Art for Art’s Sake: Is it Possible?
Friday, August 22nd, 2008 by Lucinda M. Dugger
Print This Post
The slogan “art for art’s sake” was adopted in the early 19th century to signify the philosophical belief that art should be able to stand on its own, void of any specific moral, religious, or utilitarian function. Artists sought to redefine the value of art, testifying that art was important because it was art, not because it had any specific purpose.
Today, that phrase seems to be associated with some hippie-like mentality from days that don’t exist anymore. But, have we really moved past the debate? Art for art’s sake? That can’t happen. Who’s going to pay the mortgage if you sit around and make art all day just because you can?
When I was in college, those of us in the BFA painting program mocked others who engaged in the arts merely as a past-time. Our running joke inspired us to create a series of silkscreen shirts that said “weekend painter” and “weekend artist” on them. Yet, since undergraduate days, I have moved more into the administrative and policy side of the arts and, sadly, have become that weekend painter.
Why? Because it doesn’t pay the mortgage.
I found that the amount of money I was putting into creating my paintings considerably outweighed my financial gain. Overtime, I began to equate artistic success with monetary success, underestimating the importance of expression and focusing solely on the end result. Looking back on it, this perspective seems a little naïve. But at the same time, I think it’s a debate that plagues every artist and causes her to make real life choices: to create or not to create.
I see this same mindset over and over again in the copyright debates: the inability to separate copyright protection from financial success. Artists are pecking at each other over whose system of distribution (free or not free) is better or which label to use (or not use), and how copyright fits into these. Assumptions are being made that copyright protection is important only for those artists who are selling their works through big labels (or galleries or wherever). In essence, people think that copyright doesn’t matter to them if they are not selling their work.
But what people forget (or don’t seem to realize) is that copyright protection is about a host of other issues as well – not just financial success. Copyright ensures that an artist is recognized as the sole creator of the work. It gives her the ability to use and reuse the work or elements of the work as much as she wants. And, it gives her permission to distribute works wherever and however she chooses. Artists receive each of these benefits regardless of whether or not they get any financial compensation for what they create.
Yet, these essential elements of being an artist – which are fundamental to every creator – are so easily overlooked as benefits of copyright. Can we be surprised, then, that in this money obsessed society, where fame and fortune are in every young person’s dreams, that art can’t be just for art’s sake?
August 22nd, 2008 at 2:19 pm
I question your non-economic rationales for copyright law.
“Copyright ensures that an artist is recognized as the sole creator of the work” - this only applies to certain narrowly defined limited-production works of visual art. There’s no general “moral right” in US copyright law. General US copyright law does not include a right of attribution. It’s not an absurd position to argue for broader moral rights, since that’s the basis for European copyright - but, as you say, moral rights don’t pay the bills, and don’t contribute to the bottom line of the companies that fund you.
And your other two points, the “ability to use and reuse” and “permission to distribute” aren’t rights that copyright law gives to the artist, they are rights that copyright law takes away from others. If there were no copyright law, the artist could use, reuse, and distribute with complete freedom, as they can today (assuming they haven’t been compelled to sell their copyright for a pittance).
August 23rd, 2008 at 11:58 am
Interesting point of view. I’ll consider changing my mind about this but for now I still don’t see things the same way you do.
August 25th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
John,
I think you’re distorting Lucinda’s post here; I hope it is not intentional.
I believe she is pointing out something that is inarguable; that copyright gives the creator a set of rights that includes controlling reproduction and distribution. We have developed over time a fair use approach in this country that applies limits to those rights of creators. But it is backwards to say that copyright law takes rights from others. The Constitution specifically empowers Congress to secure for authors and inventors “the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.” It does not extend a right to consumers that is then braked by creators.
Given that clarification, you should see that Lucinda’s post was clearly articulating a utilitarian view of copyright, the same one promoted by Madison in the Federalist Papers when defending Article I, Section 8, Clause 8, the Progress Clause. Lucinda may have a moral rights perspective — many artists do, although I don’t know if she does — but she did not articulate that here. And it is incorrect to say that European copyright is based on moral rights; that is certainly the tradition in France, but not necessarily in other countries or in the EU.
I hope that was helpful.
August 25th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
I wish people would stop using this phrase. A doctor won’t tell you to exercise for exercise’s sake. No one makes chairs for funiture’s sake. Even painters don’t paint for painting’s sake; they do it because they love, are compelled or inspired to do it. So, please, stop using this term. It’s divisive, comes with social baggage and doesn’t nothing to advance the dialogue of culture in this county. Art doesn’t have a sake, only artists do.
October 23rd, 2008 at 9:30 am
[...] Some out there wish for a Yochai Benkler view of the world, one large kibbutz where art is created for art’s sake and somehow society makes sure artists get to eat. There are of course plenty of artists out there who do choose to create art for art’s sake, but some wish to support themselves with their art, as my colleague Lucinda has written. [...]