Sparked by the thread: What is art?, where nordmann says:
""Ars gratia artis" is the admission that art can never be adequately categorized within one definition, not a definition in itself."

"ars gratia artis" as I searched on google, seems only to be but a Latin translation of "l'art pour l'art, nothing more.
I read now about the origin of the expression: "L'art pour l'art" in the English, French and Dutch wiki and found even a commentary in German.
And I found as Temperance mentioned:
"But I am confused by what has been said about art for art's sake. I thought the old saying (originally French, I believe???) was a stand against art being used for any overtly didactic purpose - political, religious, or anything else?" (I hope I quote you right, Temperance?)
From the English wiki:
""Art for art's sake" was a bohemian creed in the nineteenth century, a slogan raised in defiance of those who – from John Ruskin to the much later Communist advocates of socialist realism – thought that the value of art was to serve some moral or didactic purpose. It was a rejection of the marxist aim of politicising art. "Art for art's sake" affirmed that art was valuable as art, that artistic pursuits were their own justification and that art did not need moral justification – and indeed, was allowed to be morally neutral or subversive."

My take in the "what is art?" thread was:
"About the controversy, I would say that in my opinion, the artist is fully responsible for what he makes with his piece of art, with or without intention, l'art pour l'art or l'art with a message. it is his work and it is he, who created it and it is he, who has the sole responsability of it. And then it is in the eye of the viewer to decide if he considers it as art, independent of what the artist tried to create in his work."


If the artist is driven by whatever trigger, be it personal souvenirs, experiences, thoughts, inner expression urge, political beliefs, adherences, transcendent, religious beliefs, and he produces an art work and a lot of viewers are emotionally moved by that work of art and recognize it for their own as art (and not the commercial elite, who tries to influence that general public), why wouldn't it be art? And if some "organisations" use it for their own purpose, why would it then not be a work of art anymore?

nordmann, when you then say:
""Ars gratia artis" is the admission that art can never be adequately categorized within one definition, not a definition in itself."
"art can never be adequately categorized within one definition" do you mean then that there is no one single definition to catch art in, or did I misinterpret you again? Does that mean that we are again to square one of the thread "What is art?", or can we agree then, not on a definition, but on a description of the characteristics of art?

Kind regards, Paul.

I can't see why you've started a new thread which is basically asking "what is art?" based on a conversation within a thread already called "What is art?".

But no, you haven't misinterpreted me (at least I don't think so). And I used "Ars Gratia Artis" intentionally - as Latin it's complete gibberish (coined by a young advertising executive who had the job of devising MGM's new logo) and roughly translates into "Skill has a point of being a skill", which just about sums up the problem when a relatively modern take on what is "art" inspires a slogan describing its function which only makes any sense when one has already qualitatively distinguished it from other skills. A bit like presenting a bad answer to a worse question in the hope that a less than attentive audience (uneducated in Latin at least) assumes a reversal of the sequence, how ludicrous both actually are then hopefully appearing to have a semblance of intelligence behind them.

PS: Young Howard Dietz, the bad Latin scholar, can be forgiven. He was only 19 years old at the time and in later life went on anyway to become something of a successful lyricist (thankfully in English) and quite a good musical arranger. This arrangement is one of his ...