our belief that sometimes, beauty and expression are paramount , transcending utility, didacticism, and narrative.

The Impact Of Art For Art’s Sake In Literature

The “art for art’s sake” philosophy deeply influenced the world of literature, redefining the boundaries between written words and their aesthetic qualities.

Literature became a canvas for authors to paint with prose, unconstrained by didactic objectives or moral teachings.

We see this impact vividly in the works of Oscar Wilde, whose novel The Picture of Dorian Gray defies traditional moral structures, focusing instead on the beauty and decadence of the narrative.

Writers such as Edgar Allan Poe took the mantra to heart, crafting stories and poems that elevated style and sound to an art form in itself.

Poe’s The Raven , with its rhythmic cadence and internal rhyme, reflects beauty in the sound of words, showcasing how sound can evoke emotional responses just as visual art does.

The reach of “art for art’s sake” extended beyond individual works, fostering entire movements that celebrated linguistic artistry:

• Symbolism revolutionized poetry by valuing mystique over explicit meaning.
• Aestheticism promoted the idea that the experience of beauty was the most important aspect of literature.
• Modernism broke with traditional forms, emphasizing innovation and experimentation.

The ideas sown by “art for art’s sake” continued to germinate, spreading their roots into the soil of contemporary writing.

Today, the narrative techniques and thematic focuses pioneered by early adopters of the philosophy are foundational in various literary genres.

Novels, poems, and even short stories often prioritize the sensory experience of language, the rhythm, and the flow, affirming that literature is not merely a vehicle for conveying ideas but also an artistic exploration of form and beauty.

Art For Art’s Sake In The Modern Art World

In current times, art created purely for aesthetic appreciation continues to thrive, often reflecting the core of the “art for art’s sake” philosophy.

We see a significant footprint in various mediums from installations to digital art forms.

Artists like Jeff Koons and Damien Hirst captivate audiences with art that often divorces from conventionality and societal themes.

Their works, like Balloon Dog or For the Love of God , serve as contemporary symbols of art’s autonomy.

Films and visual media also embody this philosophy, with directors like Wes Anderson and Pedro Almodóvar using stylistic storytelling that emphasizes visual grandeur over narrative.

Movies such as The Grand Budapest Hotel project an idiosyncratic aesthetic that is distinct and memorable.

These films prioritize a sensual experience that stands alone from plot-driven storytelling, highlighting craftsmanship in filmmaking.

The influence of “art for art’s sake” is evident in:

• Innovative uses of color and form that prioritize sensory experience,
• Non-linear narratives that focus on the medium’s possibilities,
• Creative freedom that challenges conventional desires for storytelling and utility.

Even though the inevitable interplay of art with politics, society, and economy, there’s still a strong argument for art existing primarily for its own sake within the modern art world.

Artists and filmmakers echo the aesthetics-led approach, ensuring that our cultural landscape remains rich with works that challenge, excite, and prioritize beauty and style.

This commitment to aestheticism ensures that the resonance of “art for art’s sake” endures, reflected vividly across the canvas of contemporary creativity.

What Is Art For Art S Sake – Wrap Up

We’ve seen the enduring legacy of “art for art’s sake” shape our cultural landscape, empowering artists to prioritize beauty and style.

This philosophy continues to resonate in contemporary mediums, from digital art to film, celebrating aesthetic qualities and creative freedom.

Our exploration reveals a world where art thrives on its own terms, often independent of societal or political expectations.

It’s clear that the spirit of “art for art’s sake” remains a vital part of the artistic community, ensuring that the pursuit of pure beauty in art is as relevant today as it was in the past.

Frequently Asked Questions

What does “art for art’s sake” mean.

“Art for art’s sake” is a philosophy that promotes the idea that art should be valued for its beauty and aesthetic quality, rather than for any practical, moral, or narrative functions.

How Did “art For Art’s Sake” Influence Literature?

This philosophy influenced literature by allowing authors to prioritize the aesthetic elements of their work, shaping literary movements like Symbolism, Aestheticism, and Modernism, and affecting the writing styles of authors such as Oscar Wilde and Edgar Allan Poe.

Can “art For Art’s Sake” Be Seen In Modern Art Forms?

Yes, “art for art’s sake” can be seen in modern art forms through the use of innovative colors and forms, non-linear narratives in films, and artistic freedom in digital and visual media.

Who Are Some Notable Figures Associated With “art For Art’s Sake”?

Oscar Wilde and Edgar Allan Poe are notable literary figures associated with the “art for art’s sake” movement, which also connects to broader movements such as Symbolism and Aestheticism.

Does The “art For Art’s Sake” Philosophy Disregard The Social And Political Aspects Of Art?

While “art for art’s sake” focuses on aesthetic values, it doesn’t completely disregard social and political aspects.

However, it does posit that art can exist independently of these dimensions and be appreciated for its beauty alone.

How Does “art For Art’s Sake” Impact Creative Expression?

“Art for art’s sake” encourages creative freedom and expression by prioritizing aesthetic qualities over didactic or utilitarian purposes, allowing artists to create without constraints of conforming to societal, moral, or narrative expectations.

Grand Manner In Art: The Art of Elevating Historical and Mythological Subjects

The Flâneur In Art: Observing and Capturing the Essence of Urban Life

Matt Crawford

Related posts, the gutai art association: breaking boundaries in post-war japanese art, the aesthetic movement: pursuing beauty in art and design, capitalist realism: a critical examination of consumer culture, naturalism in art: capturing the beauty of the real world in art, modern art: the diverse, bold, and experimental movements of the 20th century, hudson river school: celebrating the majesty of the american landscape, leave a reply cancel reply.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

Username or Email Address

Remember Me

Registration is closed.

Pin It on Pinterest

How Art for Art’s Sake Movement was Started? Art for Art’s Sake Explained

“All art is quite useless” . This statement of Oscar Wilde is in his “Preface to The Picture of Dorian Gray” , which expresses one of the central aspects of the idea of Art for Art’s Sake: art shall have no other aim than being art and it should be protected from subordination to any moral, didactic, social or political purpose.

In his essay “Le Question de l’Art pour l’Art” , M. Stapfer makes two assumptions on the character of the idea: Firstly, that it is “perpetually and recurrent and eternally insoluble” and secondly, that the movement was “French in character and origin”.

Frenchman Théophile Gautier is said to have first used the term in regard to its actual meaning. Although he did not use the phrase “‘l’artwork pour l’artwork” itself, the preface to his novel “Madmoiselle de Maupin” remains to be regarded as probably the most essential manifestos of this idea. M. Cassagne holds the opinion that the movement in France developed as a response to the ethical values of the bourgeoisie, in addition to to humanitarianism. Artists, frustrated and dissatisfied with politics, religion and society, started to withdraw into aesthetic isolation and to propagate the independence of art.

In the nineteenth century, it was widely considered that art had both to idealize life within the manner of the Idealists or the Romantics, to criticize it or merely to present it, just like the Realists did. John Ruskin, for instance, thought of art to be means to external, primarily didactic purposes. He, just like we’ll hear from the aesthetic writers, appreciated the beauty of art. But for him magnificence and the great thing about art wasn’t end in themselves. So for him art was beautiful, if its consumers have discovered or understood something by the assistance of it, in different words, if it had a didactic impact.

Read About: How is “dramatic irony” typically used in drama, particularly in tragedy?

Why Art for Art’s Sake Became the Necessity?

Socially and traditionally the Art for Art’s Sake Movement is embedded in an age of great changes in all areas of life primarily attributable to the Industrial Revolution. First of all it introduced the end of the medieval feudal system with its kind of “compact and cohesive” structure of life and little cause for the emergence of particular groups with a powerful sense of identity and of their opposition to different groups. Artists didn’t have to justify themselves and their actions. Due to industrialization and specialization in all domains of life, separate groups with separate mentalities developed. Artists started to treat themselves as such, having certain rights and obligations. So the development of Art for Art’s Sake must be seen within the context of the movement to pluralism.

Secondly, the Industrial Revolution brought in an acceleration of social change. With the expansion of the middle class not solely social issues got here alongside, but additionally, a change within the literary market. From 1800 onwards, artists were no longer depending on aristocratic or upper class patrons. Instead they were usually compelled to jot down what the public needed to read. One impact was the differentiation between real art and mass production or trivial literature, one other was a change within the relationship between the artist and his public. The writers no longer wrote for the aristocratic classes or for noblemen, whom that they had handled with respect, addressing any individual superior to them in rank, however for social or mental inferiors.

Thirdly, the Industrial Revolution made ugliness, destruction of nature, urbanization and overpopulation permanent features of life in cities. Artists, who felt to be devoted to nature and sweetness, had been quickly depressed and frustrated by this unaesthetic environment of living. The Romantic writers started to react by fleeing into different, imaginative worlds to escape from actuality. They appreciated what industrialization had started to destroy: nature, magnificence, sensitivity.

A fourth consequence was the spread of the Benthamist Utilitarianism and the scientific mentality. The emphasis was placed on material, useful and sensible elements of life. Everything was judged by its utility and its material benefit.

This perspective had critical consequences to religion. As religion is one thing invisible and the existence of God couldn’t be proved by scientific means, individuals now no longer certain about his existence. The gap produced by the weakening of the church and religious believes was usually full of even stricter ethical values, which may very well be undermined by philosophic principle. Religion appeared no longer appropriate as a foundation for all times, instead the explicit crucial and ethical values based mostly on philosophy became essential. The aesthetic writers were capable of producing one thing fascinating and the decadents had been capable of shocking with their works. The response to those circumstances and the dealing with the lack of sense in life is characteristic of all literature of the nineteenth century.

The adherents of Art for Art’s Sake tried to fully flip their back on society, politics, morality and every thing aside from art. They claimed a whole separation of art and life.

And yes! if you need premium accounts at cheapest rate inbox me on my Facebook page at:  Premium Palace

Subscribe my YouTube channel at:  The Stream Post

Follow on Facebook page of Literature Times at:  Literature Times on Facebook

For Free PDF Books Visit:  Free Books by Literature Times

How is "dramatic irony" typically used in drama, particularly in tragedy?

How renaissance came to england | characteristics of renaissance, related articles.

Why Study English Literature?

What does Bildungsroman mean in Literature?

Symbolism in Waiting For Godot

The role of extrasensory perception in nora’s character in “a doll’s house”, leave a reply cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Peredvizhniki

Summary of Peredvizhniki

Established in 1870, The Society for Itinerant Art Exhibitions, commonly known as Peredvizhniki - meaning "Itinerants" or "Wanderers" - believed in representing subject-matter drawn from everyday life, with an accuracy and empathy which reflected their egalitarian social and political views. They worked across several types of painting, from landscape and portraiture to genre and historical painting, and by the close of the 19 th century had become the most famous art movement in Russia. In 1923 the group was disbanded, but its impact was felt across many subsequent genres of Russian art, from Neo-Primitivism to Socialist Realism .

Key Ideas & Accomplishments

• The Peredvizhniki artists were perhaps best-known for their landscapes, paintings of archetypal Russian settings such as pine forests, wheat fields, and water meadows, which depicted their subject-matter with near photographic accuracy. At the same time, these landscapes were symbolically significant, representing the mood of the painter or viewer - as in the so-called "lyrical landscape" - or summing up some archetypal aspect of Russian culture or character.
• Peredvizhniki was the first group of Russian artists to recognize that the everyday Russian citizen was a worthy subject of their attention. They set about creating portraits and genre paintings which evoked aspects of the worker or peasant's daily life, or their hopes, fears, and allegiances. In an era where focusing on the common man or woman was synonymous with political radicalism, this work effectively sounded a clarion call for democratic reform.
• Peredvizhniki was the first great nationalist movement within Russian art. Rejecting what they saw as the Academy's slavish adherence to European taste, they forged a body of work which could become a talisman for an independent Russian spirit. Through their historical and religious paintings, for example, they presented the events and figures who had shaped the collective Russian consciousness.
• Like many of their peers in the French Realist movement of the mid-19 th century, the painters of Peredvizhniki were striving not just for a new stylistic paradigm within their nation's art, but for sweeping social and political change. But if Gustave Courbet's involvement with the Paris Commune of 1870 symbolized an unrewarded revolutionary fervor, the Peredvizhniki movement survived to witness the Russian Revolution of 1917, and thus for the transformation it had willed: if not in the form it would have expected.

Artworks and Artists of Peredvizhniki

Barge Haulers on the Volga

Artist: Ilya Repin

Ilya Repin's painting, arguably the defining work of Peredvizhniki, shows a group of exhausted men in harness pulling a barge along the sandy banks of the Volga. The composition emphasizes the harrowing effort of their labor, the diagonal line of workmen mirrored by the diagonal line of the shore (as if the whole scene were responding to and compounding the scale of their task). The laborers at the front of the line are larger, tilting forward with slack arms as if bearing down upon the viewer - the front man fixes our gaze pointedly - while the men that follow seem on the verge of collapse; at the end of the line, one figure slumps forwards, as if only held upright by the strap around his torso. In the distance to the left, a barge with sails unfurled can be seen on the still reflective waters: perhaps an ironic nod to Romantic landscape painting, emphasizing the abjection of the central scene. Repin began making preliminary sketches for this work in situ on the Volga in 1870, though the painting took three years to finish. Each of the barge haulers was based upon a real person whom Repin encountered during this preliminary visit, such as Kanin, a former priest, and Konstantin, a former icon painter. By using a wide, narrow canvas to accentuate the line of men, and by working with a high degree of naturalistic detail - creating precise tonal gradations, for example, and contrasting the lightness of the landscape with the shadow surrounding the men - Repin transformed what might otherwise have been a staid work of genre painting into a harrowing masterwork of Realism. Repin was the most famous artist in Russia by the close of the 19 th century: the almost uncanny visual and psychological accuracy of works such as Barge Hailers influenced a whole generation of painters, and also had a deep effect on the nation's social conscience. The work was arguably all the more powerful because, as Vladimir Stasov wrote, it was "not painted to move the viewers to pity," but simply to "show [...] the types of people Repin saw."

Oil on canvas - Russian Museum, St. Petersburg

The Rooks Have Come Back

Artist: Alexei Savrasov

Alexei Savrasov's landscape painting shows a group of bare, twisted trees on a snow-covered hillside in front of a monastery. In the distance, beyond the steeple, a snowy expanse stretches to the horizon, generating a sense of enveloping isolation. The white of the snow and tree trunks, and the sharp angles of the walls and spires, create a kind of harsh clarity, suggesting the biting cold of the winter, but the top half of the canvas is dominated by billowing clouds and blue sky, and by the rooks which flock to the tops of the trees, heralding the spring. Savrasov painted almost exclusively in the landscape genre, and was associated with the development of so-called "lyrical landscape", a genre associated with the Peredvizhniki group in which the landscape becomes a mirror for human emotions. During the 1860s he had travelled to Europe, and had been influenced by Romantic landscape painters of the Swiss (Alexandre Calame) and British (John Constable) schools, but this work conveys a distinctly Russian spirit. It practical terms, it represents the area around the Ipatiev Monastery in Kostroma, a provincial town 200 miles north-east of Moscow. Seen as the high-point of Savrasov's career, The Rooks Have Come Back is at once a highly allegorical work, showing the replenishment of the landscape after winter, and a piece of almost informal-seeming naturalism. It was well-received when it was shown at the first Peredvizhniki touring exhibition of 1871, and was later admired by Isaac Levitan, a pupil of Savrasov's whose emotionally evocative landscapes would themselves become famous. As Levitan put it, the work is "very simple, but beneath the simplicity [...] is the tender artist's soul".

Oil on canvas - The State Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow

Artist: Fyodor Vasilyev

This painting, depicting a water-meadow in the Russian countryside, is sometimes taken as the founding work of the "lyrical landscape" style, and is a classic example of Peredvizhniki landscape painting. In the foreground, scrubby vegetation is picked out with naturalistic detail; behind, a patch of earth leads in zig-zag pattern to a shallow lake, which in turn forms a curving diagonal drawing the eye upwards to the tree on the horizon line. The sky, filled with low-lying clouds, and the earth, are presented as contrasting areas of light and dark, with a shadow cast across the whole ground, stretching from left to right of the canvas. Though he was only twenty in 1870, Fyodor Vasilyev became one of the founding members of Peridvizhniki, and by the time he composed Wet Meadow in 1872 he had already collaborated with, and been tutored by, some of the most important artists attached to the movement. In 1867, he spent several months working on Valaam Island with the landscape painter Ivan Shishkin; in 1870, he travelled to the Volga with Ilya Repin - the trip on which Repin made his preparatory sketches for Barge Haulers - creating works in response such as Volga View: Barges (1870). A year later, in 1871, Vasilyev's painting The Thaw propelled him to fame - a copy was ordered by the family of the Tsar - as a result of which his friendship with Shishkin devolved into a rivalry. This particular work was created in the Crimea, while Vasilyev was attempting to recover from Tuberculosis. Its composition is based on memories of his native Russian landscapes, which perhaps helped to concentrate the strongly emotive mood of the piece. Vasilyev never recovered from his illness, dying in 1873 at the age of 23. However, by this point he had already produced a body of work that would have a profound influence on the development of landscape painting within the Peredvizhniki group, inspiring artists such as Isaac Levitan and Valentin Serov.

Portrait of Leo Tolstoy

Artist: Ivan Kramskoi

This portrait shows the venerated 19th-century Russian writer Leo Tolstoy in three-quarter pose, gazing intently at the viewer. His hands lie in his lap, suggesting self-containment or withdrawal, while the black frock coat wrapped around his shoulders lends him a priestly demeanor. The wall behind the writer is blank, implying a life of austere solitude, though his face registers quiet, even humorous contentment. Ivan Kramskoi was the leader of the "revolt of fourteen" out of which Peredvizhniki developed, and was renowned for his portraiture, including works depicting everyday Russians such as Portrait of a Peasant (1868), and others focused on Peredvizhniki members, such as Portrait of the Artist Konstantin Savitsky (1871). Tolstoy was already famous by the time he granted Kramskoi the commission for this portrait - an honor sought by many artists, and only secured after some persuasion - and following the sitting the two would become close friends, corresponding on the state of Russia and the ideals of Russian art. Proper to Tolstoy's developing reputation as an ethical and religious figurehead as well as a great writer, Kramskoi conveys a clear sense of moral authority, and of humane and perceptive attentiveness. Many of Kramskoi's sitters became iconic figures, and it is likely that the qualities suggested by this painting enhanced the Tolstoy myth. As for Tolstoy himself, he grew to like Kramskoi so much that he included a character based on him in Anna Karenina (1877), and would later remark of his Christ in the Wilderness (1872) that "he knew no better Christ." This is an important work of Peredvizhniki art not only in showing the achievements of their leader, but also in indicating the channels of mutual influence between writing and painting which characterized Russian culture during the 1860s and 70s. Both Kramskoi and Tolstoy were working to define not only a new Russian art, but also a new moral and social conscience for their nation.

Artist: Ivan Shishkin

This iconic landscape painting shows a field of rye just before harvest season. The intense color of the composition suggests the heat of late summer, the field burgeoning with its yield; in the foreground, wild flowers in blossom are picked out with the artist's customary precision, while the curve of the track draws the eye towards the center of the painting, echoed by the curves in the rye-stalks. Pine trees punctuate the skyline, and billowing clouds fill the air. Ivan Shishkin is remembered as the master of Perdvizhniki landscape painting, especially for his forest scenes and works depicting trees, such as Oak Grove (1887) and Forest Distance (1884). But whereas his contemporaries Vasilyev and Savrasov presented the landscape as a frame for the human condition, Shishkin was renowned for his scientific attention to natural detail; though this work is also replete with symbolic meaning. The painting depicts the rye fields of Lekarevskoe, at the edge of Yelabuga, the town where Shishkin was born and one of the engines of Russia's agricultural economy, known as 'Russia's Granary'. In this sense, the piece is a nationalistic paean to the wealth and plenitude of the Russian land. At the same time, it has a more poignant, biographical significance, having been composed based on material gathered during a trip to Yelabuga in 1877, after the death of Shishkin's wife and two sons. The two barely discernible figures in the center of the canvas are assumed to be Shishkin and his daughter - his last surviving relative during that trip - while the two black swallows in the foreground, and the larger, dead bird on the road, seem highly allegorical. The painting thus represents the loss and replenishment of life - human and natural - whilst also being a meticulous representation of a particular landscape, one which epitomized everything that Shishkin loved about the Russian countryside: "expansiveness; space; fields of rye; God's paradise; Russian riches..." It was his ability to convey the character of that landscape both realistically and emblematically that made him an enduringly influential figure in modern Russian art.

Morning in a Pine Forest

This canvas shows four bears, a mother and her cubs, playing around a fallen tree in a forest glade lit up by the morning sun. The triangular arrangement of the animals matches the triangular shape formed by the fallen pine at the center, which directs the eye towards the haze of sunlight behind. The cub to the right, outlined against the light, creates another focal point, while the verticals of the surrounding trees, reaching up beyond the top of the canvas, immerse the viewer in the woodland scene. A bluish morning mist clings to the trunks on the left-hand side. Painted around a decade after Rye , Morning in a Pine Forest is one of various works which Shishkin created throughout his career depicting lush coniferous woodland, also including Pine Forest (1866) and The Sestroretsk Forest (1896). The natural scene is recreated in such detail - each pine needle in its variation, the plants mingling in the foreground, the backwards-curving trunk behind the fallen tree - that the effect is of a near-photograph freshness. In this sense, the work is a quintessential example of Shishkin's oeuvre, but it is relatively unusual in representing animals. Indeed, when the painting was first shown at a Peredvizhniki exhibition, it was presented as a collaboration with Konstantin Savitsky, a painter known mainly for his working-class portraits who was thought to be responsible for the depiction of the bears. This is quite likely, but Savitsky's signature was later removed from the piece, and it was credited solely to Shishkin. This painting was well-received at the time, and remains popular to the point of cultural ubiquity in Russia. It is regularly cited as one of the nation's favorite paintings, and since 1925 a version of the image has appeared on the wrapper of the popular Clumsy Bear chocolate bar.

Vladimirka (The Road to Vladimir)

Artist: Isaac Levitan

This atmospheric landscape painting depicts the Vladimirka Road, part of the Great Siberian Road that led from Moscow to the wilderness areas of Northern Russia. The surface of the track seems to be broken up by grass and wagon ruts, as it cuts upwards from the left foreground, forming a disappearing diagonal reaching to the horizon. The vastness of the land and sky is emphasized by their emptiness - save for a single clump of trees, and a tiny church spire in the distance - and by the presence of a single pilgrim, passing an icon-and-cross station located to the right of the road. Levitan was a master of plein air painting. Often creating his works on location, he had the ability, like the French Impressionist painters of his era, to capture the atmosphere of a natural setting on a particular day, at a particular time, through an intuitive use of color. In this case, the atmosphere generated might seem subtly oppressive, the sky an icy blue-grey, the horizon a source of shadow rather than light. That mood is complemented by the impression of lonely penitence conveyed by the presence of the pilgrim, and - if the viewer knows anything of the location they are looking at - by the cultural associations of the landscape itself. The Great Siberian Road was associated with the transportation of prisoners north from Moscow to Siberian workcamps or to exile, a journey famously taken by Raskolnikov in Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment (1866), and recalled in the memoirs of the political activist Alexander Herzen. The poet Nikoly Nekrasov had also presented a (fictionalized) account of the journey in his 1872 work Russian Women . In its cultural and emotional allusiveness, Levitan's work is a classic example of the Russian "lyrical landscape"; indeed, he brought to all his natural scenes a poetic sensibility to match that of the writers who had described the journey along the Vladimir Road. Such psychologically affecting works would have a profound influence on subsequent Russian painters, including the Impressionist Konstantin Korovin and the Symbolist Mikhail Nesterov.

Artist: Mykola Pymonenko

This classic late work of Peredvizhniki genre paintings shows two children driving a small herd of calves across a shallow ford in a rural village. In the foreground, the track is deeply rutted by coach-wheels, filled with water lit up by the sun, while the children's movement away from the viewer, and their depiction mid-stride, creates a sense of informality and photographic accuracy, as if relaying a particular moment in time. In compositional terms, the road-surface forms a diagonal sweep across the canvas, while the angle of the fence on the far side of the ford parallels the line of the hill beyond. Pymonenko was a second-generation Peredvizhik, born in 1862, just a year before the "revolt of the fourteen", and only eleven years old at the time of the first Itinerant Exhibition. Enrolled as a member of the group in 1899, he produced scenes of working-class and peasant life, many of which, such as Victim of Fanaticism (1899), contain a strong element of ethical and social commentary. This work is relatively unusual in the simple, idyllic nature of the scene depicted, though perhaps the prominent groove-lines imply the children's future lives unfolding along predictable and arduous paths. Works like A Ford , and Matchmakers (1882), sum up Pymonenko's detailed and empathetic attentiveness to everyday Russian life. He was the best-known Ukrainian artist associated with Peredvizhniki, and later in his life would forge an unexpected connection with the future Suprematist painter Kazimir Malevich, a pupil at the Kyiv Art School where Pymonenko worked from 1906.

Oil on canvas - Odesa Museum of Fine Arts, Odesa, Ukraine

Red Sunset on the Dnieper

Artist: Arkhip Kuindzhi

This painting, depicting a sunset on the Dnieper River, is dominated by a large luminous body of cloud. The red glow of the sun behind it, reflecting on the river, fills the entire canvas with unearthly light, while in the foreground the thatched roofs of huts can just be made out. However, the viewing point appears to be in mid-air, so that the scene below is flattened and miniaturized, the top half of the canvas given over entirely to the representation of the sky. The Ukrainian-born artist Arkhip Kuindzhi initially worked as a retoucher in a photography studio, and had considered opening a studio himself before becoming a painter. As a result, his work, like that of the French Impressionists, was deeply influenced by photography: this piece is exemplary in using unexpected color combinations and fine tonal gradations to capture the dramatic effects of sunlight in realistic ways. His paintings often present vast, empty panoramas, in which the features of the landscape are reduced to a minimum and the refraction and reflection of light becomes the primary object of attention. In this case, the scene becomes almost abstracted in its minimalism, the river banks forming homogenous dark bands on either side of the luminous strip of water. In its exaggerated, emotionally expressive use of color, and in its move towards a kind of compositional abstraction, Kuindzhi's work became a touchstone for Russian painters of the Symbolist and Expressionist schools, such as Nicholas Roerich, Konstantin Bogaevsky, and Arkady Rylov. In this sense, his work indicates the threads of continuity that run from Perdvizhniki Realism to later movements in Russian and European art, suggesting the significance of the movement as a whole.

Oil on canvas - The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York

Beginnings of Peredvizhniki

Artel of artists.

Peredvizhniki developed out of The Artel of Artists, a cooperative commune established in 1863 following what was called the "revolt of fourteen." This came about when fourteen young artists, all studying at the St. Petersburg Academy of Art, rebelled against the choice of topic for the annual Gold Medal competition, "The Entrance of Odin into Valhalla". The group felt that the topic summed up the Academy's stifling focus on the Neoclassical tradition, and wanted to paint the reality of contemporary Russian life, learning from the examples of Realism and Naturalism in Europe.

The leader of the rebellion was Ivan Nikolaevich Kramskoi, a student at the Academy since 1857, who had become increasingly dissatisfied with the conservatism of Russian art and society. Influenced by the literary critics Vissarion Grigoryevich Belinsky and Nikolay Chernyshevsky, Kramskoi became an increasingly vocal advocate for democratic reforms, arguing for the social and political responsibility of the artist, and for the development of a specifically Russian art. Finding the Academy hostile to both his political and his artistic views, he became the figurehead for a growing number of restless young students.

The Society for Itinerant Art Exhibitions

Having established the Artel of Artists in 1863, in 1870 the group led by Kramskoi began plans to hold a series of "Itinerant Art Exhibitions", to be held in provincial locations and funded without state assistance, displaying the achievements of Russian art to the common man and woman. These were the founding activities of Peredvizhniki, a group also including Vasily Grigoryevich Perov, Nikolai Ge, and Grigory Myasoyedov. Perov, the eldest of them, was already well-known for his genre paintings, such as Arrival of a New Governess in a Merchant House (1866), and his tutelage of younger artists such as Nikolai Kasatkin, Konstantin Korovin, Isaac Levitan, Abram Arkhipov, and Mikhail Nesterov, would have a significant impact on the group's artistic development.

The first of Peredvizhniki's "Itinerant Art Exhibitions" was held in 1871, and from then on the group organized a series of shows across Russia, accompanied by artists' lectures, and talks on social and political reform. These exhibitions also created a new marketplace, a context in which artists could sell their work independently of Academic patronage, to an increasingly prosperous middle class. Between 1871 and 1923, no fewer than 47 exhibitions were organized by Peredvizhniki, in cities such as Kyiv, Odesa, Kazan, Orel, and Riga, as well as Moscow and St. Petersburg.

Vissarion Grigoryevich Belinsky and Nikolai Chernyshevsky

Vissarion Belinsky was a noted literary critic, whose writing on Russian prose became a vehicle for his progressive political views. He was an ardent critic of serfdom, a system he described as "trampling upon anything that is remotely human", and of the autocracy of Tsarist government. Belinsky's influence on Russian society was so profound that the novelist Fyodor Dostoevsky was sentenced to four years in a Siberian prison camp for reading and planning to distribute one of Belinsky's letters attacking the feudal system. Like the great prose stylists whose work he promoted - Dostoevsky, Ivan Turgenev - Belinsky believed in a type of writing that would express a social conscience, and transcribe the psychological reality of lived experience.

Nikolay Gavrilovich Chernyshevsky was a writer and literary critic whose famous novel What Is to be Done? (1862) transformed public consciousness around the issue of serfdom (its title was later borrowed by Lenin for his revolutionary pamphlet of 1902). Partly as a result, Chernyshevsky - who was influenced by Belinsky - became a leading voice of revolutionary democratic movements in Russia, and the head of the Narodniks, a populist movement within the middle classes who felt that only the peasantry could overthrow the monarchy and establish a socialist regime. In 1874, the Narodniks began - in their words - "going to the peasants" to persuade them to revolt; the idea was very similar to that expressed by the Peredvizhniki exhibitions, which took art to the villages as a pretext for social reform.

Sovremennik Magazine

Sovremennik ("The Contemporary") was a magazine launched by the poet Alexander Pushkin, though its first issue was published following his unexpected death in a duel in 1836. The magazine became one of Russia's leading literary journals, printing work by the most famous writers of the golden age of Russian prose, including Ivan Turgenev, Dmitry Grigorovich, Alexander Druzhinin, and Leo Tolstoy.

Vissarion Belinsky became involved with the magazine in the late 1840s, at which point it was managed by the poet Nikolay Nekrasov and the critic Ivan Panaev. Often threatened with official censorship, but avidly consumed by the intelligentsia, Sovremmenik continued to appear until 1866. Between 1853 and 1862 Chernyshevsky edited the magazine printing his own work in it, such as his academic thesis The Aesthetic Relations of Art to Reality (1855), which called for an art that would "reproduce nature and life." The young members of the Artel of Artists were deeply influenced by the radical ideas espoused in Sovremmenik , seen as one of the motivating factors behind their own revolt in 1863.

Pavel Mikhaylovich Tretyakov and Vladimir Vasilievich Stasov

Important early supporters of the Peredvizhniki artists included the art critic Vladimir Stasov - who was particularly influential in justifying their naturalistic treatment of social reality - and the collector Pavel Tretyakov. Stasov was the most respected critic of his era, a venerated figure who felt that Russian art should be "authentic, genuine, and not trivial." He believed that "after long years of scarcity, pretense, and imitation," such an art had finally been cultivated by Peredvizhniki, particularly as they had succeeded in freeing their work from European influence.

Tretyakov was a wealthy businessman and banker who began collecting art in 1854, with the aim of creating a National Gallery in Russia. He was an avid collector and supporter of the Peredvizhniki, buying works at their exhibitions and direct from the artists' studios, sometimes purchasing complete series of paintings at once. As a result, he held the largest collection of works by Perov, Repin, Kramskoi, Levitan, Serov, and various other Peredvizhniki artists. He also commissioned original work by the artists, including portraits of noted Russians, and often provided financial assistance to group members who were struggling to pay their way. In 1893, he established the Moscow City Gallery of Pavel and Sergei Tretyakov, now known as the Tretyakov Gallery, where many Peridvizhniki works can still be viewed.

Peredvizhniki: Concepts, Styles, and Trends

Though perhaps best-known for their landscape paintings, the Peredvizhniki artists also worked across several other genres, including portraiture, genre painting, and historical and religious art, as evidenced by the wide-ranging oeuvre of Ilya Repin, the most famous figure attached to the group. Rebelling against the Neoclassical tradition of the Academy, Perdvizhniki sought to redefine the relative importance assigned to different types of painting by the Academic art-world, feeling that a historical painting, for example, was no more or less significant than a genre painting; they often sought to create work which combined the conventions of particular genres. Nonetheless, it is still possible to assess their achievements by reference to various inherited 'types' of painting: from landscapes and portraits to genre paintings and historical and religious works.

The extent of Peredvizhniki's interest in landscape painting varied. Some artists, such as the renowned Ivan Shishkin, focused primarily on the genre, producing works - such as Oak Grove (1887) - displaying a rapt attentiveness to the natural environment. Indeed, Shishkin became so identified with his images of forests that he was dubbed 'the singer of the forest' or 'Tsar of the forest.' Yet some critics argued that, for all their realism, his landscapes were too understated in their emotional content.

By contrast, the artist Alexei Kondratyevich Savrasov, with works such as The Rooks Have Come Back (1871), created so-called "lyrical landscapes" or "mood landscapes", a creative path followed by younger artists such as Fyodor Alexandrovich Vasilyev, Nikolay Nikanorovich Dubovskoy, and Isaac Ilyich Levitan. Levitan, whose Secluded Monastery (1890) is another good example of this genre, was devoted to painting on location, and his understanding of light and color enabled him to capture the psychological and emotional impact of certain natural scenes with extraordinary accuracy. His work was seen as a radical departure from the conventions of the landscape genre, transcending naturalistic depiction to present landscapes as vessels or mirrors for human thought and emotion.

A more luminous treatment of landscape, emphasizing color and light in more exaggerated ways, is found in the work of Arkhip Ivanovich Kuindzhi, while a further version of the Peredvizhniki landscape style is provided by the paintings of Ilya Yefimovich Repin. The most famous artist of the group, Repin's landscapes often focused on the human figure, as in Ploughman (1887), for example, which presents the famous writer Leo Tolstoy plowing a field.

The most well-known portraitist amongst the Peredvizhniki group was Kramskoi, who was celebrated not only for his portraits of noted Russians such as Tolstoy and Tretyakov, but also for his paintings of the Russian peasantry, and other real-life subjects. Works of Kramskoi's such as Portrait of An Unknown Woman (1883) capture the complexity of the individual subject while simultaneously blending and subverting the tropes of portraiture and genre painting. Nikolai Ge, Vasily Perov, Nikolai Yaroshenko, Valentin Serov, and Nicolai Kuznetsov were also known for their portraits. Despite their opposition to the stereotypical constraints of the genre, Peredvizhniki's portrait paintings often depict figures seen to exemplify some particular aspect of Russian identity, as in Serov's Portrait of the Composer Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov (1898) and Kuznetsov's Portrait of Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky (1893), both of which focus on famous composers and Russian cultural icons.

Genre Painting

The St. Petersburg Academy considered historical painting a higher form of art than genre painting, but the Peredvizhniki painters felt that genre painting - in short, the painting of scenes from everyday life - could be used to represent important moments in Russian history, and to capture the realities of Russian life. Perov's early genre work played an important role in establishing the group's emphasis on genre painting, but it was Ilya Repin's masterful Barge Haulers on the Volga (1870-73) that set the standard for painting in this style, constituting both a striking landscape and a psychologically harrowing portrait of Russian working life.

A number of other Peredvizhniki painters also excelled in genre work. Vladimir Makovsky's work often focused on urban life, bringing an emotional and occasionally satirical scrutiny to city-scenes, as in his On the Boulevard (1887), which depicts an alienated couple on a park bench. Mykola Pymonenko, a Ukrainian artist of a younger generation, was a similarly talented genre painter, though he focused on rural rather than city life, as in A Ford (1901). From the 1880s onwards, the genre painting of Peredvizhniki took a markedly political cast, with works such as Repin's Unexpected Visitor (1886) - which shows a hollow-eyed young man returning to his family after political exile - and Pymonenko's Victim of Fanaticism (1899).

Historical and Religious Painting

Despite opposing the bias in favor of history painting within the Academy, the Peredvizhniki artists themselves created historical scenes, though mainly based on episodes drawn from Russian national history (rather than classical antiquity). The most famous of these was perhaps Repin's Reply of the Zaporozhian Cossacks to Sultan Mehmed IV of the Ottoman Empire (1880-91), depicting the legendarily obscene response of the Ukrainian Cossacks to the Ottoman Sultan's demand for surrender following a 17th-century battle; it was described by the artist as "a study in laughter." Vasily Surikov became well-known for his trilogy of historical paintings The Morning of the Streltsy Execution (1881) - focused on Peter the Great's brutal suppression of a military revolt - Menshikov in Berezovo (1888) - showing a 17th-century military leader in exile - and Boyarynya Morozova (1887), which depicts the folk hero Feodosia Morozova at the moment of her arrest for resistance to religious reforms in 1671. All of these paintings represented pivotal and painful moments in the birth of the modern Russian state.

The works of Nikolai Ge and Kramskoi, by contrast, frequently focused on religious themes. Kramskoi's Christ in the Desert (1872) was exhibited at the second Peredvizhniki exhibition, with the contemporary critic Ivan Goncharov praising the depiction of Christ's "pauper appearance, under the rags, in humble simplicity, inseparable [from] true majesty and force." Older than most of Peredvizhniki, Ge became associated with the group late in his career, and continued to focus on religious subjects to an unusual degree, as in What Is Truth? (1890), a late work showing Christ being questioned by Pontius Pilate. In Orthodox Russia, religious paintings were seen as depicting historical fact, and for the Peredvizhniki artists, the figure of Christ - presented as poor, humble, and deeply human - became a symbol for the suffering of the common Russian.

Later Developments - After Peredvizhniki

Following a pattern repeated throughout the history of modern art, the initially revolutionary methods of Peredvizhniki had themselves been institutionalized by the 1890s, with many of the movement's key artists accepting teaching positions at the Imperial Academy. Indeed, by the turn of the century, oeuvres such as Repin's were perceived as monuments to a new creative orthodoxy, and younger artists increasingly viewed Peredvizhniki style with skepticism or frustration. In 1898, the art patron Sergei Pavlovich Diaghilev - later famous for founding the Ballets Russes- established the group Mir Iskusstva (World of Art), which promoted new artists and movements in effective defiance of the Peredvizhniki hegemony.

The response to these new developments within the group itself was resistance in some instances, friendship and support in others, as in the notable case of the ageing Stasov. Younger artists associated with Peredvizhniki, such as Konstantin Korovin, Isaac Levitan, and Valentin Serov, also became allies of Diaghilev. Partly as a result, while early-20th-century artists were often outwardly hostile to the legacy of the group, their work continued to display the impact of Peredvizhniki techniques and concepts. The painters Natalia Goncharova and Mikhail Larionov , for example, who were responsible for defining Russian Primitivism and Rayonism - two of the most important styles within Russian avant-garde art of the 1910s - both advocated for the specific genius of Russian art, and for the depiction of working and rural life. Kazimir Malevich, who founded the Suprematist movement in 1913, went on to create works depicting peasants on Soviet collective farms, such as Mower (1930), which showing thematic influence of his teacher Pymonenko; we can also sense Peredvizhniki themes and tropes in Sergev Konenkov's sculptures, and in the Post-Impressionist landscapes of Konstantin Ivanovich Gorbatov. Even Russian Futurism , in its clamor for a new, egalitarian Russian society, arguably expressed the indirect influence of the Peredvizhniki ethos.

The group's most superficial cultural legacy, however, was rather bleaker, standing for the new cultural autocracy which gripped post-revolutionary Russia. In 1922, Peredvizhniki was replaced by the Association of Artists of Revolutionary Russia (AARR), led by Pavel Radimov - the last leader of Peredvizhniki - and incorporating other realist painters from the older group. The AARR rejected new developments in avant-garde art, and became closely associated with the advent of Socialist Realism during the 1930s. The emphasis on realistic representation and everyday subject-matter which had been so subversive in the 1860s thus became the basis for a constrictive orthodoxy, with Ilya Repin's work presented as the exemplar of Soviet art for decades.

All art movements, however, accommodate individuals of skill and significance, and many of those who became attached to Socialist Realism, such as Kuzma Petrov-Vodkin, were initially inspired or incited by Peredvizhniki. Isaac Levitan's landscapes, whose non-human subject-matter in a sense transcended the cultural battles of the 1930s, were lauded by very different movements and figures, from Diaghilev to the Socialist Realist painter Czeslaw Znamierowski. Indeed, just as Levitan's work stood aloof from the Realist/Avant-garde debate, Znamierowski's Impressionist -influenced landscapes avoided the more explicitly propagandist motifs of Socialist Realism while remaining culturally acceptable in mid-century USSR. Later in the 20 th century, artists of the so-called Nonconfirmist School, such as Oleg Vassiliev, arguably carried the progressive spirit of Perdvizhniki forwards.

Works by the Peredvizhniki artists themselves have become ingrained in Russian cultural consciousness, as evidenced by the send-up of Repin's Barge Haulers in various political cartoons, and the naming of minor planets after Shishkin and Tretyakov by Soviet astronomers. As for the group's reception in the west, the influential American critic Clement Greenberg, in his 1939 article "Avant-Garde and Kitsch" cited Repin's Reply of the Cossacks (1880-91) as a particularly ignoble example of Kitsch. Perhaps as a result, the group's work was ignored to some extent for the following decades, though that situation began to change around the start of the 21st century.

Useful Resources on Peredvizhniki

• Ilya Repin By Grigori Sternine and Elena Kirillina
• Ivan Shishkin By Irina Shuvalova
• The Russian Vision: The Art of Ilya Repin By David Jackson
• The Wanderers and Critical Realism in Nineteenth-century Russian Art Our Pick By David Jackson
• Tolstoy, Ge, and Two Pilates By Jefferson J.A. Gatrall
• Ivan Ivanovich Shishkin: At the Edge of the Pine Forest By Sotheby's
• How Shishkin's Nephew Inspired a Mel Brooks Movie By Sothebys
• RN Documentary: The Volga Boatmen Audio Stories
• Review of The Peredvizhniki: Pioneers of Russian Painting Our Pick By Inessa Kouteinikova / 19th Century Art Worldwide: A Journal of Nineteenth-century Visual Culture / Autumn 2012
• Crossed Destinies - Anton Chekhov and Isaac Levitan By Galina Churak
• Titan of the Russian Forest: An Ivan Shishkin Art Gallery By Alice E.M. Underwood / Russian Life / Jan 25, 2017

Related Artists

Related Movements & Topics

Content compiled and written by Rebecca Seiferle

Edited and revised, with Summary and Accomplishments added by Greg Thomas

9 Things to See in Moscow's Red Square

 Sir Francis Canker/Getty Images

In most cases, you'll be entering Red Square from the north, passing landmarks such as the Bolshoi Theatre and Duma parliament building as you make your way southward. Although you don't necessarily have to pass through the Voskresensky (or Resurrection in English) Gates in order to gain access to the square these days, they definitely provide a sense of arrival, to say nothing of the way their left arch frame's St. Basil's Cathedral if you look from just the right angle.

An interesting fact is that while a gate of some kind has stood here since the mid-16th century, the one you currently see wasn't built until 1994, having been destroyed in 1931 so that tanks could enter and exit Red Square during military parades.

St. Basil's Cathedral

TripSavvy / Christopher Larson 

Few sights are as iconic not only of Moscow and Red Square but indeed of Russia than St. Basil's Cathedral, whose colorful, onion-shaped domes are a symbol of the country around the world. Officially known as the Cathedral of Vasily the Blessed, this church has stood since 1561, which is quite miraculous when you consider all the turbulent history that has transpired since then.

Among other things, religion was severely prohibited during the Soviet period , which led some to believe that this emblem of the Russian Orthodox church might not withstand the tenure of the USSR. 

An interesting fact is that St. Basil's is the so-called "Kilometer Zero" of Russia; all of Moscow's main roads (which can take you anywhere in Russia) begin at the exits to Red Square. In this way, St. Basil's iconic status also has an extremely tangible element.

The Kremlin

TripSavvy / Christopher Larson

When you think of The Kremlin, it's unlikely that positive images enter your mind. The fact that simply saying the word "Kremlin" is too vague a descriptor (most Russian cities have their own Kremlin complexes; you should say "Moscow Kremlin") notwithstanding, this misunderstood place is incredibly beautiful, even if you don't like the policy that comes out of it.

Senate Square

In spite of its name, which refers to the role the building that rises above the square played during Imperial Russia, Senate Square is actually home to Russia's presidential administration, currently helmed by Vladimir Putin. In order to see where Russia's legislature operates from, walk just outside Red Square to the Duma parliament building.

Dormition Cathedral

Dating back to the year 1479, the gold-domed Dormition Cathedral pays homage to an Orthodox religious feast that commemorates the death of the Virgin Mary . As is the case with St. Basil's, it is curious that such a conspicuously religious structure was able to survive through the Soviet period.

Armoury Chamber

Though it takes its name from the fact that it housed Russia's royal arsenal when it was built in the 16th century, the most notable resident of the Kremlin's Armoury Chamber today is the Russian Diamond Fund.

Notable Kremlin Towers

Robert Schrader

The interior of the Moscow Kremlin is more beautiful and inviting than you'd expect, but the walls and towers that rise around it better live up to the intimidation with which the complex is associated. 

Borovitskaya Tower

Named to commemorate the dense forest that once stood atop the mount where it's built, this tower is extremely picturesque. Built in the late 15th century, it's visible from most places in the square, and also as you walk along the Moskva River.

Nikolskaya Tower

Also built in the year 1491, this tower currently suffered destruction at the hands of Napoleon's army in the 19th century. What you see now is the result of an 1816 re-design and renovation, though artillery fire during the Russian Revolution also caused superficial damage to the tower, named to honor St. Nikolas of Mozhaysk , so it's difficult to know which elements of it are original.

Spasskaya Tower

Known in English as the "Savior's Tower," this iconic, star-topped tower is perhaps the best-known of all the Kremlin's towers. Built in 1491 like the other two towers on this list, it's certainly the most photographed. As a result of its proximity to St. Basil's, it often makes its way into tourists' pictures.

Mausoleum of Lenin

Just as it's strange to learn how many religious monuments survived through the Soviet period, it's a bit odd to think that Lenin's preserved body still sits in a mausoleum just beneath the walls of the Kremlin on Red Square, given the lack of consensus about the ultimate impact of his Revolution, even in Russia.

It's not guaranteed that you'll be able to see the body (which, believe it or not, seems to be improving with age ) when you go, and if you do you will likely have to wait in line, but even strolling past the outside of the Lenin Mausoleum, flanked by stone-faced guards that almost look like statues, illuminates the gravity of his body still being here.

GUM Shopping Center

You might cringe, at least initially, when you realize that one of the most iconic stops on a tour of Red Square is a department store—until you see said department store, that is. Built in 1893 and known during Soviet times as the State Department Store, GUM  ( Glávnyj Universáľnyj Magazín​ or Main Universal Store in English) hearkens back to the grandeur of the late 19th century, both seen from the outside (especially, when lit up at night) and the interior, which might have you feeling like you're further west in Europe.

A trip inside GUM is a particularly good idea during winter, when frigid temperatures outside will have you savoring the heat, the quality of souvenirs, confections and other goods sold inside notwithstanding. Also, make sure not to confuse GUM with CDM, which sits near the Bolshoi Theatre, even though both are stunning and iconic in their own right.

State Historical Museum

The Russian State Historical Museum is located near Voskresensky Gates, though you should wait until after you've seen the first few attractions of Red Square and the Kremlin to head back there and go inside. To be sure, as you pass by its facade (whose late-19th century grandeur somewhat obscures that fact that it's currently a museum accessible to the public) you might not even think to try and gain entry.

Once inside the museum, you can plan to spend at least a couple of hours, given that artifacts here date back to the very beginning of the Russian state in the ninth century. As is the case with GUM, this will be a particularly alluring prospect if you visit in winter, when Moscow is arguably at its most beautiful, but certainly at its least tolerable. 

Minin-Pozharsky Monument

It's somewhat easy to disregard this monument, which pays homage to the two Russian princes who ended the so-called "Time of Troubles" in the mid-16th century, during which Polish-Lithuanian forces occupied Russia, among other awful things including a famine. That's because the statue currently sits just at the base of St. Basil's Cathedral, which makes it very difficult to photograph or even see without being overwhelmed by that much more famous edifice.

Though the statue originally sat at the very center of Red Square, it came to be an obstacle to the movement of tanks during the Soviet period, much like the Voskresensky Gates. As a result, authorities moved it during that time, and it's stayed where you currently find it ever since.

Kazan Cathedral

Taken by itself, the smokey-pink Kazan Cathedral is an architectural marvel; originally built in the 17th century, the church you find here today, located just north of the GUM department store, dates back only to 1993.

Unfortunately, since it sits not only in the shadow of GUM, but also in the shadow St. Basil's and the Towers of the Kremlin, it's easy to miss entirely if you aren't looking. As a result, you might wait until you've seen just about everything else in Red Square before coming here to take photos, and to appreciate the understated beauty of this oft-overlooked cathedral.

Moskva River

As you head south from St. Basil's Cathedral to exit Red Square, make sure to walk onto Bolshoy Moskvoretskiy Bridge, which crosses the Moskva River. If you look due north, you can get an excellent shot of the church framed, on the left, by the towers of the Kremlin. Directing your gaze a bit to the west allows you to see the skyscrapers of Moscow City as they rise above the Kremlin's walls.

Walking westward along the riverbank is also a worthwhile excursion, for the views it provides of Red Square and the Kremlin, as well as the fact that doing so takes you to other iconic Moscow attractions, including Gorky Park and the Pushkin Museum. The views you enjoy from the river and the bridge are particularly stunning at night, though you should make sure you bring a tripod if you want to get a clear picture, given how strong winds over and near the river can be.

Moscow - Russian Rivers and Waterways Port of Call

Moscow Metro: The Complete Guide

25 Best Things to Do in Moscow

The Impressive Castles of Eastern Europe

St. Basil’s Cathedral in Moscow: Planning Your Visit

St. Petersburg, Russia

10 Must-Visit Palaces and Castles in Russia

Top 12 Things to Do in Kazan, Russia

The Top 12 Things to Do in Nizhny Novgorod, Russia

The Top 12 Things to Do in Astrakhan

Soviet Sights in Moscow – Moscow USSR Sites

A Guide to the 4th Arrondissement in Paris

The Top 15 Places to Visit in Russia

The Top 12 Things to Do in Novgorod, Russia

The Top 15 Things to Do in Bordeaux, France

A Guide to Moscow: Capital of Russia, City of Domes