L’art pour l’art?
by
Gernot M. R. Winkler

The Phrase signifies a tendency in modern art to separate itself from society. As this separation takes place, the question arises about objective standards for quality -  and what do they say? The idea originally as held by Kant, implied that art exists for the sake of its beauty alone and beauty needs no justification. It implied an autonomy of aesthetic standards, an independence from morality, utility, or pleasure. This was known as Aestheticism and was further developed by Goethe, Coleridge, Carlyle and others. With time, it was realized that aesthetic aspects by themselves are not sufficient. Tolstoy questioned that art could exist at all without an underlying religion, implying that the power of art could not be explained by Aestheticism. At the time, the arts were still at a high level that can explain this opinion because today, Tolstoy's remark might strike us as "unsophisticated".

The slow change has come to its logical conclusion: We have experienced a collapse of the arts as an indispensable part of our culture. The meaning of the phrase has actually changed. It was intended to make the artist independent by admonishing him: Do not paint for money. Do not write for it to be sold! This degenerated into a claim by many artists to be free from any influence by critics or purposes whatsoever and now, these artists have nothing to say because otherwise, they would be sensitive to acclaim of their expected audience. This is supported by the general disdain for discipline or respect which has removed this kind of art from the long tradition and the ideal of highest competence in artful expression. In fact, it has opened the door to technical incompetence and the phrase is now a welcome excuse for a horde of artists of little talent (Machiavelli's uomini di piccola fortuna) to produce pieces that excel only in their sensational ugliness (cacophony in music), while they lack a recognizable deeper message. Surprisingly, a similarly harsh judgment I found clearly expressed by the historian John Lukacs in his perceptive essay The Passing of the Modern Age (1970, Harper TB 1673, ch. 12). What happened in art can be taken as a visible indication for what happened in the whole non technical part of the culture. The separation of the arts from Faustian culture indicated an acceleration of the cultural split that was seen by C. P. Snow after WWII (The two cultures and the scientific revolution, 1959;  The Two Cultures: And a Second Look, C. P. Snow, 1964). 

When questioned, experts [1] insist that there is an important message, but one cannot get them to say what it is in any sensible terms. They wallow in nonsense, or they claim that one has to be a connoisseur to understand it. If we demand a definition: what is art? The answer given by some art experts is the following: Art is what is produced by a full-time artist, claimed by him to be a piece of art, and endorsed as art by professional art critics. In clear words, this kind of art has become a racket that exists all by itself and has lost its connection with the rest of civilization. The people who naively believe that there must be something, are left perplexed about what if anything it could mean. The more gullible part of the public nevertheless continue to pay horrendous prices for these productions and yet why, the critical mind asks, should this be supported by the public if they cannot expect anything in return? Should we leave these artists to the enjoyment of their own pitiful products, expecting future times to be unanimous in their judgment? The most revealing definition of art came from Andy Warhol: Art is what you can get away with; which seems to mean that for him it was all humbug. 

Tolstoy is right: There has to be something that is being expressed. This is Aldous Huxley's opinion, too, in his On Art & Artists (1960). We say, on the other hand, that great art is so valuable because it conveys meaningful information at once and not, as in speech or writing, slowly and serially. (It is the difference between parallel and serial communication).  This means, however, that the idea, the very word, of art implies as a necessary condition the technical ability, the skill with which something is being done or conveyed. This skill is to be acquired by experience, study, or observation. To reach perfection, a natural talent is not only helpful, it is a necessity. We do not consider as art the meaingless drawings of a baby.

Regarding the subject produced, there is a standard of artistic merit. Huxley identifies it as a moral one: to be true to oneself [2]. Whether a piece of art is good or bad depends on the quality of the character that expresses itself in the piece. Huxley distinguishes two kinds of bad art: the negatively bad, that which is dull, stupid or incompetent; and the positively bad which is a lie and a sham. What is genuine could be hard to recognize because artistic lies can be dazzling.

Not dazzling, but rather the opposite, primitive and a cogent example for what we mean by bad art is in the book by Diane Waldman (1995), Georg Baselitz (Guggenheim, N.Y). Baselitz is presented as one of Germany's finest living artists and we suggest the book as test for artistic judgment. We can use any comparison with past artistic achievement  - from the exquisite decorations in Tutankhamen's tomb (1323 BC!), to the paintings of the Italian Renaissance, or of Impressionism. What strikes us first and foremost in comparison when we look at Baselitz' work, is the shameless incompetence, a pitiful daub, a model of slovenliness, a disdain for art in its basic sense (i.e., Webster’s sense 1:, and particularly 4:a). Therefore, if we take this meaning as our criterion, we must conclude that what is here claimed to be art, is not art at all.

This leaves us with three possible assessments: It could be bad art of the first or of the second kind - or, as a third possibility: as genuine art it would have to be a valid reflection on our present culture. Given the exorbitant praise by the experts, the first two would be cases of the Emperor's new clothes. In the third case we could argue that the reflection concerns only an obviously degenerated subculture of the artists (and therefore would be of less concern) because this "art" cannot be a valid reflection of the spirit of modern culture. After all, the twentieth century was much more than the history of the greatest human catastrophes. These were perversions, the results of fatal ideologies that became fanatical (except WWI) - Marxism, Fascism, Nazism, Communism - diseases of civilization, aberrations of the spirit, for which many people are disposed. If this were the main connection with art, it would mean that it is sick art, depicting selectively what has been very sick in humanity. This is a possibility, although the catastrophes have been facilitated with the terrific efficiency and technical competence of the century. This competence in the service of evil was what made them so horrible, - but technical competence is totally missing in our specimen which is primitive.

On the other hand, the century brought about a summit of human achievement: Man has reached the moon; he fulfilled the wildest dreams ever dreamed of domination over matter and nature - to reach the stars! Man has released the power of the atom, he has conquered most diseases, and has demonstrated how to feed those who live in orderly societies. This tremendous success of the species is entirely due to the inventors, scientists, doctors and engineers with entrepreneurs and management. It was possible as far as they could work in discipline according to highest standards, in spite of the above mentioned ideologies, but protected from harmful interference. As a reflection of accomplishment, art as produced by Baselitz does not show the slightest affinity and it is utterly ridiculous when compared with the sophistication and success of our culture that is most clearly exhibited in the fact that humankind could multiply its numbers to more than 6 billion people.

Whether this will eventually be good or bad is another serious question, but one cannot deny that this bare fact is testimony for a unique success of the species. On the basis of this human triumph, and the continuing dynamic progress in the domination of nature, it is entirely unrealistic to claim an exhaustion of the total culture. This claim comes from the representatives of a really exhausted part who do not see or appreciate as significant what we just stated. As proof, we have the remarkable disconnect of the pathetic "creations" of Baselitz and others of this kind from the supporting modern culture. In the spirit of disclosure, I state that this severe critique comes from a mind that has lived in a world of engineering and science where he has applied exacting standards of realism and competence all his life, as opposed to the "spinning of truth" toward an end, and the deliberate primitivity as practiced in the circles that claim to represent the true culture. While this shows that our culture gap is very deep, one finds it hard to believe that the non technical, the nonscientific, the artistic social life has genuine and not just pretended deep connections with the kind of art where incompetence and slovenliness itself are the clear message. The issue is resolved, however, as soon as we take a look beyond Baselitz. It is indeed so: The 20th Century Art book (1996, Phaidon Press) leaves no doubt. Most of these many art pieces come from very disturbed souls, souls that are shocked by a world they do not understand. They are without courage and have no spirit to master life (too weak and despaired to master their technique). The contrast with the unprecedented successes in the scientific - technical - medical world could not be greater.

The state of mind that is reflected in many of these "crazy" creations is, of course, a serious problem that we ought to realize and understand because it affects a very influential segment of our society.  I take the tragic example of the young writer David Foster Wallace  and his interview in Salon by Laura Miller: <http://www.salon.com/09/features/wallace1.html>.  From reading this interview, I received the distinct impression of an emotionally ill person. This mind was a chaos of unprocessed bits of "information" with which we are all being kept "informed".  The work, a 1,079 page book that Wallace wrote in three years at 33, is "Infinite Jest", at the time a sensation. I collected an idea of what it is from reading the article in Wikipedia.  Here was a mind (he killed himself recently) evidently highly gifted, with acute vision, but not prepared to live in our environment without despair, somehow finding no sense, no central goal or concern,. Eventually, he cracked up. It was a terrible loss, and I like to believe, a loss that one could have prevented. (I think I know how - he did not learn discipline, necessary for doing something extremely well, a discipline which you must have for engineering, but obviously not for literature). I also believe, Wallace is not a unique case, except that fortunately only few people kill themselves [3]. Anyway, he is listed as a contemporary American writer of some fame.

But, could this art not be a pointer to the future? Could the technical triumph not lead to a real cultural failure - to a collapse of civilization? Here again, Baselitz offers no vision, only incompetence and despair. Is this then our future: that we will have nothing to say?  That the part of our culture that in the past expressed the spirit of this culture, has run out of meaning? That, facing a collapse, we will retreat into a display of incompetence? Not so (as long as only a minority will do exactly this), because apart from some equally sick aspects, we have many vibrant parts in our literature, and people who have plenty to say and say it very well. We note so many ideas that our problem is the opposite of a lack of meaning: humanity is struggling to agree on its theme for the future. Our problem seems to be a cultural confusion, certainly an excessive speed of change with lots of "undigested" opinions, many obviously crazy - but not exhaustion. We know we need peaceful coexistence in an advanced civilization, but we have not yet found a cultural form in which this can be achieved. We need to find this, and to learn how to oppose effectively the forces that oppose our culture, - but Baselitz, the creators of a l'art pour l'art, or even a clue less intelligentsia which is on this side of the cultural split, and refuses the understand what they would need, are not able to point to it.  I think that the central problem of our time is the powerful seduction to limitless folly that we experience through our enormous technical capability. The problem is in our weak character which needs some preparation to be able to live in freedom without being so vulnerable to the seductions of luxury. But again, our modern art has nothing to say to this because the souls of sensitive people are overwhelmed and confused - and have forgotten the values of the past.

At least this assessment should please those who live in the “active” Faustian culture, engaged in production, exploration, discovery.  Artistic creations of the past and those today with genuine content and power of competence are a treasure far from being fully explored and enjoyed.  On the other hand, if people prefer incompetence, slovenliness, and creations of disturbed minds as representatives of their own state of mind, this is up to them and we must not hinder their enjoyment. Everybody prefers what is appropriate for his nature and this is as it should be in a free society. It would be wrong to make a fuss about it; this only causes arguments and confusion - except this is not enough: we ought to regret the waste of talent and effort on things that do not help us with any of our critical problems, if not actually adding to them. Our last wisdom in this may be Chacun à son goût !  But, as explained in note [3],  there is this other side to the problem and we ought to worry about it.

Notes

[1] It is amazing that the public, although obviously irritated by the situation, is not heeding the advice of the few modern experts on art, who have preserved a clear mind and remarkable objectivity, such as Huntington Hartford who judged the situation based on his extensive experience, in his noted work Art or Anarchy? (Doubleday 1964). H would not agree with an understanding of art as it is shown in the works of Baselitz and consorts.

[2]  As said in the first paragraph, aesthetic aspects as such are not sufficient when we deal with art. They are, however, indispensable. Furthermore, as George Santayana shows in his profoundly interesting and demanding essay The Sense of Beauty (1896), beauty and evil cannot coexist in an object of art.  Of course, today, what Santayana told us would be judged "out of date and no longer relevant"  by some art experts, as if the world and the human mind had changed. Of course, they have not! Beauty is still beauty, as truth is truth, however little this is understood, valued, or "spun". 

[3]  After the suicide of David Foster Wallace , a number of interviews have been published which corroborate the thesis that sensitive people without firm goals and discipline are in great danger in our world of rapid change and chaotic information flow. An example is the interview by Marc Caro in the Chicago Tribune: <http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/lifestyle/chi-wallace-0915sep15,0,6633169.story>  Wallace had everything going for him: an excellent education and early success as a writer.  And yet, he was extremely sad as he said. He also claimed that it was the sadness of the American young male.  <"It seemed to me that there was something sort of sad about the country . . . that at a time when our lives are more comfortable and more full probably of pleasure, sheer pleasure, than any other time in history, that people were essentially miserable," he said.>

If this testimony is not sufficient, what else is to happen to make us see the problem ?  Cynicism as displayed by some intellectuals is often but a shield behind which a perplexed soul tries to hide. What is so clearly missing in our education is the early inculcation of discipline and a rather intense guidance for young people into the acceptance of worthy goals. A young person needs something that is sufficiently interesting to organize his mental life around this goal. Most importantly, he needs the habit of controlling himself, otherwise he will have little chance in our free, luxurious and turbulent society to maintain his balance. We have to realize that as individuals we are not fit for this fast moving, extremely rich society without an effective preparation which we should call conditioning to avoid the misunderstanding that we need more education. The learning of skills is necessary, no doubt. But we must first learn how to live, which in a country as free as America, is not so easy for young people. In old times, a young fellow took an apprenticeship that gave him skills and a little life experience in a small community. We, on the other hand, push our young into the chaos of our times where appearance is everything.  If the tragic fate of Wallace had to happen to one of the best educated intellectuals who could make no sense out of the cacophony of voices, we can imagine the state of mind of all those who do not have similar, way above average, intellectual resources to face the problems of life in a free society and yet, are highly sensitive and perceptive. I believe this is the root of the problem behind much of the spectacle of "Modern Art", (other than instances of plain fraud).  I must also confess, that my confidence in the ability of the healthy Faustian core of the culture to carry on regardless of the scandalous intellectual failure of our times, has been eroded.  I must admit that it is quite possible that the global culture will not survive the struggle against its two deadly enemies, late Marxism or Neosocialism, and the confrontation with a fanatical Islam.

____________________________________________


Discussion

Predictably, I have received severe criticisms about the essay.  It has been claimed that this essay reflects sad ignorance and an old-fashioned aestheticism of the writer.  OK., I admit the subject would merit more depth than what I managed in the text above. To repair somehow this deficiency, I think it is useful to comment on what I consider a thoughtful "other opinion" about modern art as I find it in the third chapter of William Barrett's Irrational Man.  In this chapter, titled The Testimony of Modern Art,  Barrett claims that those who are shocked by modern art, the Philistines, engage in some sort of sentimentality which is untrue to the subject. Well, I think it is untrue to the subject to claim, as Professor Barrett does, that the Western painters and sculptors have been breaking out of the "confinement" of the old traditions to "nourish themselves on the art of the rest of the world - Oriental, African, Melanesian" - when in fact it is a clear sign that these artists have ceased to be able to say something meaningful.  You step back into primitivity if you find it too hard to acquire the skills to produce a masterpiece, particularly if you do not have a valid vision of your world. To claim that primitivity is progress is simply ludicrous, when it looks like a return to what our artists did millennia ago.  Or do the critics mean to say that their culture has given up the ideal of doing things as well as possible?

Of course, the real cause of the problem is right here, and as claimed above, must be seen that Western culture indeed collapsed, if you understand by culture solely the productions of painters, sculptors, and a good part of the writers. These are the people who have been left behind in the cultural progress, that was driven by science and technology. As a rule, representatives of the non Faustian part of our culture do not really understand the global role of its achievements.  You cannot see this if your vision is limited to the "traditional" part of the culture and you remain totally ignorant about what this culture has really done that was unique in human history. It is not enough to learn about the Greeks if you do not understand the whole picture of how we still profit from their cultural achievements.  Unless one has succeeded to get into the scientific frame of mind, particularly of the mathematical sciences, Biology and the advanced applications, you cannot, apparently, understand our culture.  You do not appreciate how Chemistry and Pharmacology have been able to succeed in controlling the most awful plagues of man; moreover, they have also managed to feed millions of people who would have been starving to death without modern science and technology.

After Einstein's Relativity Theory became the talk of the literati, someone claimed that there were only about a dozen people in the world who could understand Einstein's work. The grain of truth in this is that our culture has separated the minority of those who really drive the progress, can do things other than empty talk, sustain and advance the civilization - from the large majority of the population who enjoy the fruits of our achievements as their birth right, but remain arrogantly ignorant and incapable to understand the source of their well being.  Just take mathematics, one of the important tools of science to see the difference. Observe the unwillingness of even educated people, who talk about, and influence, our most important decisions, to understand the facts, the mental discipline and the effort required to study, e.g., one of the most readable introductions into those parts of mathematics that are indispensable for an understanding of Quantum mechanics (Mathematics for Physicists, by Ph. Dennery & A. Krzywicki - a Dover book).  Here, they would find applications of abstract reasoning that are on a superior level compared with what is being used, or not used, in the daily world. But again, not the details are important here - the spirit and overall meaning of the Faustian culture is inaccessible to an intellectual elite as long as this elite prides itself to be ignorant of even elementary technical details.

Professor Barrett claims that modern art is a true reflection of our cultural situation. Well, it is a half truth. Indeed, one half, the active and progressive part, is simply not being seen or understood by the artists and their clientele. How can a step back into primitivity and technical incompetence be hailed as progress? People will not accept if our technical people would refuse to learn the high art of engineering and only use the technology and style of the retarded parts of humanity (candles instead of electricity, walking instead of air travel, Astrology instead of landing on the Moon, learning by rote and rhyme, instead of using the internet and books, etc.).  Why are these primitive arts of technology not being hailed as much as the ugly primitive productions of the painters and sculptors?


Copyright @2006  by  Gernot M. R. Winkler     Last Correction  10/01/2009.