Art

How did different artists (painters, musicians) (especially guys like Mozart, Picasso, etc..) feel about the idea of "Art for art's sake" (similar to what Edgar Allen Poe says here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_for_art's_sake#History)

Here is how I feel:
Art does not exist to serve a higher purpose. It is the higher purpose.

How do you feel?

(not sure what the approp. post for this topic is, so I thought I'd post it here)

Silver King said:

If art didn't exist, in all its forms and scope, the world we would have created would be the drabbest, most meaningless place in the known universe.

Click to expand...

10-4

semilargeintestine said:

I voted other. It's both. Art doesn't exist to serve a higher purpose, but it can be used for that, just like just about everything else.

Click to expand...

interesting way of looking at it.
let's not define art narrowly - art is infinite

Silver King said:

If art didn't exist, in all its forms and scope, the world we would have created would be the drabbest, most meaningless place in the known universe.

Click to expand...

you're right - art is the reason for being

Silver King said:

That. And the chance to procreate!

Click to expand...

yah! ;-)

semilargeintestine said:

What does that even mean?

Click to expand...

it could mean anything
from Seneca to South Park to Shakepseare
from Mozart to Elvis to Bruce Springsteen

anything that you love, that touches you, anything good, or whatever..

kayleamay said:

You forgot beer.

I've always seen art as a form a communication. It's a way of closing the divide between the people that we are and the people we are perceived as. Did that make any sense at all?

Click to expand...

yah makes sense