The name is absent

Ill

THE PLACE OF ART IN THE SPIRIT AND
IN HUMAN SOCIETY

THE dispute as to the dependence or independence of
art was at its hottest in the romantic period, when the
motto of “art for art’s sake” was coined, and as its apparent
antithesis that other of “art for life”; and from that time it
was discussed, to tell the truth, rather among men of letters
or artists than philosophers. It has lost interest in our day,
fallen to the rank of a theme with which beginners amuse or
exercise themselves, or of an argument for academic ora-
tions. However, even previous to the romantic period, and
indeed in the most ancient documents containing reflections
upon art, are to be found traces of it; and philosophers of
/Esthetic themselves, even when they appear to neglect it
(and they do indeed neglect it in its vulgar form), really do
consider it, and indeed may be said to think of nothing else.
Because, to dispute as to the dependence or the independ-
ence, the autonomy or the heteronomy of art does not mean
anything but to enquire whether art is or is not, and, if it is,
what it is. An activity whose principle depends upon that of
another activity is, effectively, that other activity, and re-
tains for itself an existence that is only putative or conven-
tional: art which depends upon morality, upon pleasure, or
upon philosophy is morality, pleasure, or philosophy; it is not
art. If it be held not to be dependent, it will be advisable to
investigate the foundation of its independence—that is to say,
how art is distinguished from morality, from pleasure, from
philosophy, and from all other things; what it is—and to posit
whatever it may be as truly autonomous and independent. It
may chance to be asserted, on the other hand, by those very
people who affirm the concept of the original nature of art,

<<   50   51   52   53   54   55   56   >>

More intriguing information